| Ricci:outright reversal..5-4; Ideological lines..reverse dicscrim. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM (3,467 Views) | |
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 02:55 PM Post #46 |
|
"It also brought the nation closer to an important day of reckoning. When blacks and Hispanics flunk examinations, the cause is less likely to be discrimination than the appalling educational conditions to which most economically disadvantaged black and Hispanic children are consigned. "Affirmative action" programs that leap-frog less-qualified minorities over more-qualified non-minorities sweep those systemic problems under the carpet. As such, race-based affirmative action programs perpetuate fraud upon the very groups they are designed to help. The fact that few minorities passed the examination should be a call for remedial action--not to throw out the test but to equip more minorities to pass it." http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/new-haven-firefighters-opinions-contributors-racial-equality.html Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 29 2009, 02:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 03:15 PM Post #47 |
|
The Supreme Court’s ruling this morning on the New Haven firefighters’ lawsuit is a reminder of the vital role a sane majority on the high court plays in protecting the rights of citizens against the dictates of liberal ideology. The 5-4 ruling, which reverses a decision endorsed by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, validated the complaints of a group of firefighters who took and passed a promotion test but wound up being told that the exam was invalid because no minorities had done well enough on it. Though no one could credibly allege that the test was biased or that any discrimination had actually taken place, the city of New Haven threw out the test (thus rendering the efforts of the firefighters who had passed it worthless) because they feared that they would nonetheless be sued by the affirmative action bar, which views any result other than the one sought for minorities as inherently discriminatory. Sotomayor and the Second Federal Circuit majority that dismissed the firefighters appeal didn’t even bother to state their reasons for their egregious and unconstitutional approval of this outrage. But fortunately there are still five members of the Supreme Court who aren’t willing to go along with such travesties. How did the four members of the minority justify their dissent? Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion.” This is nonsense. Having jumped through every hoop that the city of New Haven set for them, the firefighters were entitled to the promotions that they had fairly earned in open competition. Denying them these promotions, merely because they were neither black nor Hispanic, is inherently discriminatory. Such reverse discrimination has become commonplace in recent decades, but it is still a disgrace when our courts seek to rationalize such naked racialism through the sort of convoluted reasoning put forward by Ginsburg. The majority, led by that fickle weathervane Anthony Kennedy (thank goodness the wind was blowing in the right direction!), is to be commended for establishing a precedent that may curtail the widespread practice of officially endorsed discrimination. But just as interesting is the insight this ruling brings to the question of Sotomayor’s nomination. The Senate is being asked to approve a person who was willing to endorse blatant discrimination motivated by race, albeit in the guise of remedying past discrimination even when no such discrimination is proved or even alleged. Sotomayor will, when she is undoubtedly confirmed, replace David Souter, one of the justices who were willing to let the affirmative action mindset further erode American democracy. But the fact that her nomination will not undermine the narrow majority for reason is no cause for complacency. A doctrinaire liberal like Barack Obama can be counted on to put forward similar nominees in the next three to eight years. Anyone who cares about the future of the rule of law in this nation should not go to sleep tonight without saying a prayer for the continued good health of Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/71792 Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 29 2009, 03:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Texas Mom | Jun 29 2009, 04:13 PM Post #48 |
|
The only thing that I can hope for on the Sotomayor nomination is the fact that, contrary to her publicity, I do not consider her to be a particularly astute legal mind. She seems to be a legal bully and a racist, so she will not be able to craft persuasive legal arguments for her point of view. Thus, she will not assume a leadership role on the Court. That's the ONLY thing I can hope for if she is confirmed. You don't suppose it ever ocurred to her that she was just not as smart as her classmates at Princeton and Yale (instead of blaming the SAT and LSAT as racist), do you?
