Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of New Haven Ff's, 5-4

FirefightnRick · June 29, 2009

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/29/...in5121634.shtml

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 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.

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."
Ginsburg said that "it is indeed regrettable that the City's noncertification decision would have required all candidates to go through another selection process. But it would have been more regrettable to rely on flawed exams to shut out candidates who may well have the command presence and other qualities needed to excel as fire officers. Yet that is the choice the Court makes today. It is a choice that breaks the promise of Griggs that groups long denied equal opportunity would not be held back by tests 'fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.'"

That's an amazing stab in the dark for a dissent. There certainly was a vested right for promotion, the TAX PAYERS rights because they are the ones who lost out on their right to have the best for their money, otherwise there wouldn't have been a test given in the first place. And to say someone was denied equal opportunity when non of the candidates would have even been in position to take the test if they were never given equal opportinity because one, they wouldn't be on the job to start with, two, they wouldn't be Engineers and Leutenants, which were required to be eligible to become Leutenants and Captains.

Rick

Quoner · June 29, 2009

Anyone have her next in the pool?

FirefightnRick · June 29, 2009

Anyone have her next in the pool?

Moon cheese on rye?

Rick

Censored by Laurie · June 29, 2009

Anyone have her next in the pool?

Billy Mays, Mylie Cyrus, Vicentte Padilla.

Mark it.

Quoner · June 29, 2009

Moon cheese on rye?
Rick

no love for death pools?

FirefightnRick · June 29, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2901608_pf.html

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.
In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

Rick

eulesseagle · June 29, 2009

This Supreme Court decision, which overturns Judge Sotomayor's legal position, puts the nominee's views on judicial activism front and center at the upcoming confirmation hearings.

How does Judge Sotomayor view the Constitution, the rule of law? What's the proper role of the judiciary when it comes to issues like race - is it to set "public policy," or to uphold the "rule of law" that is gender and racially neutral?

These are important questions that now become even more significant in light of today's decision by the Supreme Court.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · June 29, 2009

Finally.

I can't tell you what a pain it was to sit through Employment Law and have to read case after case defending "disparate impact." Thank W. for having Alito and Roberts on the bench instead of some snake in the grass like Souter or Stevens, two Republican appointees who can't think their way through a Word Find game on a McDonalds Happy Meal box.

Quoner · June 29, 2009

Finally.
I can't tell you what a pain it was to sit through Employment Law and have to read case after case defending "disparate impact." Thank W. for having Alito and Roberts on the bench instead of some snake in the grass like Souter or Stevens, two Republican appointees who can't think their way through a Word Find game on a McDonalds Happy Meal box.

Geez, so you're a legal expert now too?

oldguystudent · June 29, 2009

Geez, so you're a legal expert now too?

+1

KRAM1 · June 29, 2009

At least the Supreme Court majority got this one right! Score one for the US Constitution. Sotomayor looks even less qualified to be a Supreme Court justice with this ruling. Hey, I know judges get overturned and others on the Supreme Court have been overturned. I understand that. But, activist judges have absolutely no place on any bench (that's my opinion anyway).

UNT90 · June 29, 2009

Supreme Court decisions make for strange bed fellows. Does anyone know where Souter came down on this? I am assuming in the "4" vote, but never assume with this court. This is important because Sotomayor would replace Souter's vote, thus possibly changing the outcome (said obvious man).

EagleD · June 29, 2009

Supreme Court decisions make for strange bed fellows. Does anyone know where Souter came down on this? I am assuming in the "4" vote, but never assume with this court. This is important because Sotomayor would replace Souter's vote, thus possibly changing the outcome (said obvious man).

I'm no ConLaw expert, but wouldn't she have to excuse herself from this case?

Green P1 · June 30, 2009

Billy Mays, Mylie Cyrus, Vicentte Padilla.
Mark it.

Where's Greggo?

UNT90 · June 30, 2009

I'm no ConLaw expert, but wouldn't she have to excuse herself from this case?

So, if she recused herself, and the court was 4-4, wouldn't the lower court decision stand? TFLF, a little help?

Also, in future decision on these types of issues, the court's opinion would change.

EagleD · June 30, 2009

So, if she recused herself, and the court was 4-4, wouldn't the lower court decision stand? TFLF, a little help?
Also, in future decision on these types of issues, the court's opinion would change.

Good question. I think you're right. And I meant recuse, not excuse. I have no excuse.

untbowler · June 30, 2009

So, if she recused herself, and the court was 4-4, wouldn't the lower court decision stand? TFLF, a little help?
Also, in future decision on these types of issues, the court's opinion would change.

Even if Sotomayer votes same as Souter it is still 5-4 for the good guys against Affirmative Action.

UNT90 · June 30, 2009

Even if Sotomayer votes same as Souter it is still 5-4 for the good guys against Affirmative Action.

So the answer is Souter voted in the minority? Have not seen where he fell on this.

SilverEagle · June 30, 2009

I'm kind of ambivalent about this. You have to have some sort of standards for promotion that everyone agrees upon, but I find it hard to believe that someone's abilities in such an "action" based profession is best assessed by a written test.