Ideologically-divided 5-4 Supreme Court reverses New Haven firefighters case.
Ideologically-divided 5-4 Supreme Court reverses New Haven firefighters case.
For 25 years, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has given employers broad discretion to reconsider a promotion test whose results favor one race over another. Judge Sonia Sotomayor followed this binding precedent when she rejected several firefighters’ claim of reverse discrimination in the now-famous Ricci v. Destefano case, as she is obliged to do as a lower-court judge. Yet, as the Justices showed in today’s 5-4 decision in Ricci, they are not bound by the same constraints that bound Judge Sotomayor. Today’s ruling creates a new standard which says that an employer’s decision to toss out a hiring test must have a “strong basis in evidence” showing that the test preferred one race over another. The Supreme Court has powers that Judge Sotomayor does not, and it used that power today. Unfortunately, conservatives will try to use today’s decision to attack Sotomayor, but these attacks have no basis. Sotomayor followed the law that was in place at the time of her decision in Ricci, and she should be commended for demonstrating proper judicial restraint.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And, of course, four Supreme Court justices agreed with the position taken by Judge Sotomayor.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:40 amToday’s ruling creates a new standard…
From the wingnuts Conservapedia:
“Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law.”
Is that not what has occured here?
If so, get ready for the howels from the right over judicial activisi……oh wait:
crickets chirping
http://www.conservapedia.com/Judicial_Activism
June 29th, 2009 at 11:42 amAffirmitive Action has been good for the US, so I’m not going to criticize it. However, when this case first came out I watched one of the firefighters and his attorney on MSNBC and they said the test was all duty related. I can’t explain the results although it appears some studied harder than others (and I can attest here in CA you need to pretty intelligent to be a firefighter).
June 29th, 2009 at 11:43 amThe results do seem a bit odd though, has anyone actually seen a copy of the test?
Roberts
June 29th, 2009 at 11:46 amAlito
Thomas
Scalia
watchdog Says:
How in the hell does a damn test favor one race over another?
June 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
***
how in the the hell did george w. bush
get into yale university with his grades?
:)
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 amThe ruling was made by five idealogue justices (wingnuts). You would expect the same from these right wing activist judges appointed to be conservative activists.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:50 amThe limits of this one’s imagination are staggering.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:51 amACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! BEWARE!! THE SKY IS FALLING! Oh, wait. These were CONservative judges? Never mind.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:52 amAlthough New Haven handled the issue badly, I still don’t believe it was discriminatory. The city should’ve conducted promotions differently initially and scrapped the test after the results were considered, but the Court’s ruling today makes it a damned if ya do damned if ya don’t situation.
And naturally it’ll add fodder to the anti-Sotomayor crowd, even though four justices, including the one she’ll replace, agreed with her. The Roberts Court has reversed years of federal appellate precedence on race, search and seizure, guns and abortion, so if we’re criticizing appeals court judges against the Court’s recent rulings, it’d make all of them look ignorant or out of touch.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:53 amThis decision couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the fact that Ms. Sotomayor will soon be coming up for confirmation, could it? Surely, these five rightwing judges didn’t get together and make their ruling just to put her into a bad light, did they? They wouldn’t base their ruling soley on their political views, would they? Naw, that wouldn’t happen. Would it? (Bush v. Gore)
June 29th, 2009 at 11:57 ameven better news:
MADOFF GETS 150 YEARS.
good.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:58 amgood write-up, Ian…
finally, i understand all that…
June 29th, 2009 at 11:59 amhuh… just heard that the court put off making a decision about whether a political ad should be considered a political ad
(ie: the swift-boat docu-lie about hillary last fall)
now, why would they put off that decision?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pmkaty Says:
MADOFF GETS 150 YEARS.
