Posted on 03/23/2020 10:25:23 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled against an African American-owned media company that alleged Comcast had racially discriminated against the network when it refused to enter into a contract for its programming.
Writing for the 9-0 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that federal civil rights lawsuits concerning contracting decisions must show that race was the determining factor behind an injury, not simply part of a company’s motivation not to move forward with a deal.
“Under this standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that, but for the defendant’s unlawful conduct, its alleged injury would not have occurred,” Gorsuch wrote.
The decision returns the case to a lower federal appeals court to reconsider in light of the stricter standard the justices set on Monday for lawsuits alleging race-based contract discrimination.
Comcast applauded the ruling, saying its decision not to contract with the company, Entertainment Studios Network, was based on legitimate business reasons.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims,” the company said in a statement. “The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues.”
Civil rights groups said the opinion would make it harder for racial discrimination suits to survive beyond the initial stage of litigation.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
9-0? How often does *that* happen? That company must have had the lamest case imaginable.
Not very often!
A movement in the right direction.
We need to eliminate Affirmative Action all together.
No race based hiring, at all.
No racial quotas.
Merit only.
Colorblind legal system.
Thank Christ.
The 9th circus slapped down hard.
“9-0? How often does *that* happen? That company must have had the lamest case imaginable.”
Regardless, the impact is HUGE, as companies won’t have to be so defensive in dealing with these hustlers.
Anyway, with Coronavirus, things are going to get interesting in the courts. While I have no doubt that literally ALL public health measures (i.e., lockdowns) will be upheld (and probably with little or no dissent), at least while the emergency is perceived to be going on, other cases, including wholesale waiving of safety, pollution, and other laws/regulations during the emergency will be interesting to watch.
Now they need to do the same for sex discrimination lawsuits as well.
Quite often actually.
-—The 9th circus slapped down hard.——
That would be
The racist 9th circus slapped down hard.
They are having a bad year!
Glad to see this. 99% of all this racial crap needs to go away.
Shortly thereafter, the ACLU said it will appeal!
There was an article posted here right around the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The author did a case-by-case analysis of every case that had come up in the prior court term (I think the 2017-18 term), and found (surprisingly) that the two U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted the same way more often than any other pair were Clarence Thomas and Darth Bader Ginsberg. I was shocked to read that.
Amen.
Really? Must be many cases we never hear about.
It was the Ninth Circus screwing up again.
“There was an article posted here right around the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The author did a case-by-case analysis of every case that had come up in the prior court term (I think the 2017-18 term), and found (surprisingly) that the two U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted the same way more often than any other pair were Clarence Thomas and Darth Bader Ginsberg. I was shocked to read that.”
I am VERY skeptical of that because I read that the lib quartet votes together 98% of the time as a solid bloc.
Then again, there are cases that are not political, such as Troxel vs Granville where the 3 dissenters were Scalia, Stevens, and Kennedy...
Interestingly, I noticed that Thomas and Ginsberg would often end up on the same side for completely different reasons. Ginsberg would rule in favor of a criminal in a case because she reflexively supports criminals. Thomas would rule in favor of a criminal on a totally supportable constitutional basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.