Sotomayor wrong again.. How many times has she been overturned in appeals.

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 10:27 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday 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.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.

But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.

"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.

__________________
http://www.BHOCOUNTDOWN.com



"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." -Ronald Reagan

Very, very rarely--this is the 4th out of thousands. And this was a 5-4 split decision, which shows her line of thinking on this case wasn't without foundation given the District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeal panel agreed with her as well as 4 of the SCOTUS Justices, and in the very few she has been reversed, a heavily split SCOTUS also appeared. Her record insofar as reversals is outstanding.

__________________

While the ruling makes perfect sense, I can only wonder in amazement at the contortions that Ginsburg must have performed while trying to justify her dissenting opinion. Of course, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens followed in nonsensical liberal lockstep.

I'm sure the other side of the ideological coin will retort as follows:

I'm sure many will also cite that the SCOTUS majority united and picking the timing to 'help out their GOP buddies' in the coming confirmation hearings.

For that reason, I think the SCOTUS made a mistake rendering the decision on the eve of her confirmation hearing and should have deferred it until afterward, especially with a split like that that shows the usual ideological divides and backgrounds of the current members.

It's a key expressed goal of the judiciary to show impartiality when rendering decisions. Obviously judges come with different ideological philosophies and this decision doesn't surprise me given the viewpoints of the sitting judges, and that is just the natural break of things and doesn't mean impropriety. But given the scenario vis-a-vis Sotomayor being the author of the decision under review, and her impending confirmation hearings which certainly are in the political arena, even the 'mere appearance of impropriety'--the court standard--of other considerations possibly being in the mix, such as political gamesmanship, should never be signalled as being possibly a motivator in a decision.

IMO, the right thing for the SCOTUS to have done is defer the decision until after Sotomayor either gets seated (the likely scenario) or she drops out or gets denied in order to avoid any signal of improper considerations being in the decision and timing of release. Then, as per practice, Sotomayor then recuses herself from the decision making process on that case and any others in which she was part of the decisions making process below.

__________________

I think they'd be subject to criticism for trying to help the nominee if they withheld the decision.

__________________

The right thing for the SCOTUS to do was overturn this blatantly racist ruling. The fact that four of the "justices" voted for it is further evidence of the sinkhole this country is being sucked into by the hostile and racist left.

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

Institutional racism is illegal once again.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

No, it's not evidence of that.

Did you hear the desenting remarks made by Ruth Ginsberg? She actually stated "We sympathise" with the men (white & latinos) who passed this test--but were denied promotions.

People do end up in the Supreme court to obtain SYMPATHY. They are there for JUSTICE.

It's apparent that the desenting judges--were more concerned with the city getting sued -- versus following the LAW according to the U.S constitution.

This is VERY bad for Sotomayer. This is now the 4th decision she has made that did not make it through the U.S supreme court.

I was holding my decision--to see what the supreme court would do--now I am against her appointment to the U.S Supreme court.

Ginsburgs quote is a bit scary.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well I certainly appreciate your reasoning??/

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

Some might do that, especially the political partisans out there, but the objectives and motivations for saying so wouldn't pass the 'red face' test. The sales pitch that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would be out to help someone suspected to be ideologically generally opposed to their points of view is asking people to believe oil and water mix.

In fact, wanting the decision rendered beforehand hurts the cause of anyone opposed to Sotomayor on political/ideological grounds. Had the court followed the protocol to avoid the mere appearance of propriety by simply deferring the decision until after Sotomayor is either confirmed, withdrawn, or denied, the conservative justices would have gotten integrity points with all the fair minded, and partisans on the left who would begrudge them on that score would be banging a hollow and self-discrediting drum.

It also wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. Similarly, Sotomayor would have had to recuse herself by the same common expectation of avoiding the appearance of impropriety given she was part of the decision under review. That would have made the decision a 5-3 case, a better result for the majority opinion viewholders. So, a 'two fer' was missed from a partisan standpoint. Instead, the 'right' of the SCOTUS, Congress and their supportive pundits and others concerning her impending confirmation hearings and the integrity of the decision will be questioned.

By not releasing the decision until the status of Sotomayor is shortly decided as to whether she will join them, the SCOTUS basically would have said they are aware of the dynamics of that case and Sotomayor in the next coming weeks as to themselves, and would be consistent with court practice to avoid all appearances of impropriety. The deferment of publicising the decision until after her pending confirmation process is completed would have been a statement of neutrality on whether Sotomayor should be a member of their court and wants no part of the political frays of that decision. It's not an avoidance of making the decision.

Now, it will have to defend itself and its decision insofar as its integrity. That is why the standard is 'mere appearance of impropriety'--it isn't supposed to do anything that even signals that something improper might have been an issue in their decision.

__________________

The SCOTUS was wrong again, and shows how it have been packed with bigots.

The test was blatantly unfair, because it was based on reading material that was not available at the fire stations.
Those who did well on the test had purchased their own books and hired tutuors.
That is essentially cheating, and would not make them better for these promotions.

They need to devise criteria that can not be bought like this test was.

This shows why Sotomayer and people like her are so important for the SCOTUS.
Right now there is no justice.

I disagree. Indeed, under your proposal they would be withholding the decision to keep it out of her nomination hearings as an issue. It is quite easy to see that as motivation to "help" someone regardless of their reasons. Besides, it is quite possible justices "on the right" can think someone "on the left" a fine judge worthy of confirmation regardless of whether or not they would vote to overturn her decision in a particular case. I mean, there's no doubt Souter's replacement is going to be from the left whether it's Sotomayor or not.

I'm not aware of any protocol of withholding decisions involving a nominee at a lower level.

Couldn't it certainly be argued that the "right" thing to do would be to proceed normally with the case -- neither expediting it or delaying it? That, it seems to me, would be the objective, non-partisan course. If they didn't speed up the decision here in order that it become an issue at the nomination hearings, I don't see a problem with the timing.

It seems you've just introduced another reason why the right course would be not to delay the ruling. It doesn't seem appropriate to me to forestall a ruling in order to increase your vote advantage. Would that be OK with you? And if they did delay it and obtained such a vote advantage couldn't they be subject to criticism for that? (mere appearance of impropriety)

You mean anyone who pays to go to law or med school in order to take the bar or med exam is a cheat?

I've never hired a tutor to help pass a standardized test but I have bought and studied books that are specifically designed to help pass specific tests, that was cheating?

I'm not saying the firefighters here don't have a case for discrimination, but I believe it should be based on the fact that everyone who failed was black, which could indicate cultural bias. The argument you're using here is very weak, IMO.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips