Sotomayor is Overruled

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 3:51pm

I do not think she is a good choice.
Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in promotions Updated On: 6/29/09 at 03:51 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 4:15pm

Those firefighters didn't deserve "empathy" or "sympathy."

They deserved justice.

Ginsberg's dissent is junk.
WSJ article

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 4:47pm

NY Times story with entire decision.
NY Times

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:00pm

A 5-4 decision along ideological lines will do nothing to sidetrack her nomination. The far right media (and Papa) will try to get some mileage out of this, but there's really not much there.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:06pm

She may have the votes for the nomination but I don't like her reasoning.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:09pm

Her reasoning was based upon legal precedent in place. The SC made new law with this opinion.

What exact reasoning did you not like.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:14pm

That it was race-based.

I do agree with the Supreme Court on this one, though I think it's pathetic that it had to be the conservative side of the Court that made the decision.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:28pm

ZOMG SHE DIDN'T SIDE WITH WHITE GUYS THEN 5 WHITEGUYS THAT OUTRANK HER VOTED THE OTHER WAY ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!ZOMGBIES!!!!!!!!!!!


oh wait, one of those guys is clarence thomas. Well, he's close enough. Updated On: 6/29/09 at 07:28 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:29pm

But she was following existing law. So, you have a problem with the law, which she followed as opposed to ignored.

If you have a problem with the underlying law, that is no reason to attack a judge for following it.

Based upon the decision today, employers have an untenable choice of either following one law or another.

"The Court's ruling makes life more difficult for employers trapped between the Scylla of Title VII disparate impact liability and the Charybdis of "disparate treatment" suits by white employees ("disparate treatment" suits are cases alleging traditional intentional racial discrimination). If a business adopts a race-neutral hiring or promotion standard that results in few or no minority hires or promotions, it is potentially vulnerable to a disparate impact lawsuit. As several Supreme Court cases make clear, that can happen even if the business was not intentionally trying to disadvantage minorities. But if the business adopts race-conscious measures to try to shield itself from liability (e.g. - by practicing affirmative action, adopting a standard that is more favorable to minority applicants, and the like), it opens itself up to "disparate treatment" lawsuits by whites, such as one the filed by the New Haven firefighters in Ricci.

To avoid this dilemma, business groups have long sought to persuade the courts to interpret Title VII to shield them from liability for race-conscious hiring policies that are intended to prevent disparate impact lawsuits. The Equal Employment Advisory Council, a group representing numerous large corporations and other businesses, filed an amicus brief in Ricci urging the Court to rule for New Haven for precisely this reason. "


No-Win Position

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:40pm

Reverse discrimination is as ugly as discrimination itself. It makes people who think differently about race when they were previously color blind.

You do not fight racism by being racist to someone who has nothing to do with it.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:48pm

It makes people who think differently about race when they were previously color blind.

HAHAHAHA

your lulz are epic.


racist people are racist because they're racist, not because Sotomayor followed the law.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:48pm

That is a philosophical discussion for another day.

There are those who would argue that those historically advantaged by the status quo have everything to do with institutional racism. And, those who say it is not fair to punish the present for the sins of the past. I am not sure what the right answer is, or how one balances historical/institutional discrimination against being fair to those presently.

I think the old law was bad and the new law is worse. There is now one big old ambiguity for business to deal with, which is good for no one. I would not be surprised if new legislation comes down to clarify the ambiguity.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:49pm

Cases turn on facts; another situation could be very different.

It seems more an elucidation than something new.

This from the WSJ article above:

""Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well-intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race," Justice Kennedy wrote. "The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white."

Justice Kennedy said an employer cannot throw out an exam unless there is strong evidence that the test was unfair to minorities. In New Haven's case the evidence was quite the opposite, he wrote, as the city took specific steps to ensure that black and Hispanic firefighters were consulted in designing the questions and made up a majority of the interview panels that awarded 60% of the applicants' scores.""

And take a look at this article in the Washington Post, below.

"Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion.

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. "

You are free to like her and support her nomination.
High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 7:56pm

And you are free to dislike her.

I can understand the arguments on both side.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 8:02pm

I don't even dislike her. I just don't like the choices she made.

So I don't think she's a good choice for the nomination.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 8:06pm

Fair enough.

Hopefully she will prove you wrong.

[Shawk]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 8:06pm

I don't believe that the lower court ruling was solely hers.... and I don't think the earlier ruling (or it being overturned) was as "out there" as it's being played to be. Although it's sure going to be a headache for places in the future trying to figure out how to walk the line between following this ruling and not getting dinged for racial discrimination.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 8:09pm

Nice icon btw, YouWantitWhen????

Is that for Iran?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/29/09 at 8:18pm

Yes. I updated it before the green balloon. I just thought it was symbolic.

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/30/09 at 6:30am

If this were anything other than white firefighters, the far right would be screaming 'judicial activists'. Sotomayor and her colleagues followed precedent and the law, while the Scalia, Roberts, et al 'righted a wrong'. I could be wrong, but this might be the first time Alito and Roberts have sided with individuals rather than a corporation or government entity.

Updated On: 6/30/09 at 06:30 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/30/09 at 8:09am

this thread makes me giggle. she's getting in because anyone who would come up next will be worse. the fact that she's an inveterate racist and more obnoxious and venal even than potus will make it a fun court. i can't wait to read the decisions in which her faulty reasoning and base stupidity are ridiculed by those white guys to whom she is so superior by the very nature of her latina-ness.