Posted on 06/29/2009 7:06:51 AM PDT by Abathar
COURT OVERTURNS SOTOMAYOR; SIDES WITH WHITE FIREFIGHTERS
I agree with your reasoning....Another Community Service opportunity!!!
Ya know...MSNBC sinks to new lows every single day....you know who they had on their expert panel as this thing was being announced?
Former Governor Eliott Spitzer. He is now an MSNBC Contributor and they listed his title as “Former Atty. General”.
Absolutely disgusting trash network.
“Pray for Justice Kennedy’s health.
He’s the only one standing in the way of these crazy people.”
And this is what frightens me. It should frighten you too.
yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
2 thumbs up!
The THREE DISSENTERS should ALL resign and give up their positions in the name of “diversity”
Not counting Souter, of course, he’s soon to be gone. But you know in his heart he didn’t quit to be a good little white liberal. He quit for his own self interest.
Of course. Pretty much every appeals court judge has been reversed at some point.
Souter - he has shown how insidiously leftist he is.
I wonder if Bush knew this when he was nominated. Or was he a stealth cahdidate?
Here is the absolute, BEST part of this whole thing. In dissent Ginsburg wrote, “But they had no vested right to promotion.”
So, working for the city for many years (putting their lives on the line DAILY), studying, testing and passing is not a “vested right” to a promotion if you are white.
BUT, those same things, along with black skin DOES give you a vested right? Gotta love that thought-process!
So, let me see if I've got this correct, Ruthie: an objective test is given to determine which firefighters will get promoted. No blacks taking the test did well enough to qualify for promotion. But whites should not get promoted either, because "they had no vested right to promotion."
I'm not sure what "vested" means in this context. It smacks of the same over-legalistic b.s. that Al Gore utilized when he claimed that there was "no controlling authority" over his receipt of illegal campaign contributions.
I am going to go out on a limb here. (Feel free to flame me--I'm a big boy!) Despite the spin that is sure to come from the Obama White House, I believe that a majority of democrats are pleased with this decision.
Sotomayor, you just got served!
Some “wise Latina woman” you are.
ONE MAN has unappealable power to set policy and law,
because he is the “swing vote” on the USSC.”
And that my FRiend is why our Constitution is so brilliant. The (White) Founding Fathers foresaw our stupidity. All Hail to our Brilliant White Founding Fathers! ; )
I had to get that in, just had to!
Link is in post #21.
Snippet from ruling ...
###
“The racial adverse impact here was significant, and petitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with aprima facie case of disparate-impact liability.
On the captain exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 64percent but was 37.5 percent for both black and Hispanic candidates.
On the lieutenant exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 58.1 percent; for black candidates, 31.6 percent; and for Hispanic candidates, 20 percent.
The pass rates of minorities, which were approximately one half the pass rates for white candidates, fall well below the 80-percent standard set by the EEOC to implement the disparate-impact provision of Title VII.
See 29 CFR §1607.4(D) (2008) (selection rate that is less than 80 percent “of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact”); Watson, 487 U. S., at 995–996, n. 3 (plurality opinion) (EEOC’s 80-percent standard is “a rule of thumb for the courts”).
Based on how the passing candidates ranked and an application of the “rule of three,” certifying the examinations would have meant that the City could not have considered black candidates for any of the then-vacant lieutenant or captain positions.
Based on the degree of adverse impact reflected in the results, respondents were compelled to take a hard look at the examinations to determine whether certifying the
28
RICCI v. DESTEFANO Opinion of the Court
results would have had an impermissible disparate impact.
The problem for respondents is that a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability—essentially, a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity, Connecticut
v. Teal, 457 U. S. 440, 446 (1982), and nothing more — is far from a strong basis in evidence that the City would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the results.
That is because the City could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs but that the City refused to adopt. §2000e–2(k)(1)(A), (C).
We conclude there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects. We address each of the two points in turn, based on the record developed by the parties through discovery— a record that concentrates in substantial part on the statements various witnesses made to the CSB.”
Bookmark
I thought the exact same thing myself.If anything happens to Justice Kennedy,there will be an assault on the constitution the likes of which we have never seen.
~~~
YES !!
What do five fingers say to the face....?
SLAP!
Blah, blah, blah...
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.