• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sotomayor case reversed

woranch

Well-known member
WASHINGTON – 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 and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.

"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.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision, which he asserted she did not write. "Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent," said the Vermont Democrat who will preside over Sotomayor's confirmation hearings next month.

Leahy also called the high court decision "cramped" and wrong.

In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.

Ricci's father, Jim Ricci said the ruling is a victory for firefighters across the country. "Now we're going to get the best managers as far as firefighters go. That's really important," Ricci said.

Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.

Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.

The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit
 

hopalong

Well-known member
woranch said:
WASHINGTON – 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 and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.

"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.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision, which he asserted she did not write. "Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent," said the Vermont Democrat who will preside over Sotomayor's confirmation hearings next month.

Leahy also called the high court decision "cramped" and wrong.

In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.

Ricci's father, Jim Ricci said the ruling is a victory for firefighters across the country. "Now we're going to get the best managers as far as firefighters go. That's really important," Ricci said.

Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.

Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.

The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit

Did our resident Justice of the Peace approve of this decision? :roll: :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
It should have been overturned.

Her decision, in my mind was wrong. But I do not know ALL the details of the case.


But, this is nothing noteworthy as cases get turned over from the Appeals Courts all the time.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
Just one more big reason not to trust Obama's judgement or his administration either. He seems to attract these people like a magnet! This is a perfect example of trying to legislate from the bench! And yet another example of racism from the folks who should know better. Atleast we are told continually how conservatives are clueless on race issues! :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I bet if you looked into the history of the other Justices you'll find many cases /rulings of theirs that had been overturned BEFORE they came to the Supreme Court.


Whether you like her or not....you can't really be so narrow sighted to think that there is one judge out there that has NEVER had a ruling reversed by a higher court!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Comically- the opinion delivered by the appeals court and Judge Stotomayer was following letter of the law - AS WRITTEN - under Title 7- whereby it specifies percentages of minorities----the SCOTUS ruling is actually the "legislating from the bench"- and is "judicial activism"- turning over the law requiring these minority percentages- and saying they don't have to be followed anymore....

I watched a debate and forum 3 days ago where Judge Roberts participated (and would not give an inkling what the ruling would be)- but many that had studied the arguments before the court- and the questions brought up- including Ted Olsen thought this may be the ruling- as the courts move more from any type of racial/minority preferences....
 

Tam

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
It should have been overturned.

Her decision, in my mind was wrong. But I do not know ALL the details of the case.


But, this is nothing noteworthy as cases get turned over from the Appeals Courts all the time.

Maybe this would not be noteworthy if it wasn't for the FACT Judge Sotomayor has been appointed by Obama to sit on the Supreme Court.

What kind of judgement does she have when she has been overturned over 60% of the time? Oh wait according to her, her judgement is better than a white man's due to her life experiences. :roll: If a white man had her record and made a statement about being better than a Latino Women he wouldn't have a chance. Racism is alive and well in the US it just so happens that it is racism against whites and Sotomayor's ruling is just one example of it.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tam said:
kolanuraven said:
It should have been overturned.

Her decision, in my mind was wrong. But I do not know ALL the details of the case.


But, this is nothing noteworthy as cases get turned over from the Appeals Courts all the time.

Maybe this would not be noteworthy if it wasn't for the FACT Judge Sotomayor has been appointed by Obama to sit on the Supreme Court.

What kind of judgement does she have when she has been overturned over 60% of the time? Oh wait according to her, her judgement is better than a white man's due to her life experiences. :roll: If a white man had her record and made a statement about being better than a Latino Women he wouldn't have a chance. Racism is alive and well in the US it just so happens that it is racism against whites and Sotomayor's ruling is just one example of it.


Glad to see you're back in fine form there Tammy!!!! :wink: :wink:
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
I agree that cases get overturned! Bad rulings need to be overturned! She and her appealate court made a bad ruling! :p And if it takes the SCOTUS to overturn racial quota's then yipeee! Those quotas are only continuing racial discrimination! And even though Kola and OT might disagree, rules like those overturned are racism! WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN COLOR? Hire the qualified individual. And thanks for the compliments about my comedic ability and my lack of open mindedness! :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
leanin' H said:
I agree that cases get overturned! Bad rulings need to be overturned! She and her appealate court made a bad ruling! :p And if it takes the SCOTUS to overturn racial quota's then yipeee! Those quotas are only continuing racial discrimination! And even though Kola and OT might disagree, rules like those overturned are racism! WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN COLOR? Hire the qualified individual. And thanks for the compliments about my comedic ability and my lack of open mindedness! :wink:

So you then now belive in Judicial Activism- and Legislating from the Bench :???:

I agree- its a good ruling- and needed to come-- but it is not how the law was written- the reason the city of New Haven did what they did....They did want to promote the top test scorers- but under title 7 had to void the test because of the minority percentage written into the Law....

