| Ricci:outright reversal..5-4; Ideological lines..reverse dicscrim. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM (3,462 Views) | |
| Joan Foster | Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/06/28/supreme-court-decide-final-cases-monday/ |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Jun 28 2009, 09:28 AM Post #2 |
|
I can't wait to hear the ruling on the Ricci case. It could set the tone for the upcoming Sotomayor hearings which start July 13, IIRC. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Jun 28 2009, 09:52 AM Post #3 |
|
For those of you interested, SCOTUSblog provides live (blog) coverage of the Supreme Court announcements. Tune in tomorrow at 10 am (EDT) to hear their decision in the Ricci case. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 28 2009, 09:53 AM Post #4 |
|
Save me a seat. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Jun 28 2009, 02:31 PM Post #5 |
|
O/T http://www.myembarq.com/news/read.php?ps=1017&rip_id=%3CD993IV380%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS Roberts: Supreme Court not setting school rules Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:53 AM EDT WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. (AP) — Don't look to the Supreme Court to set school rules, only to clarify them when officials have abdicated that responsibility, Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday. At a judicial conference, Roberts was asked how school administrators should interpret seemingly conflicting messages from the court in two recent decisions, including one Thursday that said Arizona officials conducted an unconstitutional strip-search of a teenage girl. In 2007, the justices sided with an Alaska high school principal, ruling that administrators could restrict student speech if it appears to advocate illegal drug use. Roberts told the audience there was no conflict in the court's rulings, just clarity intended to deal with narrow issues that surface from government actions. "You can't expect to get a whole list of regulations from the Supreme Court. That would be bad," Roberts said. "We wouldn't do a good job at it." In the Arizona case, the high court said school officials violated Savana Redding's rights when they strip-searched her for prescription-strength ibuprofen. The court said educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk. Roberts said administrators should take comfort in the 8-1 ruling, which also found that officials could not be held financially liable when carrying out school policy. snip... Edited by Kerri P., Jun 28 2009, 02:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 08:58 AM Post #6 |
|
Bump...any time now. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 09:02 AM Post #7 |
|
Ricci result: Kennedy finds a violation of Title VII. An outright reversal 5-4. 10:02 Tom Goldstein: Ricci is decided 5-4 on ideological lines. The middle ground suggestion of remanding for further proceedings is rejected. 10:02 Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 29 2009, 09:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 09:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Ideological breakdown. Reverse discrimination will be legal on Obama court. |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 29 2009, 09:09 AM Post #9 |
|
. That is a concern. Four of these justices think this should be allowed? Throw Fairness and equality out the window - and pack up common sense with them. |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Jun 29 2009, 09:11 AM Post #10 |
|
Sotomayer should be squirming about now. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 09:14 AM Post #11 |
|
Yes. And this should be used as the difference between THEM and US in every campaign. It's outrageous! Not equal opportunity anymore..but suppression of others opportunities...even when every effort has been made to level the course. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 09:25 AM Post #12 |
|
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 09:30 AM Post #13 |
|
As initially described by the dissent, see post, at 2–12, the process by which the City reached the decision not toaccept the test results was open, honest, serious, and deliberative. But even the District Court admitted that “a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behindthe scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, theMayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.” 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 162 (Conn. 2006), summarily aff’d, 530 F. 3d 87 (CA2 2008) (per curiam). This admission finds ample support in the record.Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court re-ferred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “‘kingmaker.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 07–1428, p. 906a; see also id., at 909a. On one occasion, “n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot duringthe murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.” Id., at 931a. 4 RICCI v. DESTEFANO ALITO, J., concurring Reverend Kimber’s personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefanotestified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber—then the manager of a funeral home—was prose-cuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expensesfrom an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath. See id., at 126a, 907a. “Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s politi-cal campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable politicalsupporter and vote-getter.” Id., at 126a. According to theMayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable politicalasset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties tolabor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.” Id., at 908a (internalquotation marks and alteration omitted). In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as theChairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), “despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal manage-ment.” Id., at 127a; see also id., at 928a–929a. In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told firefighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “‘they just have too many vowels in their name Almost immediately after the test results were revealed in “early January” 2004, Rev. Kimber called the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Dubois-Walton, who “acts ‘on behalf of the Mayor.’” Id., at 221a, 812a. Dubois- Cite as: 557 U. S. ____ (2009) 5 ALITO, J., concurring Walton and Rev. Kimber met privately in her office be-cause he wanted “to express his opinion” about the test results and “to have some influence” over the City’s re-sponse. Id., at 815a–816a. As discussed in further detail below, Rev. Kimber adamantly opposed certification of the test results—a fact that he or someone in the Mayor’s office eventually conveyed to the Mayor. Id., at 229a. B On January 12, 2004, Tina Burgett (the director of theCity’s Department of Human Resources) sent an e-mail toDubois-Walton to coordinate the City’s response to the testresults. Burgett wanted to clarify that the City’s executive officials would meet “sans the Chief, and that once we had a better fix on the next steps we would meet with theMayor (possibly) and then the two Chiefs.” Id., at 446a. The “two Chiefs” are Fire Chief William Grant (who is white) and Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Dumas (who isAfrican-American). Both chiefs believed that the test results should be certified. Id., at 228a, 817a. Petitioners allege, and the record suggests, that the Mayor and hisstaff colluded “sans the Chief |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 29 2009, 09:41 AM Post #14 |
|
I agree -- I can't believe this was a 5-4 decision! |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Jun 29 2009, 09:44 AM Post #15 |
|
My questions for Sotomayer regarding this case: Did she and the others on the appeals court , according to what one judge insinuated, try to bury this case so as to make it less likely to reach the Supreme Court? Why? Please explain your actions. Was that one judge's insinuation accurate? The city of New Haven threw out the test results of the firefighters, it seems, due to threats of a law suit and activist outrage. Do judges take into account the threat of lawsuits and activist groups uproar on the actions of the city of New Haven. IOW, do the judges take into account what seems like coercion on New Haven by these activist groups? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







3:25 AM Jul 11