The entirety of Sotomayor's opinion is this:
There are no precedents cited, no legal reasoning given, no expostulation of any law whatsoever.We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
Had Sotomayor done as you state, and merely applied precedent incorrectly, her handling of the case would have been less susceptible to challenge.
The problem with Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci is not that she did her job badly or incorrectly. The problem is that she did not do her job at all.
In this case it was particularly unusual, so much so that another appellate judge, Jose Cabranes, sought a rehearing of the case en banc (with all thirteen appellate judges participating), and that the denial of a rehearing was narrowly decided by the appellate court 7-6.
It is worth noting that, in the order of denial of a rehearing, even the concurring judges had more commentary on the case than Sotomayor offered up in the per curiam opinion. That such commentary can be made is strong evidence that there was more substance to the case than appeared in the summary per curiam opinion. That the Supreme Court saw fit to reverse is even stronger evidence that there were substantive matters of law that were simply ignored in that summary opinion.
His "troubled" work history has no bearing on his ability to pass an exam for a promotion and then get denied that promotion due to racial discrimination.then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony
It's a game of cat and mouse, no doubt, however, there is nothing inappropriate in him testifying against her at her confirmation hearings. He was directly affected by a decision she made that was wrong and overturned by a higher court. Because he is speaking out, he'll now get ravaged like all the others who stand up to the will of the Dalai Bama.let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
The politics of personal destruction.
Followed by the childness of "they did it first".
Concluding with fewer quality individuals in positions of leadership.
Return to Step 1 and continue, ad infinitum
How much longer will the governed continue to shrug?
I don't even know what your blurb on Facism being leftwing is all about but that just defies logic and understanding of the history and development of Nazism and Facism.
I think that the fireman's case can better be served without comparing or dragging that fraud Joe the Non-Plumber as a comparison.
“I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr
When I saw that not one African American had ranked high enough in the test I immediately thought, "something's got to be wrong with the test".
I'm conservative usually, but this just didn't smell right to me.
From reading I did find that there was an oral part to the test that was subjective, so I don't know what to think.
But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American.
Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.
"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.