Why Are The Conservative Justices The Ones Who Rule In Favor Of The Racially-Discriminated While The Liberals Oppose Them? New Haven, Connecticut Part II…
Not that long ago, our so-called “liberal” SCOTUS justices ruled in favor of “Big Bidness” during the Kelo Decision (a.k.a., Eminent Domain) while the so-called “conservative” justices ruled in a “rarity” in favor of We, The Little Guy -slash- Gal. The nation was notably shocked and we Libertals (REAL ones) were throwing our hands up, asking ourselves “WTF????” Remember that?
Fast-forward to today — this same SCOTUS has a rough (?) decision to rule upon — five men of a certain race and skin color in New Haven, Connecticut — the home town of soon-to-be-unemployed Associate Supreme Court Justice David Souter, wished to advance to managerial positions within the township’s fire department. They weren’t the only ones — there were other people of minority blood who were also sharing the same aspirations, by the way. With so many competent first responders interested in managerial positions within the NHFD, the NHFD did the right thing — they hired a private company to produce an unbiased knowledge test and administered it to all who were interested in chasing the American Dream — to move up in rank at their jobs and earn a comparable and justified raise in pay. Fifty-six people passed the test but unfortunately, the highest scorers had the wrong racial makeup so the test results were dumped completely. Two minorities were overrepresented and it “just wouldn’t look good” to give higher opportunities to people of the same race, the township of New Haven, Connecticut decided (The New York Times).
The highest scoring minority firefighters, passed over, took exception and took New Haven to court over it while President Barack Hussein Obama’s top (so-called) “liberal” SCOTUS nominee, the latina justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled in favor of the township and against the discriminated, citing precedent in her opinion, as she should have. The discriminated victims disagreed and took their fight to the Supreme Court of The United States in desparation. The SCOTUS found in favor of the discriminated men, thus overturning Sotomayor’s decision. Strangely, the majority who ruled in favor of the discriminated minority of firemen were the (so-called) “conservative” justices while the dissenting justices who ruled against them were the so-called “liberal” justices. Every bit as stunning as the reversal of ideological makeup of the Kelo Decision’s majority.
Of course, by now, you probably realize the first responing discriminees had the wrong skin color and gender. They happened to be caucasian males — the ones who scored the highest on the examination. Potential SCOTUS Associate Justice and Obama appointee — a minority herself, had ruled against them before her potential brethren in the nation’s highest court said “Oops — close but no cigar!” So, what does this mean for Ms. Sotomayor?
It means she did the right thing from the “Strict Constitutional Constructionist” point of view. She relied upon precedent, which had been previously established at her particular level of employment in the Judicial Branch of our government. It also means she made the WRONG decision based upon President Obama’s expectation of Ms. Sotomayor to implement her own life experiences into her decisions from the bench of the SCOTUS. Being a minority herself, she should have been more than happy to look past the color of the discriminees’ skin and toss precedence out of the window before making her final and ill-fated ruling…
Again, I ask — where and who are the REAL “Liberals” and the REAL “Conservatives” (capitalized on purpose) when you need ‘em?
***
Other bloggers weigh in: The Drudge Retort (Left) offers a great Yellow Dog Democrat discussion as usual; Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish (The Atlantic — Moderate) is also scratching his head over this one; John Cole of Balloon Juice (Left) says the “Righties” are portraying this as a 9-0 ruling against Sotomayor; Jazz Shaw of The Moderate Voice seems to be on my own brain level on the issue; Don Surber of The Charleston Daily Mail (Right) is more direct — says this proves Sotomayor was “wrong“…
Loading ...
1:04 am on June 30th, 2009 1
Guns asked: “Why Are The Conservative Justices The Ones Who Rule In Favor Of The Racially-Discriminated While The Liberals Oppose Them?”
Because them thar EEEE-vvilllll conservative justices are pretty much Jeffersonian Liberals at heart. The believe that the law is colour blind. It is the Souters and Ginsbergs that want everything judged or apportioned by race. Oh, and Don~a Sotomayor did not do “the right thing from the “Strict Constitutional Constructionist” point of view” because she says the law is not color blind.
Oh, you missed another one where the liberals (miniscule intended) on the Court ruled against the Constitution – Kelo. You know, the one that had Queen Nancy dancing in the streets because the the 5th amendments ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” along with the 4ths “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” were tossed out?
So, lets 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.
9:05 am on June 30th, 2009 2
Basically Im just disappointed here. I thought a Hispanic Woman would have more knowledge of what was right then a White Male justice.
