Reversing Sotomayor (in Ricci v. DeStefano)

Weekly Standard ^ | July 13, 2009 | Terry Eastland

[reaganaut1]

Last Monday, on the final day of its 2008-09 term, the Supreme Court decided its most controversial recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano. This concerned the now-famous claim by a group of firefighters--17 white and one Hispanic--that New Haven unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of race.

A majority of five justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing, held for the firefighters, reversing a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to succeed Justice David Souter. The four dissenting justices, meanwhile, made plain their belief that the Ricci decision will be undone in short order. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Souter, "The Court's order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power."

Ricci could suffer that fate. The firefighters' complaint alleged violations of both the Constitution (the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found it unnecessary to address constitutional questions since it disposed of the case under Title VII. That means the Ricci decision is a purely statutory case, and a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democratic could try to pass a law overruling it. Hill Democrats are already working on a bill.

Thus, while the case has been decided, the battle is not over. At stake in any legislative battle is the vitality of the principle of nondiscrimination.

In 2003, New Haven firefighters took written and oral exams to qualify for promotion to lieutenant and captain. Under the city charter, the results, once certified, would determine which candidates would be promoted for seven captain positions and eight lieutenant jobs.

As it happened, the candidates who did the best were mostly white ...

[devere]

“Democratic could try to pass a law overruling it. Hill Democrats are already working on a bill.”

Another great opportunity for the Rats to dig their own political grave!

[allmost]

As it happened, the candidates who did the best were mostly white ...

Working harder. Studying harder. This beatch of a nominee hates them for it.

[freekitty]

Sad time in America when they try to seat a racist on the highest court in the land.

[Repeal 16-17]

The firefighters' complaint alleged violations of both the Constitution (the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found it unnecessary to address constitutional questions since it disposed of the case under Title VII. That means the Ricci decision is a purely statutory case, and a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democratic could try to pass a law overruling it. Hill Democrats are already working on a bill.

The Opinion of the Court in Ricci gave hints that if the Court was forced to make an Equal Protection Clause ruling, the vote would be the same as it was regarding Title VII of the 1964 CRA. Also, the Ricci case was "reversed and remanded". That means if the Dumbasscrats statutorily overruled Ricci, the firefighters could get their case back before the SCOTUS without having to file a new case.

[freespirited]

Before RATS pass their legislation, I suggest they demonstrate that a utopian world free of disparate impact is achievable. They can start by naming three standardized tests that do not have disparate impact by race or sex.

I have a reasonable degree of familiarity with this business, and I can’t name one.