Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

WA PO ^ | 35 mins ago | SHERMAN

[jessduntno]

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday 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.

[jessduntno]

"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.

"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."

Let's hope so...

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Amazing that Ginsberg has pages of dissent here.

What does it take for her to be on the right side of an issue?

Does this lady actually drive to work in the morning without maiming people?

The image has me imagining police with bullhorns telling people to clear the roads.

The stop signs are obviously racially biased. So are the red lights.

[ChildOfThe60s]

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion."

This woman is a bloody communist. "No VESTED right"? This from a commie that "invests" rights damn near anywhere she feels like it, as long as they are not for white males. No right to promotion beyond EARNING it? Get ready for her replacement folks. Then you can change that comment to: "No vested rights to citizenship".

[ChildOfThe60s]

Oops, should have read “No vested rights to citizens”.

[Cyber Liberty]

Her dissent was almost half of the entire decision. Blah, blah, blah.

[Sons of Union Vets]

She (Ginsberg) 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."

There are two ways to promote "equal opportunity."

One is to give everyone an equal opportunity to conform to the highest standards of excellence vis a vis promotion tests that everyone can take regardless of race or ethnic background.

The other is to artificially, arbitrarily and ideologically drag everything and everyone down to one dead level of mediocrity (or lower) so that the slackers and the looters can be handed a "free lunch" at the expense of those who have worked hard and are willing and able to earn their "lunch" fair and square.

Obviously, Ginsberg opted for the latter.

Where is John Galt?