How does Supreme Court ruling affect Sotomayor perceived bias?
The Supreme Court ruled this morning that firefighters in the controversial court case about reverse racism were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The judgment reversed Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling that race wasn’t a factor, according to MSNBC.
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 [Supreme] court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from 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.
A statement by Sotomayor in a 2001speech became controversial after the media interpreted the statement as racist , she said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
In combination with Sotomayor’s controversal statement, does this ruling further reinforce the idea that Sotomayor has a racial bias? In light of the recent ruling do you think Sotomayor is likely to be in the minority opinion, if accepted?
Sotomayor was just upholding the existing law in the Second Circuit in the Ricci case. There was a previous precedent saying that a municipality that sets aside hirings out of fear of litigation wasn’t engaging in illegal discrimination. In other words, if she had ruled the other way, she would have been an “activist judge.”
It’s pretty interesting. The people who are getting hot and bothered about this case must have a lot of EMPATHY for white guys, and think that judges should rule based upon their personal biases.
-So I guess that means 4 out of 6 of her appeals court decisions remanded to the SC are now defunct. Rhymes with debunked.
-Just another reason to vote the conservatives back in 2010. You go girl…
Finally! It is about time that society realizes that the very laws that were enacted to level the playing field and diminish discrimination against minorities are not being applied in the way they were intended. No group of people should be discriminated against- including your average while male! What happened to just hiring/promoting the best person for the job?
Al, if the laws aren’t being applied evenly, isn’t that a problem with the law? Shouldn’t the legislature, and not the court, be involved in that process?
It’s interesting - conservatives seem to think that judicial activism is destroying America… unless it’s activism on behalf of white men and unborn babies.
The Sup. Ct. created a new standard in this case, this isn’t a referendum on Sotomayor as a judge. The district court, prior appellate decisions in her circuit and the other justices on her panel all agreed with the standard she applied. She was doing her job and applying the law as it stood at the time. All the supreme court has done now is to establish a new standard for cases like this.
As a judge she was doing her job, she evenly applied the prevailing standard, statute and precedents. Blame the law, not the judge who is charged with applying it.
Also of not, two of the plaintiffs in this case were latino…which serves to undermine the argument that she is a racist.
amazing Faithful, how you identify activism as the best person for the job regardless of color, and killing innocent children….how “progressive” of you…
ken, I hate to break it to you, but “the best people for the job” usually don’t even get into the door for an interview. Most people get jobs through networking. If “the best person for the job” doesn’t know the right people, he or she isn’t going to get hired. It’s who you know, not how qualified you are. What next, are you going to suggest that type of networking is unconstitutional?
Of course she has her biases. Everyone does. It is impossible for anyone to set aside their experiences and their “moral code” when doing anything in life.
More important is this particular case. The City of New Haven didn’t certify these results because they wer afraid of minority lawsuits. If the tests aren’t certified they can’t be reviewed. This ruling by the Supreme Court actually allows MORE information to be brought to light. If this test had a racial bias we will now find out. If it didn’t, then the people that did qualify for promotion will have a chance to receive them. This ruling is a win-win for ALL involved. At least the SCOTUS got it right…
Discrimination is everywhere against all colors and races. In this case, the Supreme Court did the right thing by correcting the earlier ruling. It’s a damn shame when a city throws out a test result of someone that studied hard in fear of litigation against them. Why bother to try to advance yourself through hard work if that is going to happen? Is this the wrong message to send to all of young America? It’s about time that the courts have come to their senses and done the right thing. This may well be the last good common sense decision that they will make for a while. Sotomeyor is racial bias. She drank the kool-aid.
This decision should not (except in certain Republican circles) affect her confirmation hearings in the least. Also, wasn’t it Alito who had all of his decision that went before the Supreme Court overturned?