See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Sotomayor Racist Decision Overturned by Supreme Court re: White Firefighters « VotingFemale Speaks!
2. Racist, bigoted Sotomayor repudiated by SCOTUS | The TIW Blog
3. Time Magazine Darkens Sotomayor Cover?
4. The Confirmation Hearings Just Got More Interesting « Around The Sphere
5. Bloodthirsty Liberal » So-So by Name, So-so by Legal Acumen [UPDATED]
6. PAXALLES
7. Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
8. Right Wing News
9. Reverse Racism « GOP Counter Culture
10. Sotomayor Overturned « The Climate Heretic
11. Sonia Sotomayor Overruled (again) by SCOTUS | Axis of Right
12. Sotomayor reversed again - Tundra Solutions Forum
13. The Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor In Firefighter Case « Goodtimepolitics
14. Racism rejected: SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor in firefighters case
15. Supreme Court To Sotomayor: You Blew It… Again « Grand Rants
16. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of White and Hispanic Firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano  | OpenMarket.org
17. Jeremiah Films
18. WHEW! (Open Thread) « Sister Toldjah
19. Got Tea? Where are the jobs? « Jim Blazsik
20. La Raza Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
21. Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor, Rules for White Firefighters over Promotions « Frugal Café Blog Zone
22. High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit « Dark Brightness
23. Dirty Democrats » Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way
24. More Monday Reading
25. Sotomayor reversed again. It’s Haiku time « Nuke Gingrich
26. Sotomayor’s ruling overturned « Dianej
27. Supreme Court overturns Sotomayor on Ricci v DeStefano - rightofcourse.com
28. 9 Out Of 9 Supreme Court Justices Disagree With Sotomayor « Tai-Chi Policy
29. The Lioness
30. Sotomayor chosen as SC nominee (academic discussion) - Page 18 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum
31. Steynian 369 « Free Canuckistan!
32. Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor Judgment — Where’s a Wise Latina Woman on the Court When You Need One? « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
33. What the Media won't tell you about Judge Sotomayor | The Patriot's Mind
34. Friday’s Funnies: Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Judge Nomination Political Cartoons « Frugal Café Blog Zone
35. Stop The ACLU
36. Democrat Attack Dogs Waiting to Leap on Frank Ricci: SCOTUS Hearings for Sonia Sotomayor Begin Today « Frugal Café Blog Zone
37. Excellence In America
38. Sonia Sotomayor’s SCOTUS Hearing, Day 2: Judicial Activism, Ricci v DeStefano, & “Wise Latina” Remarks « Frugal Café Blog Zone
39. Franken & Sotomayor Share ‘Perry Mason’ Memories… Franken Loves the Sound of His Own Voice « Frugal Café Blog Zone
40. As Expected: Senate Panel Endorses SCOTUS Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #733010
   On June 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

   As you will note, taking ALL my comments into consideration, I credited the fact that Ruthie hates this case and shows barely disguised contempt for the majority. She does not limit herself to question of law, but attacks facts, as well.

   However, the essential question here was, “Was the District Court justified in granting summary judgment in favor of the City”?

   There is unanimity as to that question; the majority holding that it was not only NOT justified, but that the reverse was true. The dissent did not disagree with the holding that the trial court could not grant summary judgment for the City on the facts involved.

   You are free to regard that as substantial. I regard it as procedural, though it does have some aspects that put it in the margins between the two.

2. #733012
   On June 29th, 2009 at 10:39 pm, bluesoc said:

   The dissent did not disagree with the holding that the trial court could not grant summary judgment for the City on the facts involved.

   I’m not quite sure where you are getting this from.

   However, the dissent does say that New Haven’s actions DO NOT violate Title VII. That is a major disagreement, and it is substantive.

3. #733178
   On June 30th, 2009 at 8:04 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

   I had been following Ricci v. De Stefano for awhile and wonder where does it end.

   Which is more importnat-The abilties of the applicants or their skin color when it comes to doing the job?

