|
| 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. |
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.
| 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.” |
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."
| 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. |
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: |
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.” |
|
