New Haven Firefighters: Content Wins
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, has sided with time-honored American values of merit and equal protection. The high-profile case, Ricci v. Destefano, involved New Haven firefighters who, after earning high scores on a promotion exam, saw the city throw out the results because of the color of their skin.
Because only whites and Hispanics (and no blacks) scored high enough on the test to be promoted, the city opted for the politically correct route and refused to certify the results. While New Haven's efforts to promote more diversity in its fire department were admirable, good intentions do not excuse the city's blatantly race-based decision.
That the lead plaintiff in the case is white is irrelevant. The ideals enshrined in the 14th Amendment ("No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") apply to all citizens, and anyone who believes in them should regard the Ricci case as a victory.
The court overturned a previous decision from the 2nd Circuit, which had offered a terse and unsigned opinion that upheld the city's right to throw out the exam results. Sitting on the three-judge panel that made the ruling: Judge Sonia Sotomayor. As the Senate approaches confirmation hearings for Sotomayor's nomination to the High Court, Americans should ponder the facts of the Ricci case -- and Sotomayor's decision, which illuminates her judicial philosophy.
Reader Reactions
The Supreme Court was right. Sotomayor was wrong again.The only concern is that 4 members of the Supreme Court apparently supported a politically correct, racially tinged verdict.
Is that progress?
This ruling is the first volley in what Justice Scalia noted to be a “day of reckoning” that will eventually arrive.
Sir,
I recommend that the editors of the Times Dispatch take a few minutes to read the opinion of the court.
1) The court’s opinion (a 5-4 split) states only that the city did not demonstrate a disparate impact under Title VII and specifically states: “In light of our ruling under the
statutes, we need not reach the question whether respondents’ actions may have violated the Equal Protection
Clause.“
2) The Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit’s decision to uphold the district court’s decision was a judicially CONSERVATIVE decision based on precedence and stare decisis.
3) A true examination of Sotomayor’s record shows a neutral to center-right jurist who has made many pro-business decisions.
4) Despite what some may claim, the Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases per year. The cases that it hears are one’s in which significant legal ambiguity exists (often times, so called circuit splits). The Supreme Court’s overturning of a verdict does not indicate that the prior judges were wrong. Instead, the Supreme Court has clarified or changed a controversial area of the law.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement