Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in New Haven Promotion Case

[thundley4]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.

In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.

"The city's action in discarding the tests violated (federal law)," the Supreme Court majority wrote Monday, adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/souters-day-court-rule-controversial-firefighter-case/


This could be important because it is a reversal of a decision involving Sotomayor, and reverse discrimination.


^{Updated w/ news article -- Chris}

[Bluesuiter-Retired]

 

"the dear leader's" pick for the supreme court ONCE AGAIN had a judicial decision OVERTURNED by the supreme court.

Good news for the firefighters.

I'm sick to death of this bull$hit that minoritys should be given perferential treatment when it comes to promotions, etc. 

If you're a minority and are unwilling or unable to study for the promotion test like your white counterpart, TOUGH $HIT! 

[NHSparky]

Sucks to be you, Sonia.

[thundley4]

IIRC, about 60% of her decisions have been overturned by the USSC. 

[TheSarge]

Well you know what they say...the Democrat party always rewards failure.

This is a perfect example.

[Rebel]

IIRC, about 60% of her decisions have been overturned by the USSC. 

Not anymore. Now she's 2 for 6. That's a piss poor batting average in my book.

[Tess Anderson]

I wonder if she had already been seated, would she have had the integrity to recuse herself? Sadly, I'm not so sure she would have.

The woman's intellegence is in question as well - you don't just go around cracking jokes about liberal activism, since it's never funny.

[Hawkgirl]

I was rooting for the firefighters..glad to see they finally got their justice.

[Hawkgirl]

Not anymore. Now she's 2 for 6. That's a piss poor batting average in my book.

Unfortunatly, the republican turds will probably not fight it.

[thundley4]

Unfortunatly, the republican turds will probably not fight it.

Probably the best ammunition against her is her record of being overturned. You're right, the no-balls Republicans will fail to bring this to the forefront, even though it's big news.

[Hawkgirl]

Probably the best ammunition against her is her record of being overturned. You're right, the no-balls Republicans will fail to bring this to the forefront, even though it's big news.

Right, they're afraid they'll look sexist or racist...Meanwhile, republicans were the first to elect and african-american and a woman to the SC bench.

[Chris]

The White House came to the defense of President Obama's pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of "judicial activism," a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor's upholding of precedent.

Republicans on Monday sought to use the case to question Sotomayor's qualifications and buy more time before her confirmation hearings are set to begin on July 13.

But Gibbs said that the case "denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent," and the arguments over judicial activism "seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case."

Gibbs said the case proves "she doesn't legislate from the bench."

http://mobile.thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-defends-sotomayor-after-ruling-reversed-2009-06-29.html

Welcome to Bizzarro World.

[ironhorsedriver]

I'm surprised the Court had the chutzpah to make this ruling. They've gotten just like our politicians. Afraid to look politically incorrect.

[miskie]

Im glad the firefighters won this - they should have.

As for if her nomination will be fought ? Unlikely.

The Republicans will answer the question 'is she qualified ?' in the affirmative. They will not regard her politics as a reason to deny her the seat. Unlike the Democrats who base all of their decisions on political leaning.

Obama even said so himself - here is a reproduction of his reason for his vote against Justice Roberts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124390047073474499.html   - to sum it all up, it reads 'Roberts is qualified, but I don't like his politics'