Supreme Court Strike Down Sotomayor Decision

[Dino Velvet]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...s/supremecourt

Justice Rule in Favor of White Firefighters; Strike Down Sotomayor Decision
Monday, June 29, 2009
By Lee Ross

WASHINGTON — In a case that is at the center of the upcoming Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in favor of white firefighters that Sotomayor had twice ruled against.

Monday's 5-4 opinion in this reverse discrimination case is already championed by conservatives as a judgment against Sotomayor's jurisprudence in this racially charged case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued New Haven, Conn. after city leaders tossed out the results of a promotions exam because no African Americans scored well enough to merit advancement.

"The City's action in discarding the tests violated [federal law]," Kennedy held.

The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled African American firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the Court's majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

This decision, like so many of the close cases before the high court divided along its familiar ideological lines. The Court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the Court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."

Last year, Sotomayor, a judge on the New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals twice ruled against the white firefighters. Her decision in this case has prompted significant criticism—especially from conservatives who have charged that Sotomayor didn't show empathy towards them. The criticism is also a thinly-veiled attack on President Obama who said he would look for a Supreme Court nominee who showed empathy towards litigants.

Sotomayor will undoubtedly be asked about this opinion at her confirmation hearing that will start in two weeks.

Good. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

[trish]

Once again Roberts' activist court breaks precedent and rewrites the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30impact.html

[SugaSweet]

I can not believe any large Metropolitan,State,or Federal agency would go by just a written test.Unless the test takes into account such skills and aptitutes:years of service,specific skills and training for promotion,education,and applicants work history I see it as yet another model of typical government stupidly.We had (USPS and Customs Service) a test which included military time,education,skills such as electronic,logistic,financial and past supervisory experience with any test taken for promotion.
I can proudly say that the USPS was an equal opportunity promoter.They took the most stupid members of all races and promoted them,as they were usually someones relative or part time sexual associate.If you were educated,they would offer you the most unGodly shifts and postions as far as 1500 miles from your home.Doesn't matter to me:I am retired as an individual and USPS will soon be retired as a business as well.

[q1a2z3]

Once again Roberts' activist court breaks precedent and rewrites the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30impact.html

It's getting harder and harder to be white in America. Go back to PR where you belong sotomayer.

It's amazing how no one questioned if the test was too hard for black people. Seems like the white guys studied - so did one Hispanic.


How far does the test have to be dumbed down.

[trish]

Sotomayer is an American. She belongs right here at home. It's amazing the test for leadership in the field was an entirely written exam that had no component which actually tested real time decision making in the field, skill or leadership abilities.

[notdrunk]

Sotomayer is an American. She belongs right here at home. It's amazing the test for leadership in the field was an entirely written exam that had no component which actually tested real time decision making in the field, skill or leadership abilities.

A number of black firefighters did pass the test; however, none of them had a high enough of score to be promoted because the promotions only went to the individuals that scored the highest. The exam was 60% written and 40% oral. The promotions only went to the high scorers because of an agreement with the city and the firefighters union. New Haven tried to make the examination "race-neutral" but still no black firefighters scored high enough to be promoted.

Basically, New Haven panicked when they found out that no blacks would be promoted. The city jumped the gun and created a clusterfuck.

[trish]

There were no field examinations and promotion decisions ignored performance records. (BTW, how does one insure that oral examinations are not racially or gender biased?) Regardless of the intent of the examination to be "race-neutral" the examination proved to have disparate impact. By law, that was sufficient legal reason to set it aside. Sotomayor's decision was merely keeping legal precedent. The Supreme Court did not deny the exam's disparate impact. The reason this case went all the way to the Supreme Court is simply the fact that Roberts saw it as an opportunity to upset precedent and rewrite law... something that should be left to the legislature. It's a clear case of judicial activism...something conservatives say they're against. Their practice shows otherwise.

[notdrunk]

Oral exams are more subjective than written exams.

Roberts joined with Kennedy and he didn't write a concurrence. Scalia wrote the conservative concurrence and he wasn't joined by another justice. Scalia came to the conclusion that disparate impact could be a violation of the Constitution. Disparate impact is still constitutional; however, the standard of proof as been rised. Cities cannot come up a lame excuse like New Haven did (e.g., the fear of lawsuit).

Conservatives would not see this decision as judicial activism because of the whole reverse discrimination thing,

[trish]

Fear of a lawsuit is a lame way framing the city's action. The reason was that the examination had disparate impact and the appropriate response, according to the law, was to set the test aside. If this reason is so lame, why did the case make it to the Federal Court of Appeals in the first place? Of course some conservatives would've liked to have done more damage (Alito, for example). Roberts did what he could to rewrite the law and preserve his reputation.

Look, I don't care if the legislature wants to rewrite the laws on disparate impact in light of New Haven. But this was a case of judicial activism, which is of course counter to the judicial philosophy conservatives pretend to espouse.

[notdrunk]

It got to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal because the plaintiffs' arguments were rejected by a Federal judge. The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal wanted the full court to hear the case; however, the vote was 7-6 against hearing it. In his dissenting opinion, he wrote that the case should go to the Supreme Court. It is interesting case and the Supreme Court knew it had to say something on the matter.

Disparate impact to "them" (Conservatives) is a violation of the Constitution because it goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court avoided that question but Ricci specifically asked about it.