Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A SLAP AT SOTOMAYOR
NYPost ^ | June 30, 2009 | NYPost

Posted on 06/30/2009 3:10:00 AM PDT by Scanian

It isn't often that the justices of the US Supreme Court publicly rebuke a pro spective colleague on the eve of con firmation hearings.

But that's essentially what the court did yesterday, as it narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who argued that they'd been the victims of reverse racial discrimination.

For, in so doing, the high court reversed Sonia Sotomayor and her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, who had found against the white firefighters.

Even those justices who didn't support the firefighters' claim implicitly questioned why Sotomayor, et al., disposed of the case with a brief one-paragraph ruling instead of in a detailed opinion -- which would have opened her reasoning in the controversial case to a more thorough examination.

None of this will make for a smooth confirmation process, that's for sure.

As to the decision, the court found that discrimination can't automatically be remedied with more discrimination.

The city of New Haven had thrown out the results of a 2004 exam for firefighters when the results made 17 white candidates and two Hispanics -- but no African-Americans -- eligible for immediate promotions to lieutenant and captain.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority: "Whatever the city's ultimate aim . . . [it] rejected the test results solely because the higher-scoring candidates were white."

While the court recognized New Haven's right to ensure that the testing process was fair, "Once that process has been established . . . they may not then invalidate the test results . . . on the basis of race."

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ricci; scotus; sotomayor

1 posted on 06/30/2009 3:10:00 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

She isn’t smart enough to write a detailed opinion,since she’s an affirmative baby.


2 posted on 06/30/2009 3:19:31 AM PDT by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Ursus
You don't really need to be smart to write the opinion. Here, with a clear-cut case of racial, ethnic, religious and political discrimination at hand, she didn't wish to "offend" her Leftwingtard allies in the popular press and with those important special interests that make the decisions for the Democrat party.

So, she and her colleague in the majority simply decided that since no one at all had gotten promoted then no harm occurred.

I'm sure that bothered the sitting members of the USSC since a big part of the whole Leftwingtard battle against civil society in this country was to grant relief in the courts even when NO HARM HAD BEEN DONE.

That is, in effect, the essence of the maddening decisions made by an activist Supreme Court ~ that even when no harm has been done the entire body of law for the entire United States of America should be tossed aside, undone, and replaced with a judge's opinion.

Assuming this ol'gal Sotomayor gets confirmed she really should worry about Ruthy poisoning her morning coffee.

3 posted on 06/30/2009 3:47:28 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Ursus

Ban affirmative then one will have to earn their way oh my God what next be honest?.


4 posted on 06/30/2009 4:02:55 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

We all know why Sotomayor rued as she did.

This case amazed me. This reverse discrimination has been going on for 40 years or more. Mostly courts have ruled as Sotomayor did. Ruled in favor of blacks and affirmative action to get them promoted in spite of better qualified people getting screwed.

I am amazed that the court put things right in this case and believe me this case will produce many more cases. When Obama finishes loading the Court this too will be changed back.


5 posted on 06/30/2009 4:05:40 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

I thought all this reverse discrimination was settled by the USSC in the Bakke case, decades ago.


6 posted on 06/30/2009 4:08:50 AM PDT by Carley (OBAMA IS A MALEVOLENT FORCE IN THE WORLD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
"the US Supreme Court publicly rebuke a pro spective colleague" The White House "spokesman" tried to spin it 180˚ and said that this was really an affirmation of Sodajerk's decision.
7 posted on 06/30/2009 4:11:18 AM PDT by RoadTest (I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carley

Some how the democrats and msm missed it.


8 posted on 06/30/2009 4:20:56 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

Is there anything in place for the existing members of the SC to refuse to serve with an appointed member. As in case some body with enough political clout tries to impose a crony into the position?


9 posted on 06/30/2009 4:28:50 AM PDT by lynn4303
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Sotomayor’s racist ruling doesn’t pass the SCOTUS test. Maybe she should undergo sensitivity training and then come back next year.


10 posted on 06/30/2009 4:37:01 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

Bakke decided in 1978...here we are battling the race hustlers to this day.


11 posted on 06/30/2009 4:51:24 AM PDT by Carley (OBAMA IS A MALEVOLENT FORCE IN THE WORLD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

She is a racist b!tch!

LLS


12 posted on 06/30/2009 4:52:20 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I have a cautionary tale to tell.

I live near the Arlington race track, just outside of Chicago and do go over to partake in the Sport of Kings on occasion.
I’ll even go so far as to claim a horse if it looks like one who has underperformed and may be on the rise.

Well, to the point. One particular filly caught my eye while scanning the form. The breeding was impeccable, her training had been done under the best of horsemen, and I even contemplated starting a breeding program with her as my foundation mare. She would have been the bed rock of my plans for her lifetime.

Before I put in a claim, I wanted to see her run one race. As I stood at the rail with the other birds, she broke from the gate and promptly made a left turn and circled the starting gate and proceeded to run the race in the opposite direction.

In my amazement, I screamed, “What the hell”?

The rail bird to my right replied, “Sonja does that 6 out of 7 times.”

My question to Congress is, “Would you buy this horse?”

Another question to the same august body would be, “Would you let a OB/GYN deliver your child if he dropped 6 out of 7 infants upon birth?”


13 posted on 06/30/2009 4:53:20 AM PDT by burroak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

It isn’t really surprising that Democrats are indulging, once again, in outright racism. They miss the good old days when they wore pointy white hoods to get the job done. Now they wear black robes.


14 posted on 06/30/2009 6:15:26 AM PDT by chickadee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

You mean the USSC isn’t the United Sonia Sotomayer Club? Their stature would be elevated with her additonal reasoning skills. /sarcasm


15 posted on 06/30/2009 7:05:45 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

You have to read the facts in detail to get an idea of what America has come to. Mr. Ricci, with a form of dyslexia, studied for months for the exam and did well. He’s exactly the kind of person I would want moving up to Captain eventually. After all, it is a department involving public safety!

On the other hand, if you were a black fireman, would you even study? What for? You don’t have to. THAT is the truth noone cares to admit. There is no valid reason they could not do well on the exam if they worked at it, unless they were unqualified to ENTER the department; another real possibility.

Vague “rubber stamping” by the ENTIRE court of “past discrimination” as if it were TRULY a modern problem in need of ANY govermnment solution, is an ongoing false premise that we could all do without.


16 posted on 06/30/2009 9:52:42 AM PDT by jschwartz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson