Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 6 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Ruling speaks volumes
Published Monday, June 29, 2009
While it might appear that so-called reverse discrimination came to an end Monday, bringing out the champagne and party hats is unadvisable.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ricci, et. al. v. DeStefano, et. al. that 20 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race.
This is a ruling against minorities that could affect employers and workers nationwide. The ruling could alter employment practices by limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.
It also means the justices threw out a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee for the Supreme Court, had endorsed as an appeals court judge.
The ruling came straight down ideological lines, 5-4, and fell pretty much how most court watchers thought it would. It seems that the high court’s decision then is the majority’s opinion that rejects Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning. Yet, by gaining support of the four liberals on the Supreme Court, it appears that Sotomayor may not be as far out in left field as some conservatives would want the rest of us to believe.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sotomayor hasn't started out of the gate very well has she? Her first blatant act of racism was to make a very public comment bad mouthing "white" judges ability to rule on cases. Strike one. Her next racist move was this case. Strike two. Wonder what strike 3 will be??
Posted by Dogbert (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And exactly how did Sotomayor gain the support of the 4 liberals on the court? They weren't liberals before this ruling? You started that paragraph noting the ruling split on ideological lines. Which would be entirely expected when dealing with a touchstone issue such as reverse-discrimination, which the far left apparently does not believe can actually exist. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer would have dissented from the Court's opinion with or without the potential fallout for Sotomayor.
Posted by bama (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Discrimination in ANY form is wrong. Plain and simple.
Posted by jis1999 (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you read the history of this case, you will see the exam required the candidates to prepare themselves for the exam. According to some of the candidates, the material included in the testing had to be studied. This material covered the topics required to function in the capacity of the promotion to be determined by the exam. According to testimony in the court case, most of the people who passed the exam spent the required hours studying the material while the candidates who failed to pass the exam did not put in the required preparation. It was a fair test and fairly gauged the skill level of the candidates without regard to race, gender, or nationality. This is exactyly how a test should be administered. Anything less is discrimination and has no place in our society. There is no such thing a reverse-discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of race, gender, or nationality.
This was a great ruling.
Posted by Nina (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Dred Scott ruling was 7 to 2.
There is a Higher Ruler than the Supreme Court.
Thank God!
Nina
Posted by bamafan (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very well stated jis1999.
That is one of the things wrong in this country, People in charge need to stop dropping standards, so that the ones, who don't want to spend the time studying and preparing themselves can pass the test.
This is wonderful for ALL Firemen across the country!!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)