Civil Rights Victory!

[The New Guy]

a modern day civil rights victory was had today. several employees who were passed over for promotion based solely on the color of their skin were redeemed by the SCOTUS:

story here


i'm sure jesse and al are rejoicing.

[subdjoe]

Have you noticed that it is the so-called liberals on the Court how have been attacking our rights? They voted here for colour over character. In Heller they voted State over citizen. And the same in Kelo - said that the State could strip the property from anyone and give it to another if the State thought it could make more money by the transfer. Not to mention their constant attacks on the 1st.

To sum up, so far the libs have managed to go agianst the freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly,and free exercise clauses in the 1st. Working hard to eliminate the 2nd. We have the Kelo decision to take out the 4th & 5th. plus playing fast and loose with the 9th, 10th, & 14th, picking and choosing which negates which depending on the legislation and rights involved.

[mrbose]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608.html?hpid=topnews

Nobody has an inherent right to a promotion, so nobody was "penalized." All the Court said in its ruling was that the expectation of a lawsuit is not sufficient grounds for throwing out the results of this test. The Court did NOT say that the 19 firefighters who passed the test and were eligible for promotion must be promoted or that the city of New Haven couldn't throw out the results of the test for different reasons, it just ruled that the expectation of a lawsuit based on a "disparate impact" from the test is not enough of a legal justification.

[saunterelle]

Bose, thanks for the clarification.

[capttankona]

Yes, but Justices on both sides of the isle said this case should have been considered at the lower court of appeals as well. Meaning, the leftist Justices erred in failing to give it a review. That is a clear strike against them, including Sotomayor.

[subdjoe]

For the text of the decison: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

(sorry, ella, I couldn't find a 200 word, sunday supliment level version for you. Maybe check the Chron, it should have a dumbed down and politically corrected version blaming Bush for you to read)

from the decision:

"We conclude that [glow=red,2,300]race-based action like the City’s [/glow]in thiscase is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute."

Note:"race-based action"

From the decision: "[glow=red,2,300]All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the exami-nation results because of the statistical disparity based on race[/glow]—i.e., how minority candidates had performed whencompared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, [glow=red,2,300]the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted werethe lists to be certified[/glow].” 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 152; see also ibid. (respondents’ “own arguments . . . show that the City’s reasons for advocating non-certification were re-lated to the racial distribution of the results”). Without some other justification, this express, race-based deci-sionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employerscannot take adverse employment actions because of anindividual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1)."

Note the highlighted parts. And Sonia says that was OK, that the State at any level my discriminate based on race.

[jgaffney]

The bottom line is that the city wanted to throw out the results, and the two lower courts supported it, because the results of the affirmative action program did not live up to expectations. Liberals focus on results, where conservatives focus on opportunities.

The test that was administered to the candidates was certified by an independent agency to be race-neutral. However, when it did not produce the desired results, the city took steps to throw out the results, thus trampling on the constitutional rights of those candidates that applied themselves (what a concept!) and did well on the test.

[capttankona]

Actually, liberals focus on outcomes, not results. The outcome of the "race neutral" test did not appear race neutral, so they wanted to get rid of it. God forbid that we focus on actual performance, then how will all these people get what they deserve are entitled to based on the color of their skin?

[harpman1]

If they didn't have race to scream about, they would find another societal inequity to bludgeon us with.

The only people who care about race anymore are those who will use it as a weapon.

[joe]

Jun 30, 2009 0:17:26 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

Have you noticed that it is the so-called liberals on the Court how have been attacking our rights? They voted here for colour over character. In Heller they voted State over citizen. And the same in Kelo - said that the State could strip the property from anyone and give it to another if the State thought it could make more money by the transfer. Not to mention their constant attacks on the 1st.

To sum up, so far the libs have managed to go agianst the freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly,and free exercise clauses in the 1st. Working hard to eliminate the 2nd. We have the Kelo decision to take out the 4th & 5th. plus playing fast and loose with the 9th, 10th, & 14th, picking and choosing which negates which depending on the legislation and rights involved.

Eric Holder has stated - "I Would Restrict The First Amendment On The Internet".

Nothing to see here....

[jgaffney]

CapttanKona, you say "tomato," I say "to-mah-to." The end result, or outcome, is the same.

Joe, do you have a link to that Eric Holder quote?

[capttankona]

Jul 1, 2009 14:54:18 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

CapttanKona, you say "tomato," I say "to-mah-to." The end result, or outcome, is the same.

Joe, do you have a link to that Eric Holder quote?

I love ya man... ;D