Tuesday, June 30, 2009

A Victory For Civil Rights

"Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

It's about time we had some good news to blog about. Presented here is this week's (or this years) good news:

The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has reversed Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision in New Haven Connecticut's Ricci v. DeStefano lawsuit.

For those of you who have been living in a subterranean cave somewhere for the last several weeks, this case is a victory for true civil rights.

From Wikipedia, "In November and December 2003, the New Haven Fire Department administered written and oral examinations for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain.[3] The City's Department of Human Resources issued an RFP for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions ("IOS") designed the examinations.[4] Under the contract between the City and the New Haven firefighters' union, the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant's score and the oral exam for 40%. Those with a total score above 70% on the exam would pass".

To make this unnecessarily long story short, the bottom line is: Mr Ricci passed the test for Lieutenant, but the City of New Haven threw out the results of the test because no black firefighters received scores high enough to qualify for one of the eight open positions for lieutenant.

It seems the city was afraid some black firefighters would sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As it turned out, Frank Ricci sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, Barack Hussein Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Sonia Sotomayor, in an appellate court decision, ruled that the city of New Haven was correct in rejecting the test scores. We must assume she based her decision on her "empathy" for the black firefighters who didn't study as hard for the test as Mr. Ricci.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of decisions we can expect from a Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor should she be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Souter was right when he described Ricci vs De Stafano as a case of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation".

But, to the Supreme Court's credit, they reversed Sotomayor's obviously racist, biased opinion.

The press has labeled this action as a "reverse discrimination" case, but that's not what it is at all. The term "Reverse Discrimination" is a misnomer. It implies there is no discrimination at all. One either discriminates or one doesn't. Just because the so-called victim is white instead of black, it is no less discrimination than it is if the victim is black.

In either case it is discrimination.

Now, the good news isn't only that justice was finally served in the Ricci case.

It's also good news that Judge Sonia will have this case to answer to when she undergoes scrutiny from the Senate in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Along with the fact that 60% of her cases have been overturned in higher courts. If her nomination is rejected by the Congress, Obama will have to wait a little bit longer to complete his Marxist takeover of the Supreme Court, and the United States. A small victory, I admit.

To me, it's a no-brainer.

Sotomayor is totally, completely, absolutely unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, and this case may very well be the deciding factor in her confirmation process.

That's assuming the lawmakers have a sense of justice of their own.

Which, I admit, is perhaps asking a little too much of our erstwhile Senators.


Lindsay said...

UNFORTUNATELY...Congress approves the President's nomination...

Hopefully more Democrats will have a backbone against Pelosi, unlike those 8 Republicans, and will stand up against her confirmation.

On a side note she is replacing a liberal vote, and she's painfully obnoxious with her hispanic feminist ways so hopefully she won't swing the conservative votes on the court...

Lindsay said...

So I guess that means everyone has to write letters AGAIN reminding their Congressmen of what they should already know...

Mark said...

Hi Lindsay. I am starting to think we'd have better luck pulling homeless people off the streets and running them for Congress.

But this case may force the Senate to look more closely at Judge Sonia's nomination, and start thinking about the repercussions of confirming her. With all the recent revelations of impropriety by public officials, they just might end up being a defendant in her court, and I don't think they'd relish a judge making decisions based on feelings.

Lindsay said...

I hope not. My little faith is quickly crumbling...

Most Rev. Gregori said...

It is a breath of fresh air that the Supreme Court has finally showed signs of common sense.

However, I believe that "Soda Mayor" WILL be confirmed because the Democrats hold all the cards and they will support their Messiah's nominee all the way.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Mark, there is an award awaiting you on my blog.

Jim said...

Actually, your activist judges didn't reverse Sotomayor and the District Court. They reversed the Supreme Court. The District Court ruled based on Supreme Court precedent, as they should. In this decision, this court has changed its own rules. Read the ruling.

Mark said...

Jim I won't argue that point. But I will question your employment of the term "Activist judges".

I would argue that the Supreme Court simply applied the civil rights act of 1964, and applied it correctly.

You seem to imply that Ricci and the other firefighters were not victims of racial discrimination. If that's true, why do you think that?

According to Liberally biased Wikipedia, "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

Is that language clear enough for you? How does this bill conflict with the courts judgment?

Do you, like so many other Liberals, think racism is only a one way street?

Is it not racist discrimination when blacks deny racial equality to whites, or do you think it is only discrimination if it's the other way around?

And if so, please do us all a favor and explain the difference.

As an aside, Jim, did you know it was the Democratic party that fought the passage of this law? Did you know it was the Republicans that championed this bill, over the objections of Southern Democrats? Did you know Democrat President Lyndon Johnson opposed the civil rights bill, signing it only because of pressure from the Republican party?

In light of this knowledge do you still believe the Conservatives are the racists?

Jim said...

"I will question your employment of the term "Activist judges"." They made new rules, reversing their own precedent.

"You seem to imply that Ricci and the other firefighters were not victims of racial discrimination. If that's true, why do you think that?"

Simple, there was no intent to discriminate against white firefighters. None whatsoever. The city simply feared that they would be sued by non-white firefighters under Title VII because no blacks passed the test, so they threw out the test as unfair.

"Is it not racist discrimination when blacks deny racial equality to whites". Sure it is, but of course that is simply not the case here, is it? Perhaps a wrong decision, but in no way was it discriminatory, reverse discrimination, or whatever else you want to call it.

Don't you ever read the details of these situations before you comment? Fox and friends are looking for anything to rag on Sotomayor and make Obama look bad. So pretty much anything they say is suspect. That's why I usually do a little research before I write.

As an aside, I don't particularly care who supported what 45 years ago. All those Democrats who fought against civil rights in the South became Republicans afterwards which is why the entire South is "red" now. On the other hand, I would dispute that Johnson opposed the legislation, rather he used his legislative expertise to get the bill through Congress after JFK was assassinated. Furthermore the final vote by Democrats by percent was:

House: 63% for 37% against
Senate: 69% for 31% against

Doesn't seem like the Democrats really fought that hard against passage, does it?

Anonymous said...

For many years Get Viagra Diminish Apothecary has been recognizable surrounded by unequalled online pharmacy suppliers and customers nearly discount Viagra Online the world.