PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS overturns Sotomayor opinion in Conn firefighters case



Bob Gutermuth
06-29-2009, 10:23 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html

This may be a big roadblock to her confirmation!

Uncle Bill
06-29-2009, 10:38 AM
It might be, Bob...and WOULD be for any real "America First" thinking politician. But face it, we are in extremely short supply of any of those type folks in our Senate and Congress....especially when it comes to the batch of braying sheep that support this inept leadership.

UB

Hew
06-29-2009, 10:39 AM
This may be a big roadblock to her confirmation!
Are you kidding? That just established her bonafides with the left and helped assure a cash infusion to the usual suspects working to get her confirmed...like the yahoos at People for the American Way (the name of that organization is a perverse poke in the eye with a sharp stick).

YardleyLabs
06-29-2009, 10:41 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html

This may be a big roadblock to her confirmation!

Why? She voted the same way as the Justice she is being nominated to replace.

Bob Gutermuth
06-29-2009, 10:56 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right!

Goose
06-29-2009, 11:27 AM
I'm happy for the firefighters. They earned their promotions.

Unfortunately, there won't be anybody who can overturn any of her leftist decisions once she's been added to the supremes.

Souter was a disaster we can blame on the first Bush and in a way we can also blame H.W. for this babe who's replacing Souter.

dback
06-29-2009, 11:57 AM
It might be, Bob...and WOULD be for any real "America First" thinking politician. But face it, we are in extremely short supply of any of those type folks in our Senate and Congress....especially when it comes to the batch of braying sheep that support this inept leadership.

UB

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself.........Mark Twain

BonMallari
06-29-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm happy for the firefighters. They earned their promotions.

Unfortunately, there won't be anybody who can overturn any of her leftist decisions once she's been added to the supremes.

Souter was a disaster we can blame on the first Bush and in a way we can also blame H.W. for this babe who's replacing Souter.

I would like to see your reasoning behind that one....picking a SCOTUS nominee rests with the Presidents advisory team, if you think the President picked any SCOTUS nominee, you are mistaken..the name they place is based on his legal eagle advisors and who his vetting team THINKS they can pass confirmation, the wheeling and dealing is run by the Senators on the justice committee for the scratch and sniff test before its release to the public ,the rest is just a dog and pony show...

And then you get the occaisional Robert Bork, or Clarence Thomas nomination where it becomes a political witch hunt

Henry V
06-29-2009, 04:54 PM
An interesting take on things as always.

Hmmmm, you all do know that Justice Alito had numerous decisions reversed by the Supreme Court and that Justice Roberts was reversed on the Hamdan case, right?

These facts certainly did not prevent them from getting or staying on the court. Hmmmm.

Cody Covey
06-29-2009, 05:07 PM
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "it would be wrong" to use the decision to criticize Sotomayor and that her panel's decision exhibited "judicial restraint."

He said the Supreme Court's ruling is "likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families."

"This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement.



Does Leahy even know what this case is about. Important protections for american families? How is giving a leg up to someone not as qualified for the job as another person protection for the american family. The most qualified workforce past the test. Sorry the black firefighters weren't as qualified but that is not the problem of the firefighters that were qualified and past the test.

affirmative action bull**** regards.

badbullgator
06-29-2009, 05:42 PM
Not if your are a latina woman and see more clearly than a white man.......

YardleyLabs
06-29-2009, 06:18 PM
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "it would be wrong" to use the decision to criticize Sotomayor and that her panel's decision exhibited "judicial restraint."

He said the Supreme Court's ruling is "likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families."

"This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement.



Does Leahy even know what this case is about. Important protections for american families? How is giving a leg up to someone not as qualified for the job as another person protection for the american family. The most qualified workforce past the test. Sorry the black firefighters weren't as qualified but that is not the problem of the firefighters that were qualified and past the test.

affirmative action bull**** regards.

The Supreme Court is effectively reversing prior decisions supporting affirmative action proving, yet again, how laws can be rewritten by a 5 to 4 vote. Sometimes I agree with such decisions, sometimes I don't. I suspect the same is true for each of us. At the appellate level judges should conform as closely as possible to precedent. The original decision supported by Sotomayor did that. A new precedent has now been created that will affect a variety of decisions until it is reaffirmed or overturned in the future. If the next case happens before Obama replaces one of the current conservatives, the decision will be overturned. If a more conservative president acts to preserve or enlarge the current conservative majority, the precedent will stand and be reinforced.

