Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 Court rules for white firefighters over promotions 
    Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

    By MARK SHERMAN
    The Associated Press
    Monday, June 29, 2009 10:44 AM

    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled 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.
    WaPo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Celestron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    110
    Proves Obama has nominated a complete idiot as next Supreme Court Justice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestron View Post
    Proves Obama has nominated a complete idiot as next Supreme Court Justice.
    At least he is replacing a left wing idiot, Ginsburg, with another one which will not change the make up of the court.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestron View Post
    Proves Obama has nominated a complete idiot as next Supreme Court Justice.
    Actually it proves nothing, most appeals court judges are overturned by the Supreme Court on a regular basis. All this shows is the disconnect between most appeals court judges and the Supreme Court.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestron View Post
    Proves Obama has nominated a complete idiot as next Supreme Court Justice.
    So, when a Supreme Court Justice sits on the court, and casts a vote that goes against the rest of the SC ...it "proves they are a idiot" ?

    I am sure every SCJ was in the minority at one time or another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by satanica View Post
    So, when a Supreme Court Justice sits on the court, and casts a vote that goes against the rest of the SC ...it "proves they are a idiot" ?

    I am sure every SCJ was in the minority at one time or another.
    You're right it doesn't. That's why we have nine justices.

    My question is, was the appeals court, and Sotomeyer in particular (because of past remarks), impartial in their decision? If the races were reversed in this case, would they have ruled the same?
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7 High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit 
    Senior Member Perilloux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    555
    High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
    Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor


    By Robert Barnes
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 29, 2009; 12:07 PM

    The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

    The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.

    In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another. The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven. "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," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    ~Winston Churchill
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Perilloux View Post
    High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
    Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor


    By Robert Barnes
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 29, 2009; 12:07 PM

    The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

    The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.

    In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another. The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven. "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," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
    The liberal mind is a thing to behold.Of course the Fact that Ginsburg came from the ACLU has no bearing on the case ?She is one of those who advocate ignoring the American constitution that she took an oath to uphold .Who needs equal of opertunity when we can have Government dictating who gets hired by the local fire department !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    At least he is replacing a left wing idiot, Ginsburg, with another one which will not change the make up of the court.
    It seems that virtually every case comes down 5-4. While this woman won't affect the court immediately, she is young and will cement that chair in the liberal's column for the next 25+ years.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •