Shocker: Sotomayor Ruled Against New Haven Firefighters In Reverse Discrimination Case

Proof • May 27, 2009

I’ve been posting about the case filed by a group of white New Haven, CT firefighters who didn’t get their raises after too few minorities passed the qualification test for them. It turns out that Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, was a judge who ruled against the firefighters saying that it was right that they not get their raises, even though they passed the qualification for them, because some minorities didn’t qualify for them.

This puts Sotomayor’s offensive view on race in judicial decisions into sharp focus. Rush said she’s a racist, and judging her by the standards the left routinely uses to judge the right, she is. Basing your judicial decision on the skin color of the people in the case and not the merits of the law is, in fact, racist.
But, per leftist dogma, minorities can’t be racist. Especially not against white men. So I guess it’s all ok.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Hawk

Title VII prohibits the use of tests as the sole means for promotion if that test is discriminatory. After reviewing the results of the test city found that minorities did disproportionally poor. The city refused to certify the results because they felt that if they certified the results it would give rise to a Title VII lawsuit. The trial court judge said the city had the right not to certify the results if they felt that to do so would violate Title VII. The court of appeals affirmed the decision with very little comment.

The case is not as simple as you make it. The decision was not based on racism or hatred for the officers who didn’t get promoted.
http://www.toadpond.com/ SuperToad

Haven’t you folks got it through your heads that only there is only one thread of the human race who is capable of discrimination?

Of course, it’s the EEEEVIL white male! Geeeesh! Get with the game!
[/sarc]

Anyone stupid enough to think that melatonin content takes precedence over actual skill when it comes to hiring, promotion, raises, admittance, etc. does not deserve to sit on the highest court in the land.
Bat One

Has anybody here actually spent the time to read the decision?

For anyone who actually finds himself intimidated by Hawk’s barking The entire case file for Ricci v. DeStefano, including Sotomayor’s opinion, can be found here.

Sotomayor’s decision in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, admirably discussed here, is at least as egregious and wrong-headed as the more well-known firefighters’ case.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Judge Sotomayor’s belief is that a “Latina woman” is by definition a superior judge to a “white male” because she has had more “richness” in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn’t what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the “richness” of her experience comes to believe it should be.
thetodd

White men were denied their bonuses because not enough black guys got their bonuses.

So color trumped skill (the bonuses were given after one passed a test).

OK, so we both agree it’s a bad law. I’m astounded you think it’s the First Circuit Court’s responsibility to change it, and feel such a belief screams of hypocrisy.
sayanything-5371

She looks like she eats a lot of bon bons.
robert108

It’s not “reverse” discrimination; it’s just discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal. The fact that she doesn’t know that is a very good reason to keep her off the Court.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

The white Irish think they own the firefighting profession. They don’t.
J.L.

“Title VII prohibits the use of tests as the sole means of promotions if the tests are dicriminatory.” But those were tests they had used before, and were not discriminatory. You don`t get to decide if tests discriminate after the results aren`t what you wanted. So, yes, it is quite simple. And by the way, there was one minority who did pass. And would you want someone rescuing your family who was too dumb to pass the test?
studakota

Sonia, your written words are speaking so loud I can’t hear whatever it is you’re saying.
http://www.toadpond.com/ SuperToad

thetodd:

It had nothing to do with the rule of law;

You are implying that I refer only to the judge. In fact, I refer to any — ANY — rule, law, by-law, edict, fiat, ruling, decision, what-have-you that enforces racial quotas over ability, dedication, honesty, loyalty, or productivity (or any other positive quality an employer may seek).

If “the rule of law” enacts racial quotas (pronounced “melatonin content trumping skill and aptitude”), then the law itself enables discriminatory behavior, and is therefore wrong, by virtue of racial discrimination being illegal.

for the first time ever, the judges were told to decide the case using solely their own personal feelings on affirmative action

Believe me, it would not be the first time that a judge allowed their personal feelings to be the foundation of a decision — affirmative action or other wise.
thetodd

Anyone stupid enough to think that melatonin content takes precedence over actual skill when it comes to hiring, promotion, raises, admittance, etc…

RRRIGHT. Because THAT’s what the judges had to decide. It had nothing to do with the rule of law; rather, for the first time ever, the judges were told to decide the case using solely their own personal feelings on affirmative action!!!

I wonder how many people here are stupid enough to actually think that’s true.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

The media is singing her praises and we have heard little to nothing about how her decisions have been reversed. I realize the MSM is Obamas personal public relations firm. BUT it is time to stand up to the garbage and take it to the garbage dump! We will be stuck with this Judge for the rest of her life. We don’t need to make it easy on this or any other potential judge. Wake up people!
Lioncourt

But those were tests they had used before, and were not discriminatory.

No they weren’t. They had hired a new company to give the test and it was a new test.

You don`t get to decide if tests discriminate after the results aren`t what you wanted.

That is the only time you can evaluate the test is after it is given.

And would you want someone rescuing your family who was too dumb to pass the test?

I am not sure that taking a test is the most relevant way to judge the effectiveness of a firefighter.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

This is someone who has had 5 out of 6 of her cases overturned by the Supreme Court. She wants to make the laws and ignore the Constitution. Conclusion, She is NOT a SCOTUS we want for LIFE!
Hawk

Has anybody here actually spent the time to read the decision?

Of course not, it is easier to criticize when you know nothing.
thetodd

It turns out that Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, was a judge who ruled against the firefighters saying that it was right that they not get their raises, even though they passed the qualification for them, because some minorities didn’t qualify for them.

You would have preferred that she be an activist judge and legislate from the bench?
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

RRRIGHT. Because THAT’s what the judges had to decide. It had nothing to do with the rule of law; rather, for the first time ever, the judges were told to decide the case using solely their own personal feelings on affirmative action!!!

White men were denied their bonuses because not enough black guys got their bonuses.

So color trumped skill (the bonuses were given after one passed a test).
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

WOOF. Good digging. Zsa Zsa, you have quoted the racist part of her ruling. When it involves actual money, she sided with those who did not study. It is not hard to study. I have done it numerous times. it does take time. Time some refuse to invest. They would rather attend a party or do something for their own pleasures. Hard work is yet to be rewarded in our present administration.
WOOFX

Sotomayor and the White bigot .

one of her more controversial cases was Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002), involving an employee of the New York City Police Department who was terminated from his desk job because, when he received mailings requesting that he make charitable contributions, he responded by mailing back racist and bigoted materials. On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s decision to award summary judgment to the police department. She acknowledged that the speech was “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,” but cautioned the majority against “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

SayAnythingBlog.com

Shocker: Sotomayor Ruled Against New Haven Firefighters In Reverse Discrimination Case

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments