SCOTUS Overturns 2nd Circuit In Ricci

It was 5-4, as expected. Justice Kennedy and his conservative brethren prove yet again that when it comes to discrimination, their main concern is that white males not "suffer." More after I read the opinion.

The opinions (PDF). Justice Ginsburg in dissent, joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer:

The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them. New Haven maintains that it refused to certify the test results because it believed, for good cause, that it would be vulnerable to a Title VII disparate-impact suit if it relied on those results. The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.

More as I read on the flip.

Rejecting Griggs sub silentio. Justice Ginsburg writes:

In arriving at its order, the Court barely acknowledges the pathmarking decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), which explained the centrality of the disparate-impact concept to effective enforcement of Title VII. The Court’s order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power.

As in Parents Involved, the Gang of 5 choose to ignore the Nation;s history of discrimination. Justice Ginsburg writes:

In the early 1970’s, African-Americans and Hispanics composed 30 percent of New Haven’s population, but only 3.6 per-cent of the City’s 502 firefighters. The racial disparity inthe officer ranks was even more pronounced: “[O]f the 107officers in the Department only one was black, and he held the lowest rank above private.” Firebird Soc. of New Haven, Inc. v. New Haven Bd. of Fire Comm’rs, 66 F. R. D. 457, 460 (Conn. 1975).

Following a lawsuit and settlement agreement, see ibid., the City initiated efforts to increase minority representation in the New Haven Fire Department (Department). Those litigation-induced efforts produced some positive change. New Haven’s population includes a greater pro-portion of minorities today than it did in the 1970’s: Nearly 40 percent of the City’s residents are African-American and more than 20 percent are Hispanic. Among entry-level firefighters, minorities are still underrepresented, but not starkly so. As of 2003, African-Americans and Hispanics constituted 30 percent and 16 percent of the City’s firefighters, respectively. In supervisory positions, however, significant disparities remain. Overall, the senior officer ranks (captain and higher) are nine percent African-American and nine percent Hispanic. Only one of the Department’s 21 fire captains is African-American. See App. in No. 06–4996–cv (CA2), p. A1588 (hereinafter CA2 App.). It is against this backdrop of entrenched inequality that the promotion process at issue in this litigation should be assessed.

(Emphasis supplied.) Griggs and the Congress when it enacted and amended Title VII recognized these realities. The Gang of 5 pretend it never happened and still does not happen.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent makes clear that the Gang of 5 has engaged n brazed and naked judicial activism. Justice Ginsburg writes:

[T]he Court today sets at odds [Title VII's] core directives. When an employer changes an employment practice in an effort to comply with Title VII’s disparate-impact provision, the Court reasons, it acts “because of race”—something Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision, see §2000e–2(a)(1), generally forbids. Ante, at 20. This characterization of an employer’s compliance-directed action shows little attention to Congress’ design or to the Griggs line of cases Congress recognized as pathmarking.

“[O]ur task in interpreting separate provisions of a single Act is to give the Act the most harmonious, comprehensive meaning possible in light of the legislative policy and purpose.” Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S. 609, 631–632 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). A particular phrase need not “extend to the outer limits of its definitional possibilities” if an incongruity would result. Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 486 (2006). Here, Title VII’s disparate-treatment and disparate-impact proscriptions must be read as complementary.

In codifying the Griggs and Albemarle instructions, Congress declared unambiguously that selection criteria operating to the disadvantage of minority group members can be retained only if justified by business necessity. In keeping with Congress’ design, employers who reject such criteria due to reasonable doubts about their reliability can hardly be held to have engaged in discrimination“because of” race. A reasonable endeavor to comply with the law and to ensure that qualified candidates of all races have a fair opportunity to compete is simply not what Congress meant to interdict. I would therefore hold that an employer who jettisons a selection device when its disproportionate racial impact becomes apparent does not violate Title VII’s disparate-treatment bar automatically or at all, subject to this key condition: The employer must have good cause to believe the device would not withstand examination for business necessity. Cf. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 806 (1998) (observing that it accords with “clear statutory policy” for employers “to prevent violations” and “make reasonable efforts to discharge their duty” under Title VII).