With 5 years off for good behavior, of course…
June 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pmIf the decisions of the SCOTUS now reflect moreso the predominant poltical leanings of the times, rather than any timelessness of the letter of the law, then we can kiss what remains of our failing deomcracy good bye.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pmIt’s easy to hate this court, I do, but has anyone seen a copy of the test? Is it race based? I’d have to see it before I had a definitive position.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pmMadoffs family need to have all of their wealth confiscated and distributed to his victims. Wasn’t his entire family in on this scheme?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pmDo you honestly think that they retooled Title VII just to meddle with the confirmation hearings of a future colleague? You may not agree with the decision, but come on now.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThe Supreme Court is LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH!
Whoop! Whooop! Whooop!! Alarm! Alarm!
All hands on deck! catastrophe of biblical proportions!
Get your guns and bibles!
Run to the bunkers!
…..oh… wait… they were conservative judges? Well, hell’s bells, why didn’t you say? Ya’ got me all worked up over nuttin’. Conservtives don’t need no stinking rules…..
June 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pmIt’s hard to explain to someone who has obviously never passed a test.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pmshoeless Says:
It’s hard to explain to someone who has obviously never passed a test.
Watchdog’s ‘passed’ tests … you know, at the VD clinic when the tests come back ‘positive’…..
June 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pmAnother good TP analysis surely to go ignored by the add-to-misinformation crowd.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:17 pmUnfortunately, conservatives will try to use today’s decision to attack Sotomayor, but these attacks have no basis.
Having no basis for attack hasn’t ever stopped them before. When facts and logic only lead to one point, conservatives have a way of making whatever argument totally illogical and factless to meet their self-righteous objectives.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:18 pmGood thing none of the majority had their thoughts muddied by empathy.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pmProving you’ve been discriminated against is nearly impossible.
Recent decisions have disallowed information that indicates discrimination… and now require the victim to prove that the discrimination was directed at him personally.
Bottom line… this all renders the powerless even less powerful, and the powerful even more powerful.
The spirit of the constitution was that the powerful should not be allowed to run roughshod over the powerless.
RIP constitution.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pmFrom Justice Alito’s concurrence (emphasis added):
Later,
June 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pmAs a white male democrat who has been the victim of gender and age discrimination in the past I’m tickled purple that the Supremes slapped down this example of discrimination against white people. It happens all too often in the name of righting former wrongs. Enough of that crap is enough.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:46 pmI passed a test one time and told my doctor. He said the next time it happens he would like a sample if I didn’t mind. Oh how great it will be when soon the highest court in the land can hand down decisions based on compassion and justice according to the times. Those who’s voices have not been heard up until this time will now be taken to full account because of who they are and not by the suppressive thoughts and opinions of old gray haired white men of the ancient past. Decisions will now be handed down according to the needs of the litigants and not the wishes of the rich. A new day is dawning my friends and what a great day it will be.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pmNeeds of the litigants as a basis for legal decisions? I’m willing to bet large sums that you (justifiably so) took W to task for flaunting the Rule of Law. Irony much?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pmGreenwald has more analysis on this decision:
Here’s a revealing statement:
And as far as reference to the test:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
The thing the Republics keep ignoring is the fact that the other two judges that ruled with Judge Sotomayor were conservatives. I wonder why they ignore that?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pmThis is from the same court that said Dred Scott was not human but property.. I am just saying…
June 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pmDoc…..first, “large sums” are only impressive to the Madoff types and you ain’t that. The molding of the law using todays lexicon to accommodate the justifiable will soon be reviled in the highest court of the land. This transformation must occur if we, as a nation, are to survive with freedom and justice for all not just the usual few.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pmdarnay Says:
This is from the same court that said Dred Scott was not human but property.. I am just saying…
June 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
____________
Which was true, according to the law of the time. I don’t believe Dred Scott was a bad decision at all – it just necessitated the 13th and 14th amendments.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmGood ruling. Discrimination against someone because of race is wrong, no matter what race is being discriminated against.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:27 pmWhere’s Tom DeLay when we need him! He was always railing on and on about activist judges. I’d bet he have something to say about those 5 activist judges, making law from the bench!
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pmwatchdog Says:
How in the hell does a damn test favor one race over another?