   Everyone recieved the exact same set of standards; recommended book lists, same amount of prep time, an approved FF union testing standard, and a Race-Gender Neutral exam prepared by an outside testing agency.

   Unfortunately it has becoming increasing obvious that even if the playing field is equal to everyone, claims of racism will still come from the liberal minority community unless they are promoted proportionate to the community.

   It is so longer about promoting (or hiring) the best person on ability, but equal outcome in spite of the whether a minority is academically qualified for the position they are working towards.

   Other than hurting qualified non-black candiates, this also hurts qualified black candiates because they are not viewed with having achieved the promotion (or job) without the benefit of a quota system and their accomplishments are tainted by other minorities who vocally demand a lower standard to acheive comparable success with whites or asians.

   I have seen racism come from the black community directed towards whites and asians in Memphis and it has reached a point that they are moving to the suburbs and working outside of the Memphis area. In my case, I am taking my college degrees and moving as soon as possible.

   America has a long way to go to deal with its problems of racism, but you can’t fight past racism with racism today against individuals that were not involved in America’s past racial problems (ie slavery, and the 1950’s civil rights struggles).

   I have seen the face of the modern racist and its a combination of; 1) liberal white guilt manifested in our government and nations schools, 2) the minorities that are waiting around for a handout because they believe that they either cannot succeed on their own or that they are OWED success without work or self-sacrifice and 3) until the minority culture as a whole stands up for the racial demogoges in their community and vocally condems the racism coming from the pulpits and those that claim to speak on their behalf-Racism will continue to flourish without any end in sight.

   GSP
   Congrats Ricci and et al-You guys did a great job!

4. #733207
   On June 30th, 2009 at 9:26 am, EdDantes said:

   How is this for a money statement:

   Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure
   to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.
   When you read the argument, you’ll see that she vehemently opposes the “strong basis in evidence” standard. This is not a procedural disagreement.

   Yes, money statement proving that her understanding of the law is that when white’s are discriminated against, it’s not a violation of Title VII.

   If you read the concurring and dissenting opinions, you will see that New Haven NEVER had an alternative testing method and had NO reason whatsoever to deny Ricci et al senior positions other than not enough minorities passed the test.

   In order for this not to be a violation of Title VII, the department would have to find other reasons not to promote them based on performance, attitude, etc.

   These guys didn’t get promoted because not enough minorities passed the test. It wasn’t about their job history and wasn’t about their abilities. It was all about race. Period.

   “Strong basis in evidence?” The person that she quotes most often is the CEO of a competing company to the company who administered the test who admitted to not reading or studying the test before giving his testimony, but still recommended certifying the results because they were within the accepted range.

   Ginsberg brings up other towns who use different testing methods, but this is irrelevant to this case, because, at the time, New Haven had no alternative method. Her reason for addressing this is to prove that alternative testing methods lead to more minorities in leadership positions, not to a more productive or effective firefighting brigade.

   New Haven should choose a test that puts the best firefighters in place for senior leadership positions regardless of race.

   Ginsberg says:

   I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity.

   Again, the process was flawed in her mind because not enough minorities passed the test. How does that equate to business necessity?

5. #733256
   On June 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am, Gorebot said:

   I love it when the racial bean-counters get things so twisted that even a pretzel would become dizzy.

   In a pathetic sense, one can almost feel sympathy for New Haven. Now, all cities everywhere will pre-emptively fear a lawsuit by whichever group is the racial victim-class of the day.

   Identity politics devours itself in its malicious, bitter, unyielding hunger for “justice”. How sweet.

   PS to all race-baiting grievance-mongers: Mother Nature herself is a “Disparate Impacter”. Are ya gonna sue her too?

6. #733377
   On June 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am, englishqueen01 said:

   When your house is burning down or your life in danger, is the first thought that crosses your mind:

   A) “Gee, I hope my first responders are racially diverse!”

   OR

   B) “I sure hope my first responders are physically and mentally competent to do their jobs!”

   If you answered A, you might be a liberal.

   If you answered B, you are sane.