In a way, Justice Ginsburg affirms Justice Scalia's complaint about today's ruling from the Court. Justice Scalia writes:

I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely post-pones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one. . . . The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII’s disparate-treatment provisions forbid “remedial” race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result—the question resolved by the Court today—it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. See ante, at 20–21. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal—discriminate on the basis of race. See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 78–82 (1917). As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes. That type of racial decisionmaking is, as the Court explains, discriminatory. See ante, at 19; Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979).

To be sure, the disparate-impact laws do not mandate imposition of quotas, but it is not clear why that should provide a safe harbor. Would a private employer not be guilty of unlawful discrimination if he refrained from establishing a racial hiring quota but intentionally designed his hiring practices to achieve the same end? Surely he would. Intentional discrimination is still occurring, just one step up the chain. Government compulsion of such design would therefore seemingly violate equal protection principles. Nor would it matter that Title VII requires consideration of race on a wholesale, rather than retail, level. “[T]he Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 911 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). And of course the purportedly benign motive for the disparate-impact provisions cannot save the statute. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995).

Justice Scalia is right - the question is does Title VII and the amendments thereto violate the Fourteenth Amendment? To me, the answer is obviously no. Section 5 of the amendment provides that:

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The power the Fourteenth Amendment grants to Congress is broad. The Congress exercised this power when it codified Griggs by amendment after the Supreme Court's decision in Wards Cove. It is obvious that the Congress intended to permit the actions taken by the City of New Haven in the Ricci case.

But as in Wards Cove, the Supreme Court, in a brazen act of extreme conservative judicial activism, chose to distort beyond recognition Congress' enactment and reach a result they wanted.

This is the "minimalism," "moderation" and "restraint" that the Gang of 5 have provided and which many who supported Chief Justice Roberts (sadly, many of those people claim to be progressive) said a Roberts Court would provide.

Many of us knew the truth all along. That with the addition of the extreme activist conservatives Roberts and Alito, the brazen activism of the Court would only expand. As in Parents Involved, this activism is most evident when it comes to discrimination.

For if there is one thing the Gang of 5 has empathy for, it is the plight of the poor white male. Slavery? Jim Crow? Institutional and de facto discrimination against minorities and women? Never heard of that says the Gang of 5.

Respect for Congress? Not to be found from the Roberts Court. a brazenly extreme conservative judicially activist Court.

Speaking for me only

< The Free Market And Health Care | Wards Cove II: Congress Must Overturn SCOTUS' Ricci Decision >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Perhaps more accurately (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:26:51 AM EST

    Perhaps more accurately it is that racial discrimination is not allowed even against white males.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    The conservative 5 have no worries about when States discriminate gaianst others - inly white males. sorry buddy, but if you have ever read the Title VII jurisprudence from this group, you would know that they bend over backwards to not find discrimination when it does not involve white males.

    Typing on (none / 0) (#5)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    a blackberry today BTD?

    So much for stare decisis (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Faust on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:46:06 AM EST

    "Super duper precedent" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    doesn't even rate anymore...

    Missing bigger point (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    I think ALL discrimination is vile and evil (and any other anagrams involved).

    Having said that, we miss a much larger point in arguing these cases. Why is it that the minority candidates didn't do as well on the tests? Is the test itself biased? If not, is there something lacking in our educational system that doesn't provide for maximizing the full potential of all people?

    BTD can frame this as white mans burded all he wants but that does not make it so. If the city decides that a test is the best method of determining candidates for promotion then they can't say that the test results don't matter if they don't get the right outcome (unless there is bias in the test itself). I would be much happier if the city worked with all candidates to ensure we all have access to the best candidates possible
    and then pick from that pool.

    It's not (pardon the pun) that black and white (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    From ScotusWiki:

    In 2003, the New Haven, Connecticut, Fire Department sought to fill captain and lieutenant positions. Because its union contract required promotions to be based upon examinations, the City contracted with Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. ("IOS") to develop exams, which were administered to qualifying applicants.