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Jun 29 2009, 04:55 PM Post #49 |
|
The exam was not a race based exam. SO, the results should not be race based results. New Haven made them that way. They lost. |
![]() |
|
| Tidbits | Jun 29 2009, 06:57 PM Post #50 |
|
I suspect that this is a prime example of the need to actually read the opinions before forming an opinion. 5-4 or 9-0 ? Did the dissent agree with the CA and trial court? Did they disagree, but also disagree with the action ordered by the court? Do they support Sonia, or show that she is more extreme than 9 justices? I haven't read it yet so I won't opine. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jun 29 2009, 07:21 PM Post #51 |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?_r=1&hp New Haven was afraid they would have been sued by the black firefighters, so they didn't promote the Ricci 20. ve |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 29 2009, 07:30 PM Post #52 |
|
Brit..that was the excuse. This article gives more insight into the real Nifongian reason. "Three of the Supreme Court justices who voted against New Haven in Monday’s landmark firefighters case ruling zeroed in on one character they saw playing a nefarious role: the Rev. Boise Kimber. In fact, Kimber’s role as a New Haven politico, felon, and FOJ (Friend of John, Mayor DeStefano) ended up sparking a lively debate between the Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal wings. This is the latest in a two-decade-long saga of how Kimber (pictured) has caused political headaches for DeStefano while receiving repeated political plums from the mayor, including a controversial “consulting” housing contract that figured prominently in a 1998 City Hall corruption scandal. DeStefano in turn has relied on the Newhallville preacher to carry his banner in the black community in pivotal Democratic mayoral primaries dating back to his 1989 contest against John Daniels and his 2001 race against Martin Looney. At issue in Monday’s Supreme Court decision was whether Kimber is Exhibit A for how crude racial politics trumped merit and fairness in the case of the “New Haven 20.” Kimber clearly made an impression on the court. Justices Samuel Alito singled out Kimber in a concurring opinion to Ricci v. DeStefano, the case in which a 5-4 majority ruled that New Haven can’t ignore the results of a fire department promotional exam just because no African-Americans scored high enough. (Read about that here.) From the start, the New Haven 20 — the one Hispanic and 19 white firefighters who sued to have the exams’ results honored — argued that New Haven’s DeStefano administration scuttled the test because of political pressure. And they specifically mentioned Kimber in their lawsuit. Rev. Kimber, a prominent vote-puller for Mayor DeStefano in past elections, sits on the Board of Fire Commissioners. He played a vocal role at the Civil Service Commission in arguing to have the test results ignored. Alito, in an opinion also signed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, noted that “even the District Court” (the lower court that ruled on behalf of the city in this case) “admitted that ‘a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.” The opinion proceeds to present a three-paragraph attack bio of the good reverend, going back decades over terrain familiar to Kimber’s New Haven critics. “Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed ”kingmaker.’ … On one occasion, ‘n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.’ “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 DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber—then the manager of a funeral home—was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath … ‘Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter.’ According to the Mayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.’ “In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), ‘despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management … 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 Kimber did not return calls for comment Monday afternoon. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/06/was_he_the_culp.php Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 29 2009, 07:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Jun 29 2009, 07:50 PM Post #53 |
|
Are you a troll?
|
![]() |
|
| Sherp | Jun 29 2009, 08:38 PM Post #54 |
|
I fully support the majority decision of the case and am Justice Roberts and Alito biggest fan. When KC, not only felt the need to close the Carrie Prejean comments section, certainly failed to grasp the point that snide remarks against an innocent girl is the same as declaring three guys guilty without a trial and cutting off freedom of expression is the same issue, no matter who does it, I was appalled but not surprised. When he wrote that you were not welcome to write on his blog, I was equaly appalled but not surprised. I have personally never condoned anyone lying, let alone a nurse. What I wrote was lets see the written reports. lets see people testify under oath and that "somebody said" that "somebody said" is not evidence but hearsay. I also like Sotomayer and think we and the country got away lucky with her nomination. I noted that four other Justices did support her opinion. That does not a troll make but an honest opinion as it did not make you a troll on KC's blog. Edited by Sherp, Jun 29 2009, 08:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 29 2009, 09:07 PM Post #55 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
We can only lead Sherp to the water... http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023928.php
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Jun 29 2009, 09:11 PM Post #56 |
|
A dissension from the majority opinion does not necessarily mean support for a lower court judges opinion.
Edited by chatham, Jun 29 2009, 09:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 29 2009, 09:34 PM Post #57 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would be interested in the reasons Sherp might give for "liking" Sotomayer. And are those reasons based in emotion, or logic, or some other basis for his admiration. |
|
|
| Tidbits | Jun 29 2009, 10:17 PM Post #58 |
|
Indeed so. |
![]() |
|
| Texas Mom | Jun 29 2009, 10:21 PM Post #59 |
|
Thanks so much for posting this. It makes the ruling much more clear- and less ambivalent regarding Sotomayor's treatment of the case. The money quote for me: "Judge Sotomayor's work in Ricci should raise serious questions about either her competence or her capacity to handle difficult civil rights cases (essentially the only kind that make it to the Supreme Court) impartially." |
![]() |
|
| Tidbits | Jun 29 2009, 10:31 PM Post #60 |
|
I read the dissent. I took one for the team. It is a long long rant, perhaps designed to be unreadable enough to hide the "I would have reversed and sent it back to be done my way if you evil justices would have let me, but Obama Won and you will lose when we reverse you soon, because this precedent doesn't matter to us", more or less. It is very personal and thinks anyone who does not find a way to have the minorities get their share without the word quota is an evil person, more or less. It has several personal attacks on the majority justices, as a group, and Alito (who was joined by Scalia and Thomas) personally. I like some of Ginsburg's short efficient technical opinions. This is long, inefficient, intellectually dishonest, and personal. It is awful. The net result, 9-0 to reverse, sort of, but 5-4 against reverse racism, or if you prefer, racism. G also mentioned prior circuit precedent, as the basis for the circuit decision. Nobody tried to justify the substance of the decisions below that threw the case out on summary judgment. They argue over what should be done, not whether something should be done. I think. But, it is well hidden. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf If you like nasty SCOTUS food fights, there is plenty of that. I haven't read the other 3 opinions. Edited by Tidbits, Jun 29 2009, 10:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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