| High Court Rules for White Firefighters, Overturns Sotomayor Decision | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 29 2009, 10:57 AM (224 Views) | |
| Ernie | Jun 29 2009, 10:57 AM Post #1 |
|
It is great to see the court use common sense and seek the truth without getting political. This is a defeat of those seeking an activist judiciary, and a dis of Judge Sotomayor. God help us when she joins the court.High Court Rules for White Firefighters By MARK SHERMAN, AP posted: 9 MINUTES AGOcomments: 72filed under: Law News, National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (June 29) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven. But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case. Sotomayor, nominated to take Justice David Souter's place, was one of three judges who ruled that officials in New Haven acted properly in throwing out firefighters' promotions exams because of racially skewed results. The city says it decided not to use the test scores to determine promotions because it might have been vulnerable to claims the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination. The opinion that Sotomayor endorsed has been criticized, including by fellow judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, for taking a cursory look at a tough issue. Her defenders have said the short opinion properly applied earlier cases from that appeals court. The outcome of the case could alter how employers in both the public and private sectors make job-related decisions. The other two unsettled cases involve campaign finance law and states' ability to investigate alleged discrimination in lending by national banks. The court is considering whether a movie that was critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential campaign should be regulated as a campaign ad. The scathing 90-minute documentary about the former New York senator and current secretary of state was made by a conservative group. It wanted to air television ads in important Democratic primary states and makes the movie available to cable subscribers on demand, without complying with federal campaign finance law. The Federal Election Commission and a lower court in Washington have said the not-for-profit group, Citizens United, must abide by campaign finance restrictions. The high court's conservative justices appeared especially skeptical of that view when the case was argued in March. In the dispute over investigating national banks, the Obama administration says federal law prohibits states from looking at the lending practices of those banks, even under state anti-discrimination laws. Federal courts have so far blocked an investigation begun by New York, which is backed by the other 49 states, of whether minorities were being charged higher interest rates on home mortgage loans by national banks with branches in New York. President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul of financial regulation could make the outcome of the case less important. The proposal would create a consumer protection office and states would be empowered to enforce their own laws, with some degree of coordination with the new federal agency. In addition to the three pending decisions, the court also is expected to announce whether it will hear several important cases in its term that begins in October. Among those cases are: -- A plea by victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to reinstate a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia and several Saudi princes over charitable donations that allegedly were funneled to al-Qaida. -- A request by Chinese Muslims who continue to be held at Guantanamo Bay that the court put teeth into last year's ruling granting detainees some rights by allowing a judge to order their release into the United States. The 13 Uighurs who remain at the U.S. naval base in Cuba may be sent to the tiny Pacific nation of Palau, a move that probably would end their court case. -- A bid by convicted cop killer Troy Davis of Georgia to get a new court hearing so that he can present evidence suggesting his innocence. Seven of nine key witnesses against Davis have recanted their earlier testimony, but state and federal courts have so far refused to order a new hearing. Once their work is done, four justices are heading to Europe for teaching gigs. Roberts will be in Galway, Ireland. Justice Samuel Alito will travel to Innsbruck, Austria. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is heading to Rome. Justice Anthony Kennedy will spend July in Salzburg, Austria, for the 20th straight year. In keeping with his practice of shunning the spotlight, Souter is expected to return to his home in New Hampshire with little fanfare. |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 11:04 AM Post #2 |
|
Yippee for the poor oppressed white people!!!! Actually, ruling in their favor is being activist. Edited by Klecko73isGod, Jun 29 2009, 11:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ernie | Jun 29 2009, 11:07 AM Post #3 |
|
A typical liberal response, but have come to expect nothing less from you, Brother Klecko. One day, though, I pray you come over to the good guys side. You are always welcome. |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 11:08 AM Post #4 |
|
You're an idiot. |
![]() |
|
| BobB | Jun 29 2009, 11:13 AM Post #5 |
|
Yea for the judges who follow the rule of law, not the the laws they make up as they come along! |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 11:29 AM Post #6 |
|
Actually, she was following the rule of law when she ruled on this case. |
![]() |
|
| bitonti | Jun 29 2009, 11:36 AM Post #7 |
|
99% pure draft
|
appeals judges get overturned by supreme court all the time. it doesn't mean the appeals judge made a bad decision. it's just the way these things go. the original ruling technically was non-activist. this one (5-4 conservatives) was activist. |
![]() |
|
| Plumberkhan | Jun 29 2009, 11:47 AM Post #8 |
|
Who gives a sh*t? This fireman will probably belong to an America destroying union! How do you jerkhead idiot Republitards feel about that? You just enabled a union member, you freaking morons! ARRGGGGGHHH UNIONS!!!! NOOOOOOO!!! |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 11:52 AM Post #9 |
|
You mean the white people are communists?
|
![]() |
|
| Ernie | Jun 29 2009, 12:07 PM Post #10 |
|
No offense, Brothers, but the idiocy of the responses to this thread are stunning. "A victory for unions", "oppressed white people". Come on. I hope you are all being sarcastic, with the exception of Brother Bob. He had an astute post. |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 12:08 PM Post #11 |
|
If you live in Bizarro World, maybe. |
![]() |
|
| BobB | Jun 29 2009, 12:17 PM Post #12 |
|
Actually the Lawyers in Hew Haven ok'd the test saying saying there was no prejudice. When the lawsuits were filed they changed their position typical lawyers. Sotamayor wrote her judgement without any backup to her reason which seems to be her MO. No trace, No Problem. Gutless Liberal! |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 12:21 PM Post #13 |
|
Link? |
![]() |
|
| BobB | Jun 29 2009, 12:49 PM Post #14 |
|
Read up on it! Let your finggers do the searching.
|
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 29 2009, 12:51 PM Post #15 |
|
Why don't you post a link? Usually, the way it works is if you want to prove a point you post a link that backs you up. Otherwise the rest of us simply assume you are talking out of your ass or repeating what you heard the fat man say on the radio (Limbaugh if you're a neo-con; Schultz if you're a liberal.) |
![]() |
|
| Plumberkhan | Jun 29 2009, 01:03 PM Post #16 |
|
Where is you ire for the District Court, Bob? You should be threatening to firebomb that building, son... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · State · Next Topic » |



It is great to see the court use common sense and seek the truth without getting political. This is a defeat of those seeking an activist judiciary, and a dis of Judge Sotomayor. God help us when she joins the court.



8:18 PM Jul 10