    Pursuant to a City regulation known as the "rule of three," once test results are "certified," the Department must promote from the group of applicants achieving the top three scores. Immediate application of the "rule of three" to these exams would not have allowed for the promotion of any black firefighters. More broadly, black applicants' pass rate on the lieutenant exam was approximately half of the rate for white applicants - a disparity more marked than for prior exams. However, if additional vacancies opened, black applicants would have been eligible to be considered for those promotions, based upon these exams' results.

    Because of these outcomes, the City's independent exam review board, which must vote to certify test results, held hearings to consider the possibility that the tests were racially biased. The board heard from a representative of an IOS competitor, who testified that the results showed "adverse impact" and that he could design tests with less disparate results and better measuring the jobs' requirements. He also conceded that the City's tests did not show an adverse impact greater than that allowed by law. Another witness, an experienced firefighter, testified that the exams were comparable to those he had taken in the past.

    A City official testified that if the board chose to certify the results, then the city could be subject to a disparate impact suit from the minority applicants who did not qualify for promotions. Yet, his testimony may have been contradicted by IOS's "technical validity report." There is some evidence to suggest IOS was prepared to issue such a report, which might have "establish[ed] the City's lawful use of the test results." However, the City argues that IOS never offered to prepare the report nor would the report have "proved" the legality of the test.

    Because the exam review board split evenly, 2-2, on whether to certify the exam results (with one member recusing herself based upon a conflict of interest), they were not certified.

    A group of white firefighters, one of whom is also Hispanic, who scored some of the highest results on the administered exams, filed suit against the City and its officials, alleging that the City's action violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the City's motion, agreeing that the City did not need to certify the results because doing so could subject it to litigation for violating Title VII's disparate impact prohibition.

    On appeal, the Second Circuit initially affirmed the district court's opinion summarily but subsequently issued a per curiam opinion that praised the district court for a "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion" and concluded that the City could not be held liable for its failure to certify because it "was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." Three days later, the Circuit voted 7-6 to deny rehearing en banc, with all six dissenters signing an opinion that questioned the panel's judgment and highlighted the issue for the Supreme Court.

    aare any of the "5" (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    likely to be exiting in a time frame that would allow Obama to replace them?

    Unless there's a sudden, unexpected (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    heart attack, no.

    I'm for packing the Court, though.


    I'm for giving them a heart attack. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    More likely to happen and therefore more effective.

    Pass the hot fudge...and the heavy cream...


    And the Coke can. . . (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    Funny (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:47:00 PM EST

    Did you ever see Jon Stewart's book, "America" - specifically, the page that had the justices naked and you could cut out robes for them like paper dolls?



    Indeed. Ewwww on both counts. (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    Even assuming 8 years (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    its not likely- Scalia is in his 70s and heavy though.

    Meaness eats away from the inside. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:06:11 PM EST
    He won't last eight years.

    Not even remanded for further proceedings (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    And Scalia puts in his own asinine 2¢, wondering why oh why the court didn't go further.

    Please explain your comment (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    What does not even remanded for further proceedings mean?

    Being fair to the majority, they CLAIM (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    that they are remanding, but Ginsburg explains:

    The Court stacks the deck. . .by denying respondents any chance to satisfy the newly announced strong- basis-in-evidence standard. When this Court formulates a new legal rule, the ordinary course is to remand and allow the lower courts to apply the rule in the first instance.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    Most of what I know about the Supreme (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    Court I learned from reading you.  I also remember when your sig line was The SCOTUS is amazing....something like that.

    The Headline on (none / 0) (#8)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:42:35 AM EST
    HuffPo Supreme Court Rules Against Sotomayor in Reverse Discrimination Case... Apparently, Souter and Sotomayor were basically concurrent in their position.  As far as I understood, seeing I understood right, Sotomayor's opinion was based on prior precedent.  How much of the media is gonna skew this as a defeat of Sotomayor?  Will this really be a big deal at all for her?

    Drudge rules their world (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    so expect the 5:4 nature of this decision to be buried.

    No the (none / 0) (#11)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    drudge headline, until recently, included the 5-4.  Although you could argue they fixed it as oversight.

    The "correction" proves the point (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    Though I'll take your word for it, because unlike many, I almost never visit.

    Fox news (none / 0) (#16)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:03:17 AM EST
    is implying that this is a rebuttal of Sotomayor.  They haven't addressed it fully yet.

    It'll be spun that way... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    ... but it would really only be a rebuke of Sotomayor if at least some of the left-leaning judges voted against her opinion. No one who is sympathetic to Obama's views is going to care that his nominee's views aren't shared by the Scalia/Roberts group.

    earlier this morning (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    on drudge this was the headline:



    On drudge now (none / 0) (#26)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    Court overturns Sotomayor; sides with white firefighters.  It looks like from HuffPo to drudge this decision is being skewed as a rebuttal of Sotomayor.  Ridiculous.

    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    White men are under constant attack from minorities.

    Let's see.... (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    One of the firefighters who would have been eligible was hispanic.  Are hispanics now white?  If so, why is Sotomayor's nomination significant?

    Jews are often lumped into that "white men" category.  Should they be?  Discuss.

    The US also has a history of discrimination against Catholics, which was important as recently as the Kennedy Presidential run.  Should white Catholics be included with your white man snark?

    The Irish, the Italians, and probably other groups too all experienced discrimination from society.

    Jewish immigration quotas in the US in the 20s resulted in my father being born in Mexico (am I hispanic?  No honestly, can I own land in Mexico? I am genuinely curious)

    When you so easily dismiss and with snark various peoples stories of their discrimination and how it was significant to them, well, what would you have said to the disabled if you were a store owner that didn't want to have to eliminate merchandise displays, build ramps, redo restrooms or build new ones?  What would you say were you a Catholic Priest not wanting abortions performed in your emergency room?  What would you say if you were a man, wondering why women wanted to vote?

    It's one thing to argue that the city's choice was justified and legal and even required.

    It's your own ugly bigotry and BTD's to just lump different groups together and proclaim that your snarky dismissal of them as embattled white guys is an argument.

    If you want more, just listen to what Obama has said on the issue, namely that there are legitimate criticisms of affirmative action.

    Your comments and BTDs are not the way forward.


    Utterly disingenuous (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:02:43 AM EST
    WARNING (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    One more attack on me like this and you will be gone from my threads.

    The local rightwing traffic and weather (none / 0) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    station in the DC metro area's blurb was as follows - Scotus found in favor of the white fire fighters.  Sound bite from RW think tank talking head, "Shows that Sotomayor is outside the mainstream of America" (Me: Since when was the SCOTUS ever supposed to be or considered "mainstream" - an elite group of nine highly educated and rarified persons are by no means "mainstream") and some comment from another person that was forgettable.  The "story" concluded with the assertion that Democrats will argue that Sotomayor was in agreement with four or the five justices.  Nothing about the real impact or historic nature of the ruling was included in the story.  So that's probably how it will be spun - all about Sotomayor and nothing about how this ruling affects real people.

    Wimpy Decision (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    Only Scalia wanted to declare the Griggs ruling unconstitutional.  I predicted 4 justices would say that.  Off only by 3.

    Now all Congress has to do is to amend the civil rights law (which I predict they will do) and the Supreme Court ruling will be effectively overruled.  Ginsburg basically said the same thing (her comment on lack of "staying power").

    Second time she's said so this term (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    in the redistricting case, she wrote a paragraph-long dissent just to say that.

    Of course, I think this Court is fully prepared to impose its will no matter what Congress says.


    Now, why would you think that? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Spamlet on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    I think this Court is fully prepared to impose its will no matter what Congress says.

    Just because of what happened when the "nonpartisan" mask slipped a few years ago in that Bush v. Gore thingy?


    It's always been true (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    and in fact, I'm fine with that. But only when there's a majority that agrees with me. Otherwise, like having a bad President, it's intolerable.

    Wimpy Decision (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    Only Scalia wanted to declare the Griggs ruling unconstitutional.  I predicted 4 justices would say that.  Off only by 3.

    Now all Congress has to do is to amend the civil rights law (which I predict they will do) and the Supreme Court ruling will be effectively overruled.  Ginsburg basically said the same thing (her comment on lack of "staying power").

    Regarding BTD's update with Scalia's (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    concurrence: right on!

