a Supreme smackdown. [rquoter]High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 29, 2009 12:07 PM The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court. The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination. In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another. The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold." On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement of Souter would affect the outcome of the case. Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks. The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her background influence her decisions, even though her role has been somewhat inflated. The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on minorities. The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions have not been made public.) The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due process. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws. The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion. Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results. In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote. The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work.[/rquoter]
Since when is a 5-4 decision on a political split of a unanimous appelate ruling a smackdown? And are there any appellate court justices that don't get decisions overturned? These threads just get dumber and dumber.
This Supreme Court decision probably will not hurt her chances, simply because the Democratic majority makes her an almost certainty. Her ethnicity and sex will carry the day. It's unfortunate, IMO, that we are placing a mediocre legal mind in preference to so many superior ones, including a number of liberal women candidates. The last laugh may be on the pro-abortion faction because she may well vote against their positions.
And of course this is another instance of complaining no matter what she did. If she'd ruled otherwise she would have been "legislating from the bench." The new GOP playbook is whatever the other side does, oppose it. Period. That's the whole strategy. It's really impressive how basso keeps finding a way to be progressively dumber with each new thread. I keep thinking he's hit bottom and he keeps finding a way to suck more. It really is amazing.
If we didn't know it for sure before, it's become appallingly clear what a GOP shill you are, contrary to all your previous claims to be a moderate. You just swallow up the talking points of the day with no regard for reality. Sotomayor has more experience (and more varied experience) and is more qualified than any sitting justice was when they were nominated. You call her mediocre because the GOP bosses do -- and for no other reason. It's pretty disappointing.
pirc1, that's not the appropriate term, or even an appropriate term. Technically, she attended several fine community colleges and regional colleges on her way to a career as a sports broadcaster.
To be honest, I think he's starting threads now just to create what he thinks are original and savvy titles With Sotomayor, Latina has to be somewhere. With Obama, refer to Muslims (Barack Hussein Obama), blacks, Hillary attack ads or just stick fail in the front. With Palin, make a vague reference that she's actually politically skilled and somehow sneak in subconscious wish of Palin as president. Let's see if we can get Basso's titles down to a science, as they're probably the only part worth reading of his threads these days.
Seriously, this woman just lacks intelligence. Do your charitable, feel-good social experiments somewhere besides the Supreme Court, please. We need smart, objective Justices, first and foremost.
Being a moderate conservative makes me a freak. Okay. I'm a freak, but I'm realistic. I want the best legal minds sitting on the Supreme Court, and I know the supreme leader is not going to nominate a conservative or even a moderate conservative -- so I'd rather go with the best legal mind possible.
Define a moderate conservative, is it anyone on the left of Basso? To me moderate conservative would be someone like Refman.
What else do we have, but for the titles? Bassomatic titles are almost always longer than any independent commentary he contributes to the articles posted. Compare: "Sotomayor: An Unwise Latina" >>> "a Supreme smackdown."
Batman, for the last eight years liberals took delight in calling Bush and Republicans some really sordid names. Now, as part of my being the minority, I can now take delight in some light political bashing from the other side. I'll always tell you whether I agree or disagree with you. I do hope you understand that does not change my respect for those who agree or disagree with me. Yes, Sotomayor has more experience, but so does Judge Judy. As I mentioned earlier, I would rather see Obama select the best legal mind. I'd prefer a strict constructionist. That's not going to happen, so give me someone with superior intellect. BTW, hope you are healing well.
I would never be insulted if compared to or categorized with Refman. However, I have respect for Trader_Jorge, Basso and Bigtexx as well. I sometimes agree and disagree with all of these. On some issues, I am very conservative, and others I am very liberal, which, when averaged, leaves me somewhere in the middle.
Thanks for the well wishes. The difference between criticism of Bush, etc. by liberals and criticism of Obama, etc. by the opposition is that we actually presented credible arguments. You guys are just against everything with no alternative proposals. The idea that Sotomayor isn't smart is just about the most pathetic criticism from your side to date. You've presented zero evidence of this when there is much evidence to the contrary. You belong to the party of no. Your strategy is oppose everything because the right has run out of ideas and the ones they had have been soundly refuted. It's sad to see an otherwise smart guy fall for this nonsense. It was similarly disappointing to see you get swept up in that hilariously stupid Palin/Letterman flap. I'd have thought you'd have known better. I was disappointed to find you didn't.
Where's your evidence that she's not a good legal mind, outside of a bunch of reactionary conservatives claiming it?
OMG. Wow. Okay, then. It is now impossible for me to take anything you say seriously. These guys haven't even tried to present an honest argument on anything in the last several years. You've really jumped the shark here, thumbs. And this makes it really hard to include you in a category anywhere near Refman, an honestly moderate (not to mention thoughtful and intelligent) conservative. He would never fall for anything any of those trolls post here.