Franco
06-29-2009, 06:26 PM
Does Leahy even know what this case is about. Important protections for american families? How is giving a leg up to someone not as qualified for the job as another person protection for the american family. The most qualified workforce past the test. Sorry the black firefighters weren't as qualified but that is not the problem of the firefighters that were qualified and past the test.

affirmative action bull**** regards.

Affirmative Action = Legalized Discrimination

BTW, Leahy is just another idiot pretending to serve in DC.

Cody Covey
06-29-2009, 07:55 PM
The Supreme Court is effectively reversing prior decisions supporting affirmative action proving, yet again, how laws can be rewritten by a 5 to 4 vote. Sometimes I agree with such decisions, sometimes I don't. I suspect the same is true for each of us. At the appellate level judges should conform as closely as possible to precedent. The original decision supported by Sotomayor did that. A new precedent has now been created that will affect a variety of decisions until it is reaffirmed or overturned in the future. If the next case happens before Obama replaces one of the current conservatives, the decision will be overturned. If a more conservative president acts to preserve or enlarge the current conservative majority, the precedent will stand and be reinforced.
Sounds like the court is writing a wrong that has been around to long.

Bob Gutermuth
06-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Having been a victim of reverse discrimination, I agree with SCOTUS on this one and also hope its enough reason to deny the nomination to Sotomayor.

road kill
06-30-2009, 07:33 AM
This woman is a disgrace.
She (and "The Obama for nominating her) have made a mockery of the process.
She, like "The Obama," is a product of entitlements.
She has no business being on any bench what so ever, let alone the most prestigious judicial appointment in the land.
This is the DUMBING down of America at it's highest!!(lowest!!)

This is a tarnish and a stain on the SCOTUS in her just being nominated.
If appointed it will be one of, if not the greatest injustuce ever done to the SCOTUS.
She has NO credentials, no body of work and has been an astounding failure at what few decisions she has made!!

What a slap in the face to all of the people who have worked so hard (some more than 40 hours a week) to gain achievement in the field of law to appoint a person so woefully inept.

My God, please, somebody do something!!

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 09:01 AM
This woman is a disgrace.
She (and "The Obama for nominating her) have made a mockery of the process.
She, like "The Obama," is a product of entitlements.
She has no business being on any bench what so ever, let alone the most prestigious judicial appointment in the land.
This is the DUMBING down of America at it's highest!!(lowest!!)

This is a tarnish and a stain on the SCOTUS in her just being nominated.
If appointed it will be one of, if not the greatest injustuce ever done to the SCOTUS.
She has NO credentials, no body of work and has been an astounding failure at what few decisions she has made!!

What a slap in the face to all of the people who have worked so hard (some more than 40 hours a week) to gain achievement in the field of law to appoint a person so woefully inept.

My God, please, somebody do something!!
Those are some pretty grandiose statements to make with no statement of facts to back them up. Her record is certainly favorable compared to Alito, better than Thomas, and longer and more distinguished than Roberts. Her academic record may be one of if not the best among the justices on the court. Rehnquist's record prior to his appointment (principally a political hack), may have been one of the weakest in the history of the court and yet his attitude and intellect allowed him to perform very well even though I disagree with almost every political position he ever took.

road kill
06-30-2009, 09:10 AM
Those are some pretty grandiose statements to make with no statement of facts to back them up. Her record is certainly favorable compared to Alito, better than Thomas, and longer and more distinguished than Roberts. Her academic record may be one of if not the best among the justices on the court. Rehnquist's record prior to his appointment (principally a political hack), may have been one of the weakest in the history of the court and yet his attitude and intellect allowed him to perform very well even though I disagree with almost every political position he ever took.

See the emboldened part?

I am talking about her record!
Not anyone elses.
If I have to post it here fior you, then you are not as up to speed as you would like us to think.
60% failure rate?
May be good in baseball, but not on the bench.
In regard to her body of work, there isn't much to show, therefore I question her experience.
In regard to her being a product of entitlements?
Please!!

Show me where I am wrong, and don't blame it on Bush or tell me about someone else.