June 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
____________
By assuming that all our brains work the same way and that people of all races use the same cognitive processes to solve problems. The fact is that we don’t.
Brain function is a product of human development, and people of different races, socioeconomic backgrounds, cultures, and linguistic origins develop different methods of solving problems. Therefore, a test developed by and for middle-class white Americans will inevitably be biased towards middle-class white Americans, and the scores of minority, low-income, and English-as-second-language takers will suffer as a result.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pmProud Says:
I just hope that Sotomayors confirmation goes as smooth and easy as the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. I think she deserves at least that much.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
***
clarence married limbaugh and his third wife.
it didn’t last.
:|
:)
:\
June 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pmThe trolls are out in force. And with childish names to boot. ‘Mike Hunt’ indeed…
To answer the trollish watchdog’s question of how can a test discriminate.
What is the applicant’s race:
[ ] 1) White (+0 points)
[ ] 2) Black (+5 points)
[ ] 3) Native American (+10 points)
(Etc)
They do that for veterans and former employees as well. It’s designed to, if you have two equally qualified candidates, select the disadvantaged class candidate over the non-disadvantaged class candidate. In the case of vets and former employees, it’s designed to select them over non-vets and non-former employees. I know for certain Colorado weighs applications for former employees and veterans heavier than those for non-vets and normal working class stiffs. If I remember my Louisiana applications well enough, they weight race there as well.
This wouldn’t be necessary in a truly egalitarian society. However, the question on whether or not the US is truly egalitarian is far from closed. In an imperfect world, there are imperfect solutions. However, with the rotting underpinnings of the Republican Conservative movements being grounded in the former Democratic Racists of the American Deep South and their calls for racism being taken up by the Republicans ever since Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ took hold, any calls for alternatives to affirmative action from Republicans are met instantly with suspicion by me.
The 5 conservative members of the Supreme Court have gotten away with the very things that the Base screams fervently against when the rulings don’t go their way. Yet another reason Canada’s been looking good these past 8 going on 9 years…
June 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pmOne of the main problems with the attempts at righting wrongful discrimination with more wrongful discrimination is, for the most part, those in the target groups are not the ones responsible for the original discrimination.
The firefighters being passed over did not take part in the discrimination of the past; but there seems to be the desire to make them pay for it. How does that make sense.
Here’s an analogy:
A woman gets married for the fourth time. The first three marriages ended because her husbands neglected, cheated on, and abused her. Number 4 turns out to be a pretty good husband that treats her okay and doesn’t cheat on her. After she’s been married to number 4 for a few months, she sits him down and explains: “It’s wrong that this has been a man’s world. From now on, I’ll neglect and abuse you, and date all the other men I want. It’s my turn. We’ll see how you like it.”
Her new position isn’t going to promote a better relationship with the new husband. And more importantly, why is the new husband – that is not responsible for the prior abuse – expected to pay for the actions of the husbands that came before?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pmSo if the fact that no minorities are able to pass a test is not a “strong basis in evidence” that the test is biased, what is?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pmwatchdog Says:
Thank you for the laugh!
June 29th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
____________
Are you laughing because you have a strong background in neurological science and my discussion of the subject was comically oversimplified, or just because you’re ignorant and can’t be bothered to educate yourself?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pmbackup Says:
Her new position isn’t going to promote a better relationship with the new husband. And more importantly, why is the new husband – that is not responsible for the prior abuse – expected to pay for the actions of the husbands that came before?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
____________
Fair point, and I’d agree with you if your analogy were analagous. However, the situation in Ricci isn’t quite the same. There is a well-documented history of fire departments using cognitive tests that bias towards white firefighters, despite the fact that performance on a cognitive exam is no predictor of how well a firefighter can climb a ladder or rescue a smoke-inhalation victim.
