White firefighters were victims of discrimination, Supreme Cour...

Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court ruled today that white firefighters who lost promotions in New Haven, Conn., were victims of illegal racial discrimination, holding that employers should not rely on "raw racial statistics" to set aside a fair test.

[Just Browsing-Chicago]

Good. Discrimination is not limited to "Whites Only." Now, I am waiting for someone to challenge every "Politically Correct" illegal tampering of our free speech rights.

[Freedom]

So, why did the more liberal judges rule AGAISNT equality? I am disappointed. I am also sick of this court ruling based on political leanings and not on the merits of the case. The court is frequently divided along political lines and that is wrong. This one they got right but it should have been more obviouis than 5-4. The dissent made a very poor case for discrimination. Unfortunately, the right leanings judges make just as poor of arguments other times.

[DOZER RESPONSE]

And the response to the ruling by Leahy is just as ignorant as the 4 judges who voted against the firefighters: He said:

"a decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement."

I thought that's what this decision allowed. To build the MOST QUALIFIED.

Finally a decision where race does not matter. This is a positive thing for all people of all colors.

[MinisterR]

As a minority I would be fighting mad to find out that, having busted my butt, studying, certifying and learning my job, people who did not do as well as I would be promoted over me.

I don't believe the 5 justices forgot the history as Ruth G states, but they do realize that case was obviously handled badly - you can't fight racism by using race as a factor. She was also ignoring the fact that the reason the city tried to invalidate the test was so that they COULD promote people over these firefighters. Why else would they go through the effort?

Based on my understanding, as documented by the Haven city government, the actual test did questions were developed with their input as being a valid test based on what they wanted as promotable firefighters. I wonder if the "minority" firefighters believed the test was unfair.

***

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the liberal dissenters, said it was understandable the white firefighters would "attract the court's empathy. But they had no vested right to a promotion, and no person has received a promotion in preference to them."

Ginsburg said the court's conservative majority ignored the history of discrimination against blacks and Latinos in the New Haven Fire Department.

****
- Signed 15 year Navy vet, father of 2, husband, small business owner, property owner, minority, never voted straight ticket or party, born and raised in South Shore/Hyde Park.

[grizz]

That is fair. It is about time. I think that whites need to fight for justice and equality now. It is OUR turn.

[Jason Blair]

This case is a perfect example of the warped thinking of a liberal.

[Red Blooded American]

At least Sotomayor's attempt at legislating from the bench failed. Glad to see rule of law over emotions and hurt feelings. This lady will make a poor supreme court judge. The citizens of New Haven should be happy because they will now get the most qualified to protect them.

[lib trib]

city spent over $100,000 hiring consultants to make the written portion fair. then,for the oral part of the test,got 30 fire department personnel from across the country ( 2/3 minority)to administer.

[Missy]

Let's not turn this into a bashing of affirmative action. For all those tempted to do so, please try and remember that white women have benefitted more from affirmative action than any other group of people. That being said, also remeber that Sotomayor was not alone in her ruling, there were 2 other judges who were in on the ruling. Since it was overturned by the justices 5-4, sounds like Sotomayor will be right at home as a supreme court justice. She couldn't possibly be any worse than Clarence Thomas anyway.

[George Creel]

No other future Supreme Court or any court is allowed to use Bush v Gore as precedent. Bush is truly an illegitimate President. http://tinyurl.com/2ps3e3
George W. Bush's January 20, 2001 inauguration was unconstitutional. This isn't because Bush lost the popular vote. Nor is it because he lost Florida and thus the electoral vote. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the Florida recount lawsuit, Bush v. Gore, violated the U.S. Constitution. It's a states' rights issue. Elections fall under state law; the highest court that may resolve a legal challenge about an election is a state supreme court. The U.S. Supreme Court--a federal body--didn't have jurisdiction in the case.
http://yalelawjournal.org/2006/11/07/flanders...

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
August 15, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/qbx2s
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped,“Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15t...

[Matt]

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the liberal dissenters, said it was understandable the white firefighters would "attract the court's empathy. But they had no vested right to a promotion, and no person has received a promotion in preference to them."

