Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor;

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.

In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.

The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.

"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," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.

Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.

The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her background influence her decisions, even though her role has been somewhat inflated.

The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on minorities.

The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions have not been made public.)

The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due process.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."

Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion.

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin.

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2901608_pf.html

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

and you can bet that will be a topic at her confirmation hearings. i'm glad to see some on the supreme court have some sense and reversed this travesty.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I thought she had a track record of not siding on discrimination cases?

[_Simpson_ 250]

5-4 what??? How could four not side with the firefighters it seems so obvious what the right thing is here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As opposed to the left thing here.

[_Simpson_ 250]

As opposed to the left thing here.

as opposed to not having any common sense what so ever.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Sotomeyer over ruled 5-4 along lib/conservative lines? Shocking!

Good thing con supremes only vote based on legality and not along political lines!

[SuperDuper! 230]

and you can bet that will be a topic at her confirmation hearings. i'm glad to see some on the supreme court have some sense and reversed this travesty.

Itz about time the white boys catch a break!

[_Simpson_ 250]

and you can bet that will be a topic at her confirmation hearings. i'm glad to see some on the supreme court have some sense and reversed this travesty.

Itz about time the white boys catch a break!

Tell me about it, its not easy being white in America.

[SuperDuper! 230]

and you can bet that will be a topic at her confirmation hearings. i'm glad to see some on the supreme court have some sense and reversed this travesty.

Itz about time the white boys catch a break!

Tell me about it, its not easy being white in America.

Just look at all the TV commercials that make the white guy look stupid, whipped or childish.

[Peikko 1,575]

It was an interesting case, and by no means cut and dried. The case basically revolved around whether the city could prove, as they claimed, that they would be likely to be sued. I guess now we'll find out.

I feel sorry for white people all the time....

[_Simpson_ 250]

and you can bet that will be a topic at her confirmation hearings. i'm glad to see some on the supreme court have some sense and reversed this travesty.

Itz about time the white boys catch a break!

Tell me about it, its not easy being white in America.

Just look at all the TV commercials that make the white guy look stupid, whipped or childish.

I agree, white men always are made to look stupid, I get tired of it. Commercials, movies and tv shows. Ray Ramino was the worse thing that could of happened to the white guy. I cant stand watching that show.

Edited June 30, 2009 by looking_up

[_Simpson_ 250]

It was an interesting case, and by no means cut and dried. The case basically revolved around whether the city could prove, as they claimed, that they would be likely to be sued. I guess now we'll find out.

I feel sorry for white people all the time....

Ok not cut and dried but you do agree with the decision right?

Edited June 30, 2009 by looking_up

[nowhereman 1]

It was an interesting case, and by no means cut and dried. The case basically revolved around whether the city could prove, as they claimed, that they would be likely to be sued. I guess now we'll find out.

I feel sorry for white people all the time....

Ok not cut and dried but you do agree with the decision right?

I actually lost a job in the Atlanta Police Department years ago, pretty much due to affirmative action. I was chosen out of the pool of applicants but the police chief at the time (happened to be a black woman) overturned the decision to hire me. I considered suing but I decided not to.

[Peikko 1,575]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.