    Actually, Congress's Power to Ban (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    discrimination is based on the commerce power (at least with respect to private entities).  As for Scalia's concurrence, that's just silly talk.  Obviously, a law banning discrimination is not itself a discrimatory law.  Sheesh.

    Not the way I read the 14th amendment. (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    Well, to be fair (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    The SC didn't even consider the Fourtheenth Amendment, in this case.  Once they ruled on the statutory provision, Kennedy said there was no reason to look at constitutional questions.

    Not responsive to the point above (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    Well, I was talking about the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    commerce power/14th amendment according to Supreme Court precedents.  I think it's pretty obvious, based on precedents from the slaughter house cases, that the 14th amendment only applies to state action.

    It would be interesting to find out if the 5 conservatives now believe one can respond to an accusation of Title VII discriminatory intent (as a company can now do post-Ricci for an accusation of discriminatory impact) by saying that the proposed remedy would itself violate the Title VII ban on discriminatory intent.

    So let's say that for a certain job, the HR head hires 99 white people and 1 minority.  The company get sued for Title VII discriminatory intent violation.  The company responds:  "But we can't change the person who hires for that position because then we would intentionally discriminating against white people who want that job and that would be a violation of Title VII!"  Would that work now?


    You are misreading the Constitution (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    It is true that the Commerce power is a source of Congressional power here. But regarding the Civil Rights Act, it is the 14th Amendment.

    does anyone think (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    this will have any effect on her confirmation?
    I dont.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    Judges in her position ruled on hundreds, if not thousands, of cases - some of which get overturned.

    All this will do is provide fundraising fodder for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid....


    twice you've said this: (none / 0) (#33)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    in a brazen act of extreme conservative judicial activism, chose to distort

    and yet, it can't be so,

    for only "liberal" judges practice "judicial activism",

    as any right thinking person would know.

    conservative judges practice "original intent", as if they were there when the constitution was written. ok, in scalia's case, he may well have been.

    it would be tragic, were justices scalia or kennedy to suffer a massive, non fatal heart attack, rendering them unfit to perform their judicial duties. they are both of a certain age...............:)

    Sotymayor's nomination (none / 0) (#36)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    Will this have any affect on her getting nominated?

    No (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    She's already nominated ;-).

    It won't affect her confirmation either.  The Democrats have the senate.


    It's these (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    ideology-based decisions that make me really unconfortable that we know very little about how Sotomayer might rule on women's privacy issues.

    And yeah, she can say anything she wants to get confirmed.  That worked so well with Roberts.

    Supreme Court rules their ideology on important cases -- period. They shouldn't, but they do.  Therefore we need to know what that ideology is.

    Strange phrase from Scalia: "evil day." (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:19:43 AM EST

    These laws just weren't written for white people (none / 0) (#47)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    Folks just need to accept it.  Any attempt to say well we're all equal now, thus these laws should apply equally is an attempt deny the obvious.

    A reasonable endeavor to comply with the law and to ensure that qualified candidates of all races have a fair opportunity to compete is simply not what Congress meant to interdict.

    60% of New Haven is Black or Hispanic, yet there's still more white mgmt in the Fire Dept, yeah OK.

    One of the plantifs (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    was Hispanic

    True, but two others didn't join the plaintiffs. (none / 0) (#55)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    That one latino decided to side w/the white firefighters is hardly a surprise to me.    

    Sad But Not Unexpected (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    The affirmative action that GWB benefited from is now official policy. No one ever said that natural selection did not involve lying cheating and stealing, aka rigging the game.

    interesting (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    CNN Poll: Two-thirds think firefighters were discriminated against

    interesting that is about the same percentage that is white.

    don't pay blackmail (none / 0) (#58)
    by diogenes on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:20:59 PM EST
    From Ginsberg:
    it believed, for good cause, that it would be vulnerable to a Title VII disparate-impact suit if it relied on those results.

    It's an open question whether a test which was not shown to be discriminatory before it was taken and was designed to be nondiscriminatory can lead a city to be convicted of "disparate-impact".  
    If in fact the law does say that a city can be convicted of disparate-impact for giving and using a nondiscriminatory test, then in the words of Mr. Bumble, the law is an a$$.

    "Convicted"? Civil lawsuit. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:23:48 PM EST