Will it matter?Follow

Sotomayor Overturned in Fire Fighter Case.

If I'm following this right, the municipality of New Haven CT gave a written test to firefighters as a measure for promotion. When tests were scored, very few to zero minorities made the cut. So, New Haven, to avoid a lawsuit against discrimiation, scrapped the test. The non-minority fire-fighters, that had done well on the test, sued the town for reverse discrimination. In a high court ruling Sotomayor (and 2 other judges) ruled against the white firefighters stating there was no discrimination as no jobs promotions were given out to anyone based on this test.

Now the SCOTUS has reversed that ruling, finding the city at fault for throwing out the test with the only reason for scrapping it being 'to avoid a discrimination lawsuit'.

Will this, should this, at all affect her nomination to the SC?

Apparently below the average, though.

Newt Gingrich retracted his statement, so only Rush believes she's a racist now :-P

Please link the comments you're talking about. Only one that comes to mind is when she says a female Hispanic will have a different view than a white man. I agree. I linked the relevant case to which she was referring in a previous thread; the case involved the involuntary neutering of a mentally handicapped woman (who, it turns out, was not mentally handicapped in the end... but the all white old man SCOTUS at the time still ruled against her rights). She had a very good point in that case, and it made perfect sense in context. Were you reading it like that?

Also I doubt your comments very much on "why" she ruled. Can you please provide backup that she didn't look at the case (preferably a play-by-play of how long she took to rule, and a statement). Oh right, no, you can't. I seem to recall her not having a publicly released statement for that case, but it's fuzzy in my mind.

Anyway, same as always. Back up your views please.

Yep. That's what the Supreme Court said. Sotomayor got it wrong, but she's no more racist than anyone else. To be fair to her and the other 2 judges on the panel, it really was a close case.

The Supreme Court decision comes down to an evaluation of just how fragile the city's position was if it should promote based on the test and find itself sued by minorities claiming disparate-impact discrimination (prohibited by Title VII).

The district court and 2nd Circuit panel basically said there was no right answer because the city was potentially violating the law whichever way it went.

The Supreme Court decided the decision to throw out the test results was the wrong decision because there was not a "strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability" if it promoted based on the test. This "strong basis" test has not been applied to Title VII cases before. The Supreme Court imported it from prior Equal Protection cases.

In other words, "fear of litigation" is not enough. Justification for throwing out the test required a "strong basis in evidence to believe it be subject to liability" (in other words ... lose the litigation it fears).

The dissenting opinion concluded that the city had sufficient concern, and in good faith, that it might be in violation of Title VII if it promoted based on the tests.

What's more interesting for Court watchers is the alignment of the justices. You can tell from who provided various concurring and dissenting opinions ...

Predictably, Justice Kennedy was the compromise position or "swing vote." Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito signed concurrences which came down more strongly in favor of the white and hispanic petitioners. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented. The holding really is a compromise that was acceptable to Kennedy where the stronger positions on either side were not.



Here's the actual Scotus opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Edited, Jun 30th 2009 11:13am by Ahkuraj

So... Sotomayor didn't give a personal statement. And I tend not to give much credence to a site that cannot use the phrase "unusually short." How is it unusual? What is the normal length? How does this make her a racist if there's nothing to back it up.

I guess making broad statements and then trying to back them up with flimsy Slate sources is the Varrus way.

Yes, it is a mild criticism ... in a footnote ... a criticism which the 5 justices in the majority did not agree with. It is intentionally misleading for the Senator to focus on this as some kind of criticism of Sotomayor.

Ok puerto rican woman. No way in h*ll Vader is going to blatantly criticize another woman judge.