In order to make your analogy work, the woman would have to have developed a test for husband #4 on, say, art history, and based her marriage decision on his knowledge of French Impressionists, assuming that only someone who could distinguish Monet and Manet could be reliably faithful.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pmwatchdog Says:
Perfect example of liberalism doing all it can to blame everything but the individual for their failure. Nothing is more destructive to a society like the liberal enablers.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
_____________
So you disagree, then, that the brains of white people and black people are different? You believe that every human brain is exactly the same and functions exactly the same way?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pmwatchdog Says:
I think everybody on earth has a unique brain.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
_____________
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Would you also agree that brain development is affected by upbringing, which is a product of factos such as socioeconomic background, ethnic identity, and culture?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pmBackup says:Discrimination against someone because of race is wrong, no matter what race is being discriminated against.
If it was wrong when the white firefighters were not promoted, then it was also wrong when the black and brown firefighters were not promoted. Right?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pmAfter having read the case, I agree with both decisions.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pmI thought Republicans were all about letting states and local governments rule themselves. The City of New Haven determined themselves the test was biased and before anybody sued anybody decided to disallow the test. A court did not decide to disallow the test.
And Ricci, who has a learning disability, sued over the test because he had studied really, really hard and passed the test and then the test was determined to be skewed. I don’t know, maybe the town decided that if a really bad firefighter like Ricci with a learning disability could pass and everybody of color who were far superior firefighters were unable to that maybe the test wasn’t really a good judge of who should be promoted.
And if Ricci needed to be coached and to study really hard to make correct decisions perhaps he’s not the guy to make snap on the job decisions where peoples lives are at risk.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pmWell, watchpuppy? I’m waiting. Do you believe that humans are born with these unique brains and that only genetics are responsible for their uniqueness, or that these unique brains are shaped by external factors such as early child development?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pmTo provide a perspective on racially-biased terms/questions, etc. Here is an example that may enlighten.
Two candidates, one black, one white. Both are asked to write an essay on the ‘Invisible Man.’
The white candidate, based on upbringing and dearth of black literature, may write on H. G. Wells’ book of a scientist who performs an experiment on refractive light.
The black candidate, based on a more ethnocentric upbringing, may write on Ralph Ellison and African American social issues.
While this is a simplistic example, it is one to illustrate that there are a host of disparate upbringings that one culture may consider ‘normal’ exposure, but another would not. To view this in a dominant white-only context, as has been done in this country since inception, is to unconsciously perpetuate one culture’s perception as ’standard’ over another culture, continuing a pattern of subtle dominance.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:50 pmpuppychow, did you ever go back and explain why your first two links and Thinkfast said exactly opposite what you said they did or are you too much of a coward?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmtoasterhead. I agree with your point.
I think the test construction can influence the promotions. You are right about that, and it may be the real issue in this case. I don’t know. I think the answer lies in trying to construct the most objective tests for these promotions or screenings.
I object to the idea that if candidates are equal, we should give the preference to one group over the other. (as implied by other posters and preferential hiring practices or some organizations). That preference to make up for the past.
That’s not true equality.
If the candidates are that evenly matched, the decision should come down to a coin toss. Not discrimination of one group for the benefit of the other.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pmhanshiro. I also agree with you point.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pmyour
June 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pmShall we keep a count of how reports tell the public that the court was split on this – With the conservatives all voting one way and the liberals the other?
June 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI cannot think of a reason why black candidates would not be represented among the passing candidates (other than test construction), but I don’t think automatically throwing out those test results – without examination of the causes for the underrepresentation is correct.
For example. You could take a sampling of draftees of NBA basketball players or inductees to the R+B hall of fame, or members of the Atlanta City Council
http://apps.atlantaga.gov/citycouncil/
and make the assumption that they are under represented by white males due to some form of discrimination. And then call for new elections or new criteria to get a more balanced representation.
That wouldn’t make sense until you have examined the reasons behind the underrepresentation.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pmI can’t help it, rhf. your posts crack me up. Laugh out loud, uncontrollable, crack me up.
Thank you.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pmIt would be foolish for social conservatives to hang their hat on this decision as proof that Sotomayor is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS.
It was a 5-4 decision, meaning that 44% of the court AGREED with her on this matter. So clearly she was not out in left field with her legal opinion.
