Monday, June 29, 2009

Supreme Court OVERTURNS Sotomayor!

Excellent news

The Supreme Court decided today in a 5-4 decision that the white firefighters in New Haven, CT were unfairly denied promotions based on their race, a decision endorsed by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as an appeals court judge.

The four liberal justices dissented in order to cover Sotomayor's ass, and Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee (he'll be presiding over Sotomayor's confirmation hearings), is coming to the rescue as well. He said she should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision (which he asserts she did not write) and added, "Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent." Reverse racism is precedent? That's pretty sad.

This isn't a case about equal opportunity employment. It's about equal opportunity result. No one was offered a promotion because the result would not have been 5 whites, 5 blacks, and 5 Hispanics.

Justice won today.


The Law said...

Reverse racism was not the precedent, the precedent basically pertained to how much of a burden of proof does an institution need to deem a test racially unfair. Actually, this case in my opinion is a blessing in disguise because it provides clearer parameters for determining racial bias in a test. Given the result of the ruling, it stands to reason that is New Haven FD waited to actually be sued, then they would have won the case.

Still for the record, I agree with the ruling made in the supreme court. I don't know anything about firefighting, but I really can't think of how such a test could have racial bias. Regardless, I do no think the NHFD took enough steps to deem that test racially bias, and their throwing out the test was an unnecessary pre-emptive move.

Obama Nation said...

A company was hired to make sure that the test was not racially biased, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that it wasn't.

According to the dissenters and those who sided with the city of New Haven, a test is racially unfair if "not enough" minorities pass. How do we determine what is enough? Like I said, equal opportunity doesn't mean equal result.