Which the Appeals court only affirmed the law- as written.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
I agree that cases get overturned! Bad rulings need to be overturned! She and her appealate court made a bad ruling! :p And if it takes the SCOTUS to overturn racial quota's then yipeee! Those quotas are only continuing racial discrimination! And even though Kola and OT might disagree, rules like those overturned are racism! WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN COLOR? Hire the qualified individual. And thanks for the compliments about my comedic ability and my lack of open mindedness! :wink:

So you then now belive in Judicial Activism- and Legislating from the Bench :???:

I agree- its a good ruling- and needed to come-- but it is not how the law was written- the reason the city of New Haven did what they did....They did want to promote the top test scorers- but under title 7 had to void the test because of the minority percentage written into the Law....

Which the Appeals court only affirmed the law- as written.....

You're nothing but a damn fool. Disparate-Impact Laws do not mandate quotas. Scalia wrote about that in his opinion. :roll:

The reason New Haven did not hire the well tested firefighters was because of that black sumbitch, Reverend Kimber, who was on the Firefifighters Board, appointed by his buddy, the mayor of New Haven.

Kimber is a racist of highest degree and was determined more blacks would have those higher paying jobs.

Read Alito's opinion and learn the truth.

Also read Ginzburg's dissent and try to make sense of it. There is none. :lol:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
I agree that cases get overturned! Bad rulings need to be overturned! She and her appealate court made a bad ruling! :p And if it takes the SCOTUS to overturn racial quota's then yipeee! Those quotas are only continuing racial discrimination! And even though Kola and OT might disagree, rules like those overturned are racism! WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN COLOR? Hire the qualified individual. And thanks for the compliments about my comedic ability and my lack of open mindedness! :wink:


I don't care about skin color. I don't think ANYONE should be given any ' advance measure' due to skin color or gender .

A job, scholarship, a ' whatever' should ONLY depend upon if that PERSON can do the job, is qualified for the job and meets all the requirements for that job.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I bet if you looked into the history of the other Justices you'll find many cases /rulings of theirs that had been overturned BEFORE they came to the Supreme Court.


Whether you like her or not....you can't really be so narrow sighted to think that there is one judge out there that has NEVER had a ruling reversed by a higher court!!!!!

Yeah, but look at her track record, with this woman you can make good money betting against her!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
I agree that cases get overturned! Bad rulings need to be overturned! She and her appealate court made a bad ruling! :p And if it takes the SCOTUS to overturn racial quota's then yipeee! Those quotas are only continuing racial discrimination! And even though Kola and OT might disagree, rules like those overturned are racism! WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN COLOR? Hire the qualified individual. And thanks for the compliments about my comedic ability and my lack of open mindedness! :wink:

So you then now belive in Judicial Activism- and Legislating from the Bench :???:

I agree- its a good ruling- and needed to come-- but it is not how the law was written- the reason the city of New Haven did what they did....They did want to promote the top test scorers- but under title 7 had to void the test because of the minority percentage written into the Law....

Which the Appeals court only affirmed the law- as written.....

You're nothing but a damn fool. Disparate-Impact Laws do not mandate quotas. Scalia wrote about that in his opinion. :roll:

The reason New Haven did not hire the well tested firefighters was because of that black sumbitch, Reverend Kimber, who was on the Firefifighters Board, appointed by his buddy, the mayor of New Haven.

Kimber is a racist of highest degree and was determined more blacks would have those higher paying jobs.

Read Alito's opinion and learn the truth.

Also read Ginzburg's dissent and try to make sense of it. There is none. :lol:

Pardon me if I take the former Solicitor Generals legal opinion - and that of several other attorneys and judges over what apparently the KKK wants to believe- and put out that it was the fault of some "black sumbitch".. :roll:

If they didn't address the quotas- and percentages that is too bad- and then leaves them intact- but that is what the barristers last week were thinking they'd discontinue.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
My biggest fault/fear with Ms Sotomayor is not that she is a woman or that she is Hispanic- or even her more liberal leanings on social issues-- but my concern is that she is considered pro big business/industry leaning and will be joining a court that is one of the strongest pro big business/industry courts in many many years...

I was just listening to a former Asst AG talking to a Texas Federalist group- commenting on the upcoming hearings on the Justice... One comment he made caught my notice..He commented that he hopes the Senators will allow her to answer questions- instead of their normal practice of using 85 minutes of the questioning time making statements and bloviating- and only hearing from the nominee for 5 minutes... :shock: :wink: :lol: :p
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Still, she was overturned by the Court yet again, making her record at the Supreme Court nothing short of abysmal. This is the fifth time she has either been overturned or had her reasoning faulted in an upheld decision -- out of six appellate decisions reviews. On three of the previous four occasions, she was overturned for misreading statutes . . . failing to properly interpret the law.

americasright.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Still, she was overturned by the Court yet again, making her record at the Supreme Court nothing short of abysmal. This is the fifth time she has either been overturned or had her reasoning faulted in an upheld decision -- out of six appellate decisions reviews. On three of the previous four occasions, she was overturned for misreading statutes . . . failing to properly interpret the law.

americasright.com

She wasn't nominated because of her judicial prowess - she was nominated for racial and sexist reasons - by the same guy who says it's wrong to hire people based on race/sex.
 
Top