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?
Faithful,
No, the Court decided that the law was broken. The city tried to argue that the test scores were biased with absolutely no proof. The city missapplied the law, and the Court set a real precedence based on the constitution (a fact you ignore)…and I quote:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You are right, the court decided the way the law was applied was bad policy. But, you are wrong that it is not based on constitutional rights. If the civil rights act, or the way it was applied violated the 14th ammendment, then the court must apply the law to a constitutional test
I’ll say it again - this was a slam dunk for any judge with any judicial philosophy. The only source of dissent in this case is through a progressive political lens that tries to engineer society through balancing inequality with further inequality. It’s the most ridiculous concept, even small children are taught that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Frankly, I would like to see an independent review and study of all these tests that Blacks and other minorities are failing and Whites are passing, going line by line on each of these given tests to see exactly the questions that each group failed or passed to see if even the results are accurate true results because in my hearts of hearts, I feel that there is some kind of hanky panky going on with these tests. Also, to research, interview and study to discover all possibilities for cheating on these tests because I knew of a situation where there was much cheating going on through a trade program’s testing so that certain people could enter certain union training programs.
I also have heard that there is no way to go back and check out such a thing and I would like to no why not?
I place nothing beneath the capabilities of human beings and mankind, not even the capabilities to act in very artful insidious ways in a very organized fashion and when we are speaking about tests that are tested by means of a computer program and where other written parts of the test are not able to be reviewed by means of independent review, anything and everything is possible.
Well stated, mikew. But it’s really unkind of you to use facts when arguing with these folks, it will damage their self esteem. . . .That being said, brace yourself for Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, because there’s nothing that’s going to stop it. Supreme Court appointments are - and should be - the president’s privilege. The sword, unfortunately, cuts both ways.
Two things here.
First, this test has proved problematic for many Fire Departments fort many of the same reasons. It needs to be overhauled from the ground up and should be only one step in a process of promotion following well defined guidelines. The Supreme Court dodged that portion of the issue.
Second, Judge Sotomayor may well be the “conservatives” favorite punching bag of the moment, but they are wasting what little credibility they have left, especially in the Latino community. They would do well to focus their efforts on cleaning up their moralistic image and outrage by dealing with Ensign, Sanford and the host of other “stand-up” conservatives of recent scandal pages.
MikeW, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed pursuant to Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce, NOT the equal protection clause. Several previous Civil Rights Acts, including the 1875 Act, tried to extend rights to freed slaves based upon the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment, but those laws were struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that Congress did not have the power to regulate private acts of discrimination. The white firefighters in Ricci sued under Title VII of the 1964 Act, which applies to government and private discrimination and has been upheld because it is grounded in the regulation of interstate commerce.
In fact, the majority opinion went to great lengths in yesterday’s opinion to indicate that the decision did not at all speak to whether the white firefighters had a Constitutional claim. Justice Scalia, in a short concurring opinion, said that they should have addressed that.
Perhaps you and Joe L. should READ the opinions and learn a bit more about the law before you criticize someone else.
Speaking of perceived bias, shouldn’t Norm Coleman have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Injustice Roberts would have surely handed the Senate seat to him in a five to three ruling, which looks a lot better than the five to four he would have gotten before Sutter retired.
The Gang of Five, injustices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy would gladly found a ‘constructionist’ way to make sure the GOP held that seat.
I would hope that a wise “ken” with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than “faithful” who hasn’t lived that life.
Faithful
You clearly have a grasp on law, and I do not.
Read the opinion yourself:
“This suit does not call on us to consider whether the statutory constraints under Title VII must be parallel in all respects to those under the Constitution. That does not mean the constitutional authorities are irrelevant, however. Our cases discussing constitutional principles can provide helpful guidance in this statutory context. See Watson, supra, at 993 (plurality opinion).”
He specifically cites Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - which was decided on the basis of the 14th ammendment.
The case did not directly appeal to the constitution, but was decided based on the precedent on former constitutional claim cases. It didn’t need to go there because the precedent was already set. You are indicating that they went to lengths to say they weren’t deciding whether there was a constitutional claim, and that’s just not true. The constitution is still the basis of the decision, and they used former court decisions as precedent, so how are you still saying that this is activism?
Your liberals justices are still looking like political hacks. Talk about being on the wrong side of history. This is like being a dissenter on Brown v. the Board of Education.
If this lady has done this in the past, what is going to stop her from inflicting her personal opinions in future Supreme Court rulings? She seems to think you can interpret the law as she wants whether it is arbitrary to the constitution or not. Reverse discrmination is becoming more and more obvious throughout this country; and it is because Judges like this are inflicting their personal opinions in the ruling. If this action keeps up I can see World War III starting up with race riots, etc.