This morning, the US Supreme Court overturns a lower court decision that was originally against white NewHaven firefighters who passed a test while other minorities failed. What say you? Was justice upheld? BTW, this decision would make for a loss for Sotomayor. The 4 liberal judges voted to uphold the original decision, while the Conservatives picked up Kennedy as their 5th vote to win 5-4.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/29/national/main5121634.shtml
Yes, justice was done.
But it WAS NOT validation that there is some vast, institutionalized conspiracy to keep white males down (as you will inevitably hear on this thread).
I also question New Haven’s sincerity that they decided to “not promote anybody” because of fear of lawsuits. These municipalities get strong legal advice all the time prior to making less controversial decisions. I think that they simply chose the battle they wanted to fight.
Congratulations to the Firefighters!
Mufasa
By Odin’s Raven! Thank goodness they fixed this shit.
Democracy – proving that the majority is ALWAYS just.
I am actually shocked that Sotomayor actually told those firefighters that they had no case. I mean, this seems pretty clear cut to me. Hell, the guy Ricci, he is dyslexic and got a tutor so he could understand the exam better and still passed with flying colors.
Didn’t you hear, she hates white people?
I think it was a just outcome. Had it been a private company, I would have supported the right to discriminate, as competition takes care of dipshits that do. The fact that it is a gov’t entity that faces no appreciable competition in the free market, the only problem I have with this is the fact that the Supreme court heard it at all.
I will admit that I haven’t thought this through, but my gut reaction is that the SC overruling a state court may not be desirable just because the outcome was just. I would support a state’s right to behave poorly in the hope that elections would take care of those that condoned this type of behavior. I guess the 14th is not on my side. Oh well, food for thought anyway.
If we didn’t have a federal gov’t that all but eliminated any benefit of competition between states, we may not need a federal court interviening in intrastate disputes?
Looks like the self-described “wise Latina” got it wrong. Well that was already clearly the case, but now it is official. It is also now clear that she was more thoroughly wrong than I had previously realized, as equal protection considerations turned out to not even be required to show her decision wrong.
I don’t think there’s a big conspiracy, I just think some people try to claim a disadvantage based on race. If there is a fair test that all have had the time to prepare for, the best get it. You don’t get the best by taking the less than best.
We don’t elect the judges, and once appointed some seem to think they can LEGISLATE from the bench, but they need to remember they are the JUDICIARY. Let the elected officials make policy, you just check whether its legal or not or judicate criminal cases. Nothing more, nothing less.
But Sotomayor said that the Appeals Court is where policy is made!
Screw the ideas of a representative republic or rule of law! We need a wise woman like her put in office for life, accountable to no one, to decide policy.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But Sotomayor said that the Appeals Court is where policy is made!
Screw the ideas of a representative republic or rule of law! We need a wise woman like her put in office for life, accountable to no one, to decide policy.[/quote]
Amen brother! You should run for office, I’d vote for you.
There should be no bias of any sort against any race, creed, gender or ethnic origin. This was a good decision, I’m actually thrilled.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I think it was a just outcome. Had it been a private company, I would have supported the right to discriminate, as competition takes care of dipshits that do. The fact that it is a gov’t entity that faces no appreciable competition in the free market, the only problem I have with this is the fact that the Supreme court heard it at all.
I will admit that I haven’t thought this through, but my gut reaction is that the SC overruling a state court may not be desirable just because the outcome was just. I would support a state’s right to behave poorly in the hope that elections would take care of those that condoned this type of behavior. I guess the 14th is not on my side. Oh well, food for thought anyway.
If we didn’t have a federal gov’t that all but eliminated any benefit of competition between states, we may not need a federal court interviening in intrastate disputes? [/quote]
It was an appeal from the Second Circuit, not a state court. Also, the claim was brought under a federal law.
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?
[quote]Nosewater wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I think it was a just outcome. Had it been a private company, I would have supported the right to discriminate, as competition takes care of dipshits that do. The fact that it is a gov’t entity that faces no appreciable competition in the free market, the only problem I have with this is the fact that the Supreme court heard it at all.
I will admit that I haven’t thought this through, but my gut reaction is that the SC overruling a state court may not be desirable just because the outcome was just. I would support a state’s right to behave poorly in the hope that elections would take care of those that condoned this type of behavior. I guess the 14th is not on my side. Oh well, food for thought anyway.
If we didn’t have a federal gov’t that all but eliminated any benefit of competition between states, we may not need a federal court interviening in intrastate disputes?
It was an appeal from the Second Circuit, not a state court. Also, the claim was brought under a federal law.[/quote]
sorry, my mistake. Obviously federal courts should hear cases to do with federal law. I just think there are way too many federal laws.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?[/quote]
Of course it does. Great Job Scotus, tho I don’t understand how it was so close…5-4 doesn’t seem right
I believe that makes Sotomayor 0-6 in terms of her decisions that went to the Supreme Court being reversed.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?[/quote]
No.
Mufasa
It goes to the Supreme Court when appeals court judges think they can legislate and not rule on the legality of actions. Reverse racism is a misnomer, as racism is the belief one race is superior to another.
I believe racism has nothing to do with this case, rather, the fact that Sotomayor did not believe the white/Hispanic(I hate that word) firefighters deserved to be promoted and turned down their petition on the grounds of her personal feelings and NOT Constitutional grounds is the issue here. I will say again a judge, in my opinion, must hand out a verdict that is in accordance with the law, not some personal version of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
On a side note, wasn’t it her who stated she felt empathy for a drug dealer or something in a case she ruled on? I mean what kind of judge says that?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?[/quote]
Racism is racism. I never understood why we need the term reverse racism.
I support anyone’s right to descrimination. Much like I would support their right to hit themselves in the head with a monkey wrench. If the playing field were set fairly, they would only be hurting themselves. Hell, even when the playing field isn’t set fairly, the free market will usually reward those that do not discriminate based on non-economic factors.