Posted on 06/30/2009 2:58:11 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.
Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly -- as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief -- that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city's claimed motive -- fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions -- was a pretext. The jury's job would have been to consider evidence that the city's main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano's political base.
Disparate-impact law, as codified by Congress in 1991, specifies that an employer whose qualifying exam or other selection criterion produces racially disparate results can be held liable for unintentional discrimination only if (1) the test is not "job-related... and consistent with business necessity," or (2) the employer is presented with and refuses to adopt another, similarly job-related test with less disparate impact.
Contrary to the Sotomayor-endorsed opinion, the Ginsburg dissent states (on page 19) that an employer's decision to jettison a promotional test under circumstances like this case would be legal only if the employer had "good cause to believe the [test] would not withstand examination for business necessity."
(Excerpt) Read more at ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com ...
Sotomayor is more radical than is generally known, at least on racial spoils issues. Even the four liberal judges who upheld her ruling overall opposed her reasoning behind her ruling.
Pretty obvious why Obama picked her.
Very good post! Very good article!! Very good thoughts about a very stongly biased judge proponent!!!
Good story to pick up.
Funny how the MSM glossed over this fact and focused solely on the 5-4 decision.
She better get used to being beat with a club. When they question her in the Senate it is going to hurt.
Yup....it should be obvious that she will be a huge supporter of Acorn should something come up in court. The money is already in the bag.
So the vote should’ve been 9-0 instead of 5-4.
Yeah, she is.
She will be slightly better than souter, though, on criminal issues.
It should be obvious to everyone that Obama is more liberal than Clinton, Carter, and Kennedy combined. So it shouldn’t surprise us that his Judicial nominations will be very far to the left, guaranteeing the leftist agenda implementation for decades to come.
Damn. To be Senator for a day.
Thanks very much!
This is an embarrassment for Obama and Sotomayor. We’ll need more to actually derail this nomination. But perhaps the right questions and talking points will leave her with PR damage that makes her a liability to Obama.
Yup....it should be obvious that she will be a huge supporter of Acorn should something come up in court. The money is already in the bag.
::::::::::
We, as a nation, are facing a tyranny that is shaping up to be very ugly.
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.