Dang you just can’t believe anyone anymore.
10:58 am on June 30th, 2009 3
I could be completely wrong about this, but wouldn’t it be poetic justice, regardless of how good or bad for the country, that Sotomayer on the Supreme Court turned out to be a hard-right conservative. Wasn’t Souter nominated by Reagan because he was believed to be conservative? I’m pro choice in a sort of sick twisted way, I believe parents should have the right to abort their kids up to at least the child’s 12th birthday. But that being said, I would have to laugh it Sotomayer was the one who turns the balance on Roe v. Wade.
12:37 pm on June 30th, 2009 4
If you want to wade through the decision youself: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
Read it and draw your own conclusions.
12:40 pm on June 30th, 2009 5
Justice should be blind to race, but it is not now and never has been.
“Justice” Sotomayor was nominated because of her race even more than her “qualifications”. Many of her decisions have been racially biased and racially motivated, not just this one.
The democrats=liberals have never been able to swallow, much less digest the fact that President Bush’s administration was the most racially and ethnically diverse administration ever. Much more diverse than Clinton’s. And the members of this diverse group were chosen based on their qualifications, not just because of their race or ethnicity.
Obama is trying to create as diverse a group as President Bush did, but as with ALL his other plans and policies, he is FAILING.
1:00 pm on June 30th, 2009 6
Joe — thanks for the correction — I had “Heller” on the brain for some reason but it WAS the Kelo decision I was referring to
1:42 pm on June 30th, 2009 7
What correction? You were correct about Heller.
12:29 am on July 1st, 2009 8
really batting 1000 aren’t they? i loved Alito’s straightforward language in it. “what they’ve been deprived of is what the law guarantees them: non-discrimination”. normally stating the obvious is drole, but from the bench it’s become a rare commodity. go Sammy.
i’ve always thought of Strict Constructionism as literalist readings of the C, tho, not adherence to precedent. rather it’s the willingness to toss precedent when precedent is wrong. it *corrects* activism not supports it.
and Sotomayor IS a conservative – in the BAD way of being a total apologist for authority and pretty much gutted the exclusionary rule in this ruling aloowing the use of evidence obtained from an illegal search if the police “believed the search was valid at the time” – in this case an expired warrant.
she’s a former prosecutor afterall and was known as a hanging judge, unless of course the defendent appealed to her “personal experience”.. very good WSJ article linked to above, do check it out.. here’s a “money quote” from it:
“Judge Sotomayor, he says, took into account the fact that the defendant was a first-time offender who made far less money than other conspiracy participants.
Michael Bachner, a New York defense lawyer who has handled trials and appeals before Judge Sotomayor, senses a divide in her criminal jurisprudence. She can be “very tough” on white-collar defendants from privileged backgrounds, but is “more understanding of individuals who grew up in a tougher circumstance.”
Guess those firefighters just didn’t have tough enough childhoods for her.. i grew up in a tough Irish-Itralian hood in South Philly and had to *run* home from school everyday, wonder if she’d cut me slack? the Itralians used to call me “Casper” for bein’ so white!! i suffered plenty dangit!
“Don~a”, hehe.. poli-slang etymologists take note: you heard it here first!
Don (feminime: Don~a): (executive) a megalomaniacal politician who seeks to control all aspects of the the social and economic lives of his/her perceived subjects; (judicial) a jurist who makes legal decisions based on personal value judgments and upholds precedents based on same (see “consigliere”).
(28 also claims credit for the term “trip hop” and has the facts to prove it!).
2:59 am on July 1st, 2009 9
Yeah, it fits, doesn’t it? She being so proud of being Latina, and oh, so much better than those white men.
I wiah I could get the tilde’ over the n where it belongs.
9:06 am on July 1st, 2009 10
Joe: i got the tilde thing
it’s somewhat comforting that she follows precedent cuz it shows she’s not *too* activist, except that most historical SCOTUS decisions *are* activist (including the beknighted-but-belaboured Heller i’m afraid). so what we need is judges that are willing to dethrone those naked emperors (the precedents that is, not the Other 8 Kings, although…). but when she has a chance to set Constitution-respecting precedents, such as that exclusionary-rule case, she gives the government the “benefit of the doubt”, which is exactly what the Constitution *doesn’t* do. a bit worriesome.
i think she does carefully research and consider her decisions, but her logic is often a bit strained, desperately seeking to justify government activity – in other words, she’ll fit right in..