TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- SCOTUS slaps Sotomayor
SCOTUS slaps Sotomayor
Reversed this controversial decision today. Move along.
| quote: |
Sotomayor Firefighter Decision Overturned by U.S. Supreme Court 2009-06-29 14:04:59.303 GMT By Greg Stohr June 29 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court, reversing a decision by Sonia Sotomayor and two other judges, ruled in favor of white firefighters who claimed they were unfairly denied promotions in New Haven, Connecticut. The justices, voting 5-4, said the city violated the firefighters� rights by canceling planned promotions after no blacks scored well enough on a pair of tests to qualify. The cases are Ricci v. DeStefano, 07-1428, and Ricci v. DeStefano, 08-328. |
because a 5-4 decision is so phenomenal
Die affirmative action die.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 because a 5-4 decision is so phenomenal |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 because a 5-4 decision is so phenomenal |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Don't think the count matters as much as the result, which cannot be further appealed. It was only 5-4, so it really doesn't count...or something. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I don't think this provides any example of Sotomayor's supposed incompetence. Four other Supreme Court justices agreed with her stance but for some reason the decision means she was wrong and isn't fit to serve there. Is that not what we're supposed to take from it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 because a 5-4 decision is so phenomenal |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I did not say she was incompetent (don't think I've ever said that). However, I did note that this is one of the more public and heavily criticized cases that has been brought up since her nomination...and now it has been overturned. That's all I pointed out. I would hope that the length of the article and my lengthy commentary wouldn't convey too much beyond that. The title of the thread isn't "SCOTUS Bitch-slaps Sotomayor" or "SCOTUS delivers a swift kung-fu chop to Sotomayor" or anything like that. I don't think of slaps as connoting aggressive violence or smack-downy things. I guess I could've used the word "reverses" but I just really felt like saying "slap" today. Stop trying to read between the lines where there is nothing to read. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 My quarrel wasn't so defined in your word choices or with you specifically but you happened to post it here. Any implications to the "reverse racist" claims by critics is silly. If that's not the implication here then please clarify exactly what relevance does this decision have to her confirmation? Mind you the other two justices on the appeals court were middle aged and white. They had just as much weight in the overturned ruling as Sotomayor. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm not sure I've been a strong proponent of not confirming her, but this is certainly part of the vetting process so I am also a bit perplexed by your rush to sweep this one under the rug, if you will. It will certainly bring back into light her now famous quote that she can give "better" decisions based on her background. The reversal of this decision is certainly something that her critics (whether or not I am one of them) will put in the Sotomayor hunting quiver. There is no such thing as "reverse racism," only racism and it cuts both ways. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm not exactly sure how this will bring her quote or any of her decisions back into light. Actually I do know, because her critics are going to go after her no matter what she does. But as Josh and jerZ07002 pointed out, there were 4 SCOTUS judges her agreed with her, including the one whom she is replacing. In fact, throughout this entire process of litigation, 11 out of the 21 judges who had to make a decision on this case agreed with her. Yes, I get the fact that the end result of 5 Conservative judges on SCOTUS disagreed with her and therefore struck down her judgement (along with 11 others), but overall to think her judgement was somehow outlandish and radical that her critics are depicting is silly. |
| quote: |
�The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,� Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city�s action. �Fear of litigation alone,� Justice Kennedy wrote, �cannot justify an employer�s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.� |
| quote: |
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading a dissenting statement from the bench, said the majority had undermined a crucial civil rights law. �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.� |
| quote: |
The �original, foundational� core of Title VII, Justice Kennedy wrote, prohibits intentional discrimination against individuals on the basis of race � �disparate treatment,� in the legal jargon. But the law also prohibits some seemingly neutral practices that have a �disparate impact� on members of racial groups. |
| quote: |
That was not enough, Justice Kennedy wrote. Indeed, allowing �employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional exams even when there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination,� he wrote, �would amount to a de facto quota system.� But the majority did not rule out consideration of disparate impact altogether. Employers may consider potential racial impact �during the test-design stage,� Justice Kennedy wrote. And, in �certain, narrow circumstances� after tests are given, he continued, employers may discard the results if they can demonstrate �a strong basis in evidence� that using the results would cause them to lose a disparate-impact suit. That heightened standard, Justice Kennedy wrote, requires employers to show that the tests were not relevant to the jobs at issue or that other �equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available.� In the case before the court, Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428, the majority said there was no evidence, let alone strong evidence, of either a problem with the tests or of the availability of better alternatives. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs outright rather than returning the case to the lower courts for application of the new �strong basis in evidence� standard. |
| quote: |
In her statement from the bench, Justice Ginsburg said the firefighters who sued �understandably attract the court�s empathy.� (In her written dissent, she said the plaintiffs �attract this court�s sympathy.�) Justice Alito, in his dissent, said that was not enough. � �Sympathy� is not what petitioners have a right to demand,� Justice Alito wrote. �What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law � of Title VII�s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today�s decision, has been denied them.� |
| quote: |
Firefighter Justice The Supremes, Sotomayor, and racial jurisprudence. The Supreme Court closed an otherwise unremarkable term on a high note yesterday, rejecting the notion that one kind of racial bias can be remedied by another. On the last day of opinions before the Court is potentially joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the Justices overturned one of her most closely scrutinized cases on workplace discrimination. The effect was to take an important step away from the practice of divvying up jobs by race. Writing for a 5-4 majority in Ricci v. deStefano, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the city of New Haven violated civil-rights law when it threw out firefighter promotional exams because more whites than blacks or Hispanics had passed the tests. New Haven claimed it had to junk the tests because certifying the results would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits by black candidates who hadn't passed. In other words, the city claimed it had to intentionally discriminate against white candidates out of fear that the tests unintentionally had a "disparate impact" against minorities. But the Court found no evidence that the tests were flawed or that better alternatives for promotion existed. On the contrary, employment tests are an important tool against the very kind of racial discrimination that civil-rights laws were designed to prevent. "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," Justice Kennedy wrote. The Supremes created this "disparate impact" reverse discrimination incentive with its 1971 Griggs decision, since codified into law, but at least five Justices are still able to object to this kind of blatant racial injustice. In the opening of her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes that "the white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract this Court's sympathy." To which Justice Samuel Alito replied in a majority concurring opinion that "'Sympathy' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law -- of Title VII's [of the 1964 Civil Rights Act] prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Justice Alito underscores how little attention the firefighters' claim was given by lower courts. In 2006 a federal district court dismissed the case before it went to trial. A three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that included Judge Sotomayor then upheld the lower court's judgment in a one-paragraph statement, and later a terse opinion parroting the district court. The dismissive treatment of the firefighters' claim drew the censure of fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes. A former mentor of Ms. Sotomayor, Mr. Cabranes said the court had "failed to grapple with issues of exceptional importance." On this question of the Second Circuit's mishandling, the Justices agreed unanimously yesterday. In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that while she disagreed with the decision to reverse the lower court ruling, there were questions about how it was decided. Based on the lower court's mistaken focus on intent, she wrote, "ordinarily a remand for fresh consideration would be in order." Judge Sotomayor's handling of the case deserves to be thoroughly aired during her confirmation hearings, insofar as it reinforces concerns that she is prone to race-conscious jurisprudence. The issue originally came to the fore over the judge's remarks that a "wise Latina" would come to a better conclusion than a white male judge who would lack the proper empathy for certain kinds of defendants. Ms. Sotomayor's supporters have been at pains to argue that she has ended up on both sides of racial discrimination complaints while on the Second Circuit. But those examining her record can reasonably ask if the disregard she exhibited for a Title VII claim by white firefighters falls into the category of neutrality or its own kind of bias. Because the Court's ruling was narrowly made on statutory grounds, it dodged the larger claim brought by the firefighters that New Haven violated their constitutional right to equal protection. Yet as Justice Antonin Scalia notes in his concurrence, the disparate impact standards "place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes." Someone should ask Judge Sotomayor if that's her idea of equal protection under the law. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Then I guess you can't call me a critic, rather someone who points out facts. Again, the fact is that she will most likely be the ugliest supreme court justice to serve in my lifetime. Ginsburg gives her a run for her money though. btw, 5-4 is what you call a moral victory. It's the Bad News Bears losing 8-7 in the bottom of the 9th but telling the Yankees to stick the trophy up their ass. Radical? no. Wrong? yes. Forgive me for not being privy to all of the other exhibits in the case that the SCOTUS had, but that sounds more like the leftward leaning members of the SCOTUS are promoting "equality of outcome" and not "equal opportunity." I repeat what I said in response to Josh. Reverse racism is in fact BS. Racism is racism. Why is the general assumption that racism can only exist if it "victimizes" a minority group? Race has nothing to do with market share (for lack of a better term). You are what you are. Why is it that if you're in a majority group, you are perceived to be a bully and therefore you are not entitled to equal protection under the law??? How American. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I didn't say you were a critic, but if you're going to point towards facts then I hope you would appreciate a few that I just gave. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Again, the fact is that she will most likely be the ugliest supreme court justice to serve in my lifetime. Ginsburg gives her a run for her money though. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Why do you always bring this up? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Perhaps it's my obsession with attractive women and the bad taste that ugly women leave in my mouth (figuratively, NOT literally!) I just couldn't help myself--every time I see a picture of her I cringe and throw-up in my mouth a little bit. Sorry if it bothers you--I'll stop. My feelings are well known! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.