If you passed the driver license writting and driving tests then you're entitled to a driver license. Same principal here.
The firefighters who PASSED the test have a vested right to a promotion regardless of race.

Ginsburg is a typical liberal who are driving this country to the ground.

[Matt]

Earnest in Evanston wrote:

The irony here is rich.
Sotomayor, who calls herself an affirmative action baby, clearly ruled with empathy for those minorities who didn't score high enough on the firemen's test.
Sotomayor didn't make her ruling through the lens of a judge but rather with the conviction of a seething radical set to advance the cause of minorities wherever, whenever and whatever cost.
Another reason to despise Obama.
No Dems in 2010.

Amen

[Rick]

While I am very happy that the Supreme Court today decided that race should have no part in deciding who is best for a position they failed to protect our most precious asset, that being our children who are protecting our country from unwarranted protest's when they die protecting us.

Now these so called "Church abiding" will be able to disrupt the funerals.. How Sad...

Quote"

Court rejects Mo. appeal on funeral protest law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has left in place a court order barring Missouri from enforcing a law limiting protests near funerals.

The justices refused without comment Monday to hear Missouri’s appeal. The state enacted a law aimed at religious picketers who have turned up at soldiers’ funerals. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., claim God allows soldiers to be killed as punishment for the nation’s sins, including homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, idolatry and greed.

Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper persuaded the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to issue an order barring enforcement of the law while a federal judge considers whether it is constitutional.

The case is Nixon v. Phelps-Roper, 08-1244.

"

[Immigrant Son]

The dissent illustrates perfectly why "empathy" is unworkable as a legal standard.

The dissent argues since no one was actually promoted, there could be no discrimination. This is a laughable attempt to distinguish this case from precedent.

Imagine if a test was thrown out after minorities scored well. I think the 5 in the majority would reach the same decision, while the 4 in the minority would have joined.

The law demands colorblind decisions, and the 4 in the minority in this case and Sotomayer are apparently inacapable of making colorblind decisions.

Interest groups will continue to be suspicuous of each other until the Congress and the courts adopt a colorblind mentality.

[LookingToEscape]

Matt wrote:

Ginsburg is a typical liberal who are driving this country to the ground.

Liberals, especially every white liberal in the United States should have a black doctor who barely got through medical school, an investment advisor who can't add and a safety engineer who was promoted based solely on race.
.
These liberals should have practice the standards they love to set for "the little people".

[LookingToEscape]

Matt wrote:

.

Ooops...correction
.
.
These liberals should TO have practice the standards they love to set for "the little people".

[LookingToEscape]

Matt wrote:

.

Oooops again
.
.
These liberals should have TO practice the standards they love to set for "the little people".
.

[Blah]

Matt wrote:

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the liberal dissenters, said it was understandable the white firefighters would "attract the court's empathy. But they had no vested right to a promotion, and no person has received a promotion in preference to them."
If you passed the driver license writting and driving tests then you're entitled to a driver license. Same principal here.
The firefighters who PASSED the test have a vested right to a promotion regardless of race.
Ginsburg is a typical liberal who are driving this country to the ground.

A perfect reason why when you represent yourself in court you're bound to lose. You don't understand the legal argument. I'm not arguing that the decision is right or wrong, however you aren't interpreting this correctly.

[lib trib]

seems to me that some of these black firemen are not qualified to be firemen.

[Justice finally works]

First George Creel .. you are a Canadian worry about your own country. Next to Freedom -- actually freeDUMB .. It's sad that people like this suffer from white guilt and can't see that discrimination is discrimination. The Fire fighters lost out because of the color of their skin ... I seem to remember someone in history saying " we should be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin " .. I think that was a famous black guy .. might be mistaken. Sotomayor should never sit on the supreme court .. the only thing supreme she should ever have .. is a Burito Supreme from Taco Bell.( Taco bell isn't hispanic so forget the racist comments ). And if you think the Firefighters in New Haven CT are the only one's who face this .. guess what it happens in Chicago and New York also