| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Supremes Overrule Sotomayor |
| 2009-06-29 |
| The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. 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 court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against 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. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven. But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #9 Yeah, replacing Souter which means 5-4 should be the status quo until one of the conservatives dies. Then you worry. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-06-29 13:54 |
| #8 What this means is that finally merit and common sense trump political correctness. Now, is it a stand alone or a super precedent? Wouldn't that be nice but it won't last long since Sonia will be on the bench by October. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2009-06-29 13:51 |
| #7 Is it just me, or does Sonia appear not to be a very good judge? When only 40% of your judicial decisions are not overturned, there might be a problem. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-06-29 13:46 |
| #6 tu, I guess that depends on the color of your skin. Kind of a shame but that is the way it appears. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2009-06-29 13:14 |
| #5 5 - 4, and the outcome probably has to do with O'Conner's having been replaced by Alito. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-06-29 12:40 |
| #4 But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case. Is it just me, or does Sonia appear not to be a very good judge? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-06-29 11:47 |
| #3 Themis (Lady Justice) the goddess of justice and law, held the scales in her left hand and a sword in her right. She was blindfolded to show that justice is not subject to enfluence. I submit the blindfold should remain. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-29 11:37 |
| #2 In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said...But they (the white firefighters) had no vested right to promotion." Other than following the rules by studying and passing the test for promotion, you mean. Their outcome would have been different if they were not white. If it is wrong to deny someone a job based on the color of their skin, then it is wrong to deny someone a job based on the color of their skin. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-06-29 11:34 |
| #1 That "Social Justice" trumps law and Constitution still has hold at the SCOTUS level. "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 court said Monday in a 5-4 decision." "In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." If there is no 'vested right', why have the exam? Isn't the promotion exam an implied basis of right to promotion? Let the lawyers make black white and white black. Welcome back to 1984 legalese. NB - the Constitution is a contract between the people and it's government. When you break the contract because you believe 'Social Justice' trumps it, all conditions of the contract are voided. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-06-29 11:29 |