The reason why we have 9 justices is because the Founding Fathers recognized the value of alternative points of view.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pmThis whole case went off the tracks when New Haven threw out the tests because only one Latino firefighter passed. They were afraid of a lawsuit by those that didn’t pass saying the test was unfair. Forget Sotomayor’s ruling.
Let’s ask the other firefighters who they would rather go into a burning building with, someone who passed the test or someone who failed the test?. I have known volunteer and professional firefighters. It’s not easy by any stretch. They have both written and physical testing. If these guys couldn’t cut it, they need to go back and study up and try again. There should be no short cuts in that line of work.
The real problem here is a lawsuit happy society which lead New Haven into there knee-jerk reaction.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmProud Says:
I just hope that Sotomayors confirmation goes as smooth and easy as the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. I think she deserves at least that much.
I doubt if she sexually harrasses her employees, so she shouldn’t have as much of a problem.
.
backup Says:
One of the main problems with the attempts at righting wrongful discrimination with more wrongful discrimination is, for the most part, those in the target groups are not the ones responsible for the original discrimination.
It’s not “more wrongful discrimination.” New Haven could either throw out the test or not. If they had not thrown out the test, then the black firefighters would have a strong legal case against them. So as it ends up, they were screwed either way. They should have been more careful in preparing the test; that’ll be what employers take from this going forward.
Y’all keep fearing discrimination against white males, but the fact is it isn’t going to happen. The very minor incidents that you treat as equal to the horrific crimes of the past don’t compare at all, and the fact that you think they’re the same thing only provides another example that bigotry against minorities is still alive and well today.
.
CP Says:
Let’s ask the other firefighters who they would rather go into a burning building with, someone who passed the test or someone who failed the test?
Seeing as how this test completely replaced all work history and performance reviews, one might be more inclined to ask who they’d rather go into a burning building with: someone who has demonstrated a long history of competence in going into burning buildings, or somebody who passed a written exam?
June 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pmEl Bruce says:
Seeing as how this test completely replaced all work history and performance reviews, one might be more inclined to ask who they’d rather go into a burning building with: someone who has demonstrated a long history of competence in going into burning buildings, or somebody who passed a written exam?
This was a promotion test. I would imagine their past work history and performance reviews played a large part in them even being in line to take the test. So your argument doesn’t hold water.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pmI’d still like to see the test and see what the problem was.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pmwell, how ’bout that… the WSJ got the gist of the story right…
June 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pmhad to grab ‘em with that headline though…
Supreme Court Rules For White Firefighters
Wall Street Journal – Kristina Peterson, Brent Kendall – ?2 hours ago?
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–The US Supreme Court, voting 5-4 in a case that has been a lightning rod for high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, invalidated a Connecticut city’s decision to scrap the results of a …
joe cantwell Says:
——————————————————————————–
watchdog Says:
How in the hell does a damn test favor one race over another?
June 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
***
how in the the hell did george w. bush
get into yale university with his grades?
:)
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
———————————————————–
How the hell did he get elected twice? :(
June 29th, 2009 at 7:56 pm…
dawn,
i hope we find out before
the statute of limitations runs out.
:|
June 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pmI could have been a firefighter in New Haven but now I can’t because of test score discrimination. That isn’t fair ! They should determine job positions by skin color and not scores. Oh BTW, the test was rigged to the white mans benefits ! I am tired of this BS !
June 29th, 2009 at 9:22 pmMy local TV news is running a poll asking if you agree with the court decision.
That should enlighten things.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:09 amCP Says:
This was a promotion test. I would imagine their past work history and performance reviews played a large part in them even being in line to take the test. So your argument doesn’t hold water.
The facts of the mater > what you “would imagine.”
The test entirely replaced the previous method, which had been based on past work performance.
Thus, my argument still holds water. Should you seek to puncture it, you’ll have to use something more substantial than imaginary ammunition.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:20 amhow in the the hell did george w. bush
get into yale university with his grades?
:)
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
———————————————————–
How the hell did he get elected twice? :(
He didn’t.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am