The subject is Sotomayor.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 09:18 AM
See the emboldened part?

I am talking about her record!
Not anyone elses.
If I have to post it here fior you, then you are not as up to speed as you would like us to think.
60% failure rate?
May be good in baseball, but not on the bench.
In regard to her body of work, there isn't much to show, therefore I question her experience.
In regard to her being a product of entitlements?
Please!!

Show me where I am wrong, and don't blame it on Bush or tell me about someone else.

The subject is Sotomayor.
60% failure rate? That is a gross manipulation of the numbers based on five appealed cases out of several hundred that she wrote or participated in of which three were overturned on appeal. In baseball, that would be the equivalent of judging a batting record based on how many times a batter hit a grand slam out of all the times they appeared at bat with the bases loaded. It might sound good, but it's not a very useful statistic. Second, being overturned on appeal is not equivalent to a failure, particularly when, as is true in the Fire fighter case, the court is modifying its own precedents in its actions. Alito had many more cases overturned on appeals than Sotomayor.

Her judicial record is certainly equivalent by any measure to many of the current justices on the court prior to their appointments. It is clearly more extensive than either our current of prior chief justices.

Affirmative action may or may not have been a factor in Sotomayor's admission to Princeton. It was not a factor in awarding her the Pyne Prize which is Princeton's highest honor for academic excellence. Her academic record at Princeton was superior to that of Alito who graduated a few years earlier.

Cody Covey
06-30-2009, 11:09 AM
again Jeff the court was just righting a long time wrong and if Sotomayor wasn't so wrapped up in race she would be able to see that and have made a better decision. The fact that there was ever a ruling to set a precedent like this is a disgusting chapter in our history imo.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 12:00 PM
again Jeff the court was just righting a long time wrong and if Sotomayor wasn't so wrapped up in race she would be able to see that and have made a better decision. The fact that there was ever a ruling to set a precedent like this is a disgusting chapter in our history imo.
You might want to actually read about the issues before leaping to the conclusion that everything is so black and white. There are two separate doctrines that have been applied and supported judicially with respect to Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. The first principle relates to disparate treatment based on race. The second relates to disparate impact based on race. Both constitute prima facie evidence of discrimination, placing the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that the action resulting in either disparate treatment or disparate impact are not in fact racially biased. These two separate standards have coexisted for a long time. In this case, the test was thrown out because it has a disparate impact. The town did not believe that it could demonstrate that the test was unbiased since the results were the direct product of a weighting of the different parts of the test and that is other weightings were used that it considered to be equally justifiable, the results were not discriminatory. Accordingly the town decided to use the different weightings.

The law suit was filed and dismissed by the District Court. On appeal, the appeals court, including Sotomayor, dismissed the appeal unanimously in a one paragraph statement (unsigned) indicating that the lower court rejection of the lawsuit was valid.

The Supreme Court decision ruled, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the town had no right to overturn the test without "a strong basis in evidence" that the test was discriminatory even if it was clear that the impact was discriminatory. This has created a Catch 22 situation in which the employer cannot use the test unless it can prove that it is not discriminatory, but also can't vacate the test unless it has "strong... evidence" that it is discriminatory. In fact, it is at least theoretically possible that if the town reverses itself the black fire fighters could sue based on the discriminatory impact and prevail. It is clear, for example in Scalia's concurrent opinion, that some of the justices in the majority view this case as simply a stepping stone for overturning the "disparate impact" portions of the Civil Right Act whch have been affrimed repeatedly in prior Court cases.

[Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf]

Eric Johnson
06-30-2009, 12:10 PM
I haven't read the entire opinion yet but it seems to me that this is rather narrowly written. Nothing impacts affirmative action. It seems to me that what the court said is that if a test is legally sound, those who score highest can't be denied a promotion.

In fact, wasn't the case remanded rather than resolved. That means the lower courts will have to solve this in terms of who gets promoted (members of the group may have since retired). One issue, back pay, wasn't even mentioned in the decision so that's an outstanding issue as well.

It ain't completely over......

Eric

Cody Covey
06-30-2009, 12:31 PM
because a certain group of ppl didnt pass the test its discriminatory? seems to me they shouldve tried harder again seems to be righting a wrong that one group of ppl should get the same treatment as others with less qualifications

another thing if only the black firefighters passed could the white people have sued under those laws you quoted and do you think they would win Jeff. Or does it only apply to one side.

