Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

This task may very well fall to Hillary Clinton.

Lower court judges get overruled all the time. That's why we have appellate courts. Not every ruling that gets overturned amounts to a "big slap to the judge or judges responsible for the ruling." A 5-4 margin on the supreme court means that four of the justices would have sided with the lower court judges who, according to the other five justices, screwed up. That's hardly a decisive slap-down, certainly not the kind of complete rejection of the lower court that a 9-0 or 8-1 margin would have conveyed.

Do you think Hillary will run against PrezBO in 2012?

I think this is the GOP grasping a straws being aided by the media which sees "a slap in the face" as good for ratings.

Actually, I was thinking 2016.

How can she run against O boy in 16?

Obviously she won't. She might of run against Mark Sanford, that is, if he were in favor of upholding the Sanctity of Marriage.

That would be like running against her own husband... very strange.

Chalk one up for the good guys.

Supreme Court Sides With White Firefighters in Discrimination Case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied
promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Here's the link to the opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

It's a five to four decision along the following familiar lines:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

The Constitution grants power to Congress to enact laws to remedy discrimination. The law clearly and unambiguously requires employers to consider the disparate impact that hiring or promotion methods may have on minorities. Both the city and the court of appeals applied the law as written. The ultra-conservative wing of the Supreme Court, however, placed adherence to its own ideology above the law. Nothing new there.

When all is said and done, 21 federal judges considered the question presented. 11 of them (including Sotomayor) ruled one way; 10 of them ruled the other way. The final outcome of this case will not affect Sotomayor's nomination. It will, however, give vast numbers of minorities more reason to distrust and vote against conservative Republicans who clobber them at every opportunity.

Debra;

What is your take on the required restitution to the plaintiffs? Must they be promoted? Are they owed cash? Since no one was promoted, how will the lower court determine restitution?

Liberals love to enslave minorities while whispering "trust us" we have your best interest at heart.

When will minorities wake up and see the deception?

§ 1981a. Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment

(a) Right of recovery

(1) Civil rights

In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e"5, 2000e"16] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under section 703, 704, or 717 of the Act [42 U.S.C. 2000e"2, 2000e"3, 2000e"16], and provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.

* * *
(b) Compensatory and punitive damages

(1) Determination of punitive damages

A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.

(2) Exclusions from compensatory damages

Compensatory damages awarded under this section shall not include backpay, interest on backpay, or any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e"5 (g)].

(3) Limitations

The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party"

(A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000;

(B) in the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000; and

(C) in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000; and

(D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000.

* * *

________________________________

§ 2000e"5. Enforcement provisions

* * *
(g) Injunctions; appropriate affirmative action; equitable relief; accrual of back pay; reduction of back pay; limitations on judicial orders

(1) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the Commission. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.

* * *

Since when is Anthony Kennedy "Ultra-Conservative?



You may be correct there. Heaven FORBID people are judged by the content of their character. Lord help us if people have to earn their promotion.

We should never again expect that the best and brightest move up the ladder of success. That is what you suggest with that silly statement of yours.

Apparently reason and common sense are foreign to you.

You are the same person who gripes about equal rights for homosexuals. Yet, when equal rights are violated against white people, you seem to not care too much.

You forgot one other thing. Now that equality has been obtained and most of the cultural resistance to acceptance of certain groups has been overcome, heaven forbid that people be recognized as capable and qualified on their own initiative rather than beneficiaries of the generosity of Affirmative Action. How cruel is it to demand that formerly oppressed groups be forever suspect that they did not obtain their status or position on merit rather than quotas or mandates? Affirmative Action was absolutely necessary to break down those cultural barriers when it was first implemented. But that war has been fought and won. It is now time to retire Affirmative Action entirely and let folks take advantage of the doors of opportunity that it opened. Otherwise we never allow society to judge people based on the content of their character. We force them to be forever discriminatory.

When did this happen?

I think what foxy meant was that Affirmative Action for entry level McDonald's jobs and lettuce harvesting in California should be discontinued.

No, that is NOT what I meant. One of my very best friends in the world was a highly educated, intelligent, and brilliant professional black woman--I lost her to cancer a few years ago. She had qualifications many in her field would have killed for, but she was aware of the comments behind her back: She was the 'token black woman', the 'quota' employee, she should be in support of Affirmative Action because it opened the door for her, etc.

A colleague in Kansas, head of the city personnel and human resources department, was frustrated in the same way though he graduated from college Magna Cum Laude and was imminently qualified for the position he held. But he never felt accepted as an equal but was painfully aware that he was seen as the 'essential black man' to balance an otherwise too white work force.

How many times do we see minorities excoriated on A2K when they are lukewarm or opposed to Affirmative Action now--how many times do we see that they are expected to appreciate what Affirmative Action did for them? what kindness is it to any minority or formerly oppressed groups to force them to be consistantly suspect as to whether they earned their position in life or were awarded it? Why not take down the last of the stigma so that those who earn and merit their status in life can be appreciated for the fact that they did?

Why don't you provide an answer to that? I've never seen any evidence of this. I think you're living in your reactionary fantasy world again.