| Ricci:outright reversal..5-4; Ideological lines..reverse dicscrim. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM (3,468 Views) | |
| chatham | Jun 29 2009, 12:48 PM Post #31 |
|
Excellent summary. This case was not about the 14th amendment, equal protection. This was about the civil rights laws prohibiting race based discrimination. Sometime in the future the equal rights protection clause will be presented for the supreme court to determine who that refers to. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 12:49 PM Post #32 |
|
"In her dissent, Ginsburg emphasized the "two pillars" of civil rights law and said the majority had minimized the provision adopted by Congress to ensure that individuals are promoted based on qualifications necessary to do the job. THE TEST WAS BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB. She said the court majority ignored a history of race discrimination in New Haven firehouses and nationwide. "Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow," she said and asserted that the written test that counted for 60% of the promotional exams did not truly measure who would be good candidates for promotion to lieutenant or captain. "TOO MANY PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES HAVE VOWELS IN THEM" "As a result of today's decision," she wrote, "an employer who discards a dubious selection process can anticipate costly disparate-treatment litigation in which its chances for success — even for surviving a summary-judgment motion — are highly problematic." GOOD. |
![]() |
|
| DANinZA | Jun 29 2009, 12:50 PM Post #33 |
|
RUA Troll? |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 01:01 PM Post #34 |
|
So tell us more , Sherp. You don't mind nurses lying to police authorities and... after a test has been designed JUST to ensure no racial disparity, you want a Black power broker to be able to deny the men who passed their promotions because...of their skin hue? That's some world you want for our kids. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Jun 29 2009, 01:03 PM Post #35 |
|
I believe most if not all Americans want the SCOTUS to judge the pleas on laws that have been established, not on how sympathetic someone may feel about the situation being presented for judgement. For instance. If sympathy was a valid reason for denying a person to practice their religion because another religion was available. I don't think people would be happy with the court saying that one cannot practice their lutheran based religion because catholics were already established in an area. The court could say we are sympathetic with the person wanting to practice the Lutheran religion but when the Catholic religion is already available that gives one justification to rule as such. I think some of the justice's were trying to judge the 14th amendment in their dissent. This was not a 14th amendment issue. It was a civil rights title VII issue. Sotomayer did not perform her due diligence in her judgement. |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Jun 29 2009, 01:28 PM Post #36 |
|
I’d not be surprised if some of New Haven’s craven pols only feebly protest today’s court ruling. After all, they can now blame the Supremes for foiling their endorsement of Napoleon-pig equality—all the while relaxing in the thought that should they or members of their families ever need to escape an inferno the chances have been reduced, even if only slightly, that the firefighter they might meet at that third-floor window will be a 105-pound woman speaking barely intelligible English. Yes, I know: Those poltroons may be incapable of entertaining these two notions simultaneously. |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Jun 29 2009, 01:46 PM Post #37 |
|
Dan, I ask the same question myself. Edited by Carolyn says, Jun 29 2009, 01:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 29 2009, 01:50 PM Post #38 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
The Supreme Court is scary... Who the heck was talking about a right to a promotion anyway? The right was to be treated fairly and equally... Nobody has a right to be promoted... We have the right to equal treatment...so far anyway... |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Jun 29 2009, 02:00 PM Post #39 |
|
Justice Alito seemed to be taking a swipe at Justice Ginsburg's dissent by repeating her "sympathy" remark. I think he made a very powerful statement. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 29 2009, 02:00 PM Post #40 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023926.php |
![]() |
|
| comelately | Jun 29 2009, 02:19 PM Post #41 |
|
I am sorry to disagree with you... but we do NOT have any such right. Affirmative action is rampant, at least in areas I can observe. Only in the most egregious cases (such as the Ricci one) does one (very rarely) see any resistance. In my field (a certain type of engineering), discrimination against white and oriental males is absolutely a way of life; nobody even talks about it, except in a completely matter-of-fact manner. At many universities, the simplest way for a department to get an extra position is to find a member of a preferred group to fill it - and the position materializes out of (apparently) thin air. Equal treatment, my foot!
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 29 2009, 02:27 PM Post #42 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
I said we had the right, not the reality... |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Jun 29 2009, 02:31 PM Post #43 |
|
This is the problem. Emotion versus logic. The former has NO place in law - yet it has insinuated itself nonetheless and there is hell to pay. It is symbolic that the Supreme Court justice wishing to strip the white firefighters of their rights does not cite fact but instead emotion. I.e., Ginsberg remarks about 'sympathy'. Alito, however, counters with logic. He tells her that emotion, motions - i.e., prejudices, hates, etc. - have no place in a court of law. Only law. He argues for logic. There is a reason why the statue of Justice is blindfolded while she holds the scales of justice. The ancients called the eyes 'windows to the soul'. The soul is emotion, heart, feelings, etc. It is heated, impulsive, even violent, etc. In short, it is NOT logic. The symbolism of putting a blindfold on the eyes of justice was to declare to the world that emotions must be excluded when weighing the law. Because emotions cloud logic, roil one's thinking, muddy clear sense, etc., the 'eyes' into them must be closed. Only by shutting your heart to emotion can your mind be opened to logic. Sotomayer is a dangerous example of what happens when a justice does not close her 'eyes' to emotion. When she denied the white firefighters in the past, it was symbolic that she gave NO legal cite for doing so. That is because she did not consider logic but emotion. Because the white male firefighters were not 'wise Latina females' - she denied them their rights. And therein is the danger - emotions are limited; they connect only with those who are like themselves. Logic, however, transcends those narrow limitations and encompasses the world. This is the choice we are facing with Sotomayer's nomination. We must choose her narrow room of emotion - or the law's unlimited room of logic. And do not make the mistake of thinking that her narrow room does not concern you because you are not a white male firefighter. As Pastor Niemoller tragically warned, if you do not speak when that narrow room excludes others, in the end, you will be unable to speak with it excludes you as well. And be warned - it will. Edited by Carolyn says, Jun 29 2009, 02:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 02:46 PM Post #44 |
|
Carolyn, great post. But that "emotion" is also selective. Take Ginsberg's retort that although she sympathized with the white firefighters "they had no vested right to promotion." This is what SHOULD have been said to the low-scoring Black firefighters. Get tutors; do what this man with dyslexia did; don't cry to your activist pastor...work harder...don't EXPECT your race to get you promoted. "YOU have NO vested right to promotion." |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 29 2009, 02:52 PM Post #45 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
I can't see where anyone was claiming such a right anyway. Where is Ginsberg coming from with that line? |
![]() |
|
| 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