Monday, June 29, 2009

Supreme Court overturns Sotomayor decision

From ABC 7/AP:

The Supreme Court has ruled 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.

One bad decision overturned, I wish this one was next.


-Joe said...

Both New Haven and Sotomayer are both no good.

First drivers it was drivers licences with no insurence for illegals.

Now its making up false charges and arresting bloggers who badmouth them.
The New Haven cops recently arrested a blogger from New Jersey for posting the email addresses of 2 New Haven lawmakers saying they need a good ass kicking.

New Haven went as far as falsely calling the blogger a fugitive from justice to get the Clifton NJ cops to arrest and hold him with no bail. (a NJ judge threw that out at his arrainment)
The "fugitive from justice" warrant has still yet to be produced.

Get this:
The the NJ blogger was never even in the state of Ct.

Queens Crapper said...

Maybe they'll arrest Bloomberg then, too, because he basically is advocating for the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Finally some common sense decisions.

-Joe said...

Holy Shit Crappy !
Aside from the words "ass kicking" & "tuneup"
Thats EXACTLY what the blogger's SAID and actually did !!!

The blogger was labled a domestic terrorist

Anonymous said...

Radio host Hal Turner, shown during his broadcast over the Internet from his New Jersey home, was arrested in that state Wednesday on a warrant obtained by Capitol police in Hartford. Turner is accused of inciting his listeners and readers by publishing addresses and emails goverment lawmakers and judges.

Good read on this new danger to free speech here:

Anonymous said...

Who has Bloomie's personal phone number? I have a few things that I would like to say to him directly! By the way, does this make sense to you?

"State Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Queens), who is sponsoring the Bloomberg-backed school-governance bill, predicted it would pass 44 to 45 votes -- or more than two-thirds support in the 62-member chamber."

Perhaps the proofreader or reporter should check before publishing. I have a feeling that they meant it would pass WITH 44 to 45 votes. Another example of the fine journalism that provides us with the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Anonymous said...

So much for being a "wise Latina."

Anonymous said...

I thought judicial activism was bad. Now we're applauding it. The Supreme Court just overturned what has been common legal practice for the past 40+ years.

I have no problem with someone being against affirmative action or abortion, but you have to also accept the fact that you're advocating judicial activism when you call for such measures to be repealed.

Sotomayor took a lot of flack for saying that the courts create law, but a lot of you seem to be elated with the creation of this new legal precedent.

Anonymous said...

So no bad decision should ever be overturned if it was consistently bad over past years?

The practice was discriminatory. Sotomayor of all people should have understood that.

Anonymous said...

Of course bad decisions should be overturned. I was pointing out that a lot of talking heads decry a lack of judicial restraint, when what they actually advocate is judicial activism. If you support this ruling, you support judicial activism and should be proud of it.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the job of the Supreme Court to hear cases and decide whether or not the lower court decisions were constitutional? "Judicial activism" means when a case is decided based not on the Constitution, but on your own agenda. Most people, when presented with the facts in this case, would say that you should not be disqualified from a position because others can't or don't qualify for it. And that's how the Court ruled. Judicial activism in this case was practiced by Sotomayor, not the court.

TheAngrySportsGuy said...

"Judicial activism" means when a case is decided based not on the Constitution, but on your own agenda.

Which is what the conservative bloc has been doing on every case under the sun in their disastrous 5-4 rulings. Every time I see yet another one of those, I get one step closer to buying a gun and killing that fucker John Roberts. He says that the court should be like an umpire... sure, but when you know what the umpire is going to call beforehand, then you're not doing your goddamn job, now are you?

Queens Crapper said...

The Kelo decision was also 5-4.

Taxpayer said...

Here's a simple solution to end racial and other forms of discrimination: Don't discriminate.

Affirmative action is nothing more than reverse - vindictive - discrimination.

Nowhere was it even thought to charge any of those hopeful firefighters with illegal discrimination.

So, why was affirmative - reverse - discrimination used to punish them? What wrongs had any of them done? Who in particular was vindicated by this form of group discrimination?