Steve Amrein
06-30-2009, 01:27 PM
I remember when affirmative action was all the rage. I had been painting corporate aircraft for about 5 years and applied for a job with Boeing. My Father had been with the company for over 25 years and new Sandy McDonnell. I was not counting on any favorite treatment. I had a college degree and actual experience doing exactly the position(s) they were looking for. With the hiring quotas they had in place the job went to a black woman with a GED and zero aviation or painting experience. I talked to the interviewer and he said that as a white male I did not stand chance at getting a job with them. Prolly should have sued:rolleyes:

road kill
06-30-2009, 02:52 PM
Morning Bell


TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2009


The Sotomayor Pattern



Yesterday’s Supreme Court opinion in Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case, provides a window to what will inevitably be a significant line of questioning in Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. After all, Judge Sotomayor not only reached the wrong decision in this case, allowing overt racial discrimination in protection of what were essentially soft racial quotas, but she did so in a dismissive one-paragraph opinion which seemed calculated to bury the case from future review. Both her dismissive treatment of important rights in this and a prominent Second Amendment case, and the apparent bias that these cases display will likely be fertile ground for questions in her confirmation hearings.
Recent Entries

In response to the Supreme Court’s opinion, defenders of Sotomayor have attempted to paint her opinion as one showing that she is not an activist. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: “Some of the very concerns that members of the Senate have expressed about judicial activism seem to be, at the very least, upside down in this case. Her ruling on the Second Circuit denotes that she’s a follower of precedent[.]”

The only problem is that it’s just not true. But you don’t need to take our word for it. Clinton appointee to the Second Circuit, Judge Josť Cabranes, expressed his deep concerns about the dismissive approach utilized by Sotomayor and her colleagues in this case. Far from following precedent, Cabranes, in stating why he thought the full Second Circuit should have reviewed the Sotomayor panel’s decision, stated that “[t]he questions raised in this appeal . . . are indisputably complex and far from well-settled.” (emphasis added). He noted that the case raised issues of “first impression”—that is, questions never decided before by the Second Circuit. So much for just following precedent.

Judge Cabranes added that Sotomayor’s panel’s “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal” and emphasized that in cases “[w]here significant questions of unsettled law are raised on appeal, however, a failure to address those questions-or even recognize their existence-should not be the approved modus operandi of the U.S. Court of Appeals.” He concluded with what is perhaps the core of the indictment against Sotomayor’s handling of this case: “this Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal.”

Regrettably, Sotomayor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to grapple with questions of exceptional importance. In her opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, in which she found that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, she tersely declared that a state statute restricting possession of weapons does implicate a fundamental right—the full consideration of which was measured in a handful of words. Like in the firefighters case, she concluded this without even grappling with the arguments–indeed without any explanation whatsoever.

This is all the more troubling because of her statements embracing personal bias. In the very same speech where she issued the well-calculated and well-quoted assertion about the superior judgment of wise Latina women, she questioned whether it is possible for judges to overcome personal sympathies or biases “in all or even in most cases.” She even seemed to think that ruling based upon these biases is somehow patriotic: “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

Given these statements embracing bias, and her embarrassingly inadequate judicial treatment of both the firefighters case and the Second Amendment case, Senators taking up her nomination on July 13 will necessarily need to explore whether her short shrift treatment of serious statutory and constitutional issues in these cases is a reflection of her own biases, or whether, on the brighter side, it is simply an indication of incompetent judging.

Bob Gutermuth
07-01-2009, 09:32 AM
more bad decisions from would be Justice:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102710

road kill
07-01-2009, 09:46 AM
more bad decisions from would be Justice:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102710


Well, lets wait till we see what Snopes says about this!!:rolleyes:

duckheads
07-01-2009, 11:22 AM
yea, snopes there is a good reliable liberal fact checker! is there any place in the media that the liberals don't control?

road kill
07-01-2009, 11:26 AM
yea, snopes there is a good reliable liberal fact checker! is there any place in the media that the liberals don't control?

I hope you know I was being sarcastic.
Every time a liberal gets caught, someone says "Snopes" says the facts are wrong!!

Who snopes "Snopes??"