SCOTUS rules in blow to "affirmative action"

[Okla-homey]

If you have a hiring test, and decide to throw out your test in order to hire people who didn't pass, that's not allowed. Thus saieth the Supremes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html

[Scott D]

interesting, you say it was a 'hiring test'. Other places say it was a 'promotion test'.

[Okla-homey]

interesting, you say it was a 'hiring test'. Other places say it was a 'promotion test'.

Same diff. Lots of lessons from this case. Including among them it's legally risky to dumb-down hiring/admissions standards in the interest of promoting diversity.

In this particular case, the FD gave a test for lieutenant promotions. No black folks passed, so the city decided not to promote anyone. The folks who passed sued, and SCOTUS agreed they got scru-ed.

[Dio]

I think we're missing the key point here:

Somewhere there's a judge named "Robert Sack"

[AlbqSooner]

Justice Ginsburg said something to the effect that she does not think this decision will be enduring. Given the currect administration's propensity to deal with what it deems to be disappointments by either legislation or executive order, she may be right.

Can you say Promotions Czar?

[Okla-homey]

Justice Ginsburg said something to the effect that she does not think this decision will be enduring. Given the currect administration's propensity to deal with what it deems to be disappointments by either legislation or executive order, she may be right.

Can you say Promotions Czar?

I'm with the Chief Justice; the surest and most direct way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.

[AlbqSooner]

What a concept!

[sooner ngintunr]

Why not end discrimination by institutionalizing it? Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

Government, uh, I mean dear leader always knows what is fair.

[MojoRisen]

Institutionalize Racism - Leaders will have to step up. Little girls from both or all races only apply BCS logic to it. If you are going to compete, just simply compete... If you need help to compete, please don't be 30 + years old with a vendetta.

[tommieharris91]

This is how judges should legislate from the bench. They did the right thing today.

[JohnnyMack]

This is how judges should legislate from the bench. They did the right thing today.

From what I understand of this case, what the SCOTUS did was legislating from the bench. What Sotomayor did was to simply interpret the law as it was at the time on the books in Conn. No?

[Okla-homey]

From what I understand of this case, what the SCOTUS did was legislating from the bench. What Sotomayor did was to simply interpret the law as it was at the time on the books in Conn. No?


That's precisely the way the White House is spinning it. Did you get their memo or something?;)

[JohnnyMack]

I was in the car, driving from Dallas to Tulsa, listening to one of many XM talk stations. So it's definitely possible.

[Scott D]

Same diff. Lots of lessons from this case. Including among them it's legally risky to dumb-down hiring/admissions standards in the interest of promoting diversity.

In this particular case, the FD gave a test for lieutenant promotions. No black folks passed, so the city decided not to promote anyone. The folks who passed sued, and SCOTUS agreed they got scru-ed.

Not quite the same difference, but thank you for the clarification.

[47straight]

From what I read on the Huffington Post, what the SCOTUS did was legislating from the bench. What Sotomayor did was to simply interpret the law as it was at the time on the books in Conn. No?

Fixed.

[47straight]

I was in the car, driving from Dallas to Tulsa, listening to one of many XM talk stations. So it's definitely possible.

My apologies, JM, I didn't see this post before I popped off. That'll learn me to reach the end of the thread before I open my mouth.

[47straight]

From what I heard on NPR, what the SCOTUS did was legislating from the bench. What Sotomayor did was to simply interpret the law as it was at the time on the books in Conn. No?

Refixed. ;)

[King Crimson]

pretty funny how in the last 5 months the partisans have discovered hypocrisy, corruption, and the absurd media drama that is american politics like it's something new.

it all looks pretty shabby when YOUR buttons aren't the ones being pushed, eh?

[NYC Poke]

I'm with the Chief Justice; the surest and most direct way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.

Surely you know how these tests have been used historically and why they're suspect now.

[NYC Poke]

From what I understand of this case, what the SCOTUS did was legislating from the bench. What Sotomayor did was to simply interpret the law as it was at the time on the books in Conn. No?

They created new precedent. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it legislating from the bench (though that hasn't stopped me from calling it that in discussions with my more conservative friends ;) ).

[Okla-homey]

Surely you know how these tests have been used historically and why they're suspect now.

Yep, and people used to own other people, but that too ended a long time ago. It's high time to turn the flippin' page.

[Vaevictis]

They created new precedent. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it legislating from the bench (though that hasn't stopped me from calling it that in discussions with my more conservative friends ;) ).

Eh, from my point of view, any precedent that must be honored by lower courts is legislation from the bench.

I don't know how this notion ever got such a bad rap. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but from my point of view, legislation from the bench is an intended feature of a common law system, not a bug.

[Okla-homey]

Eh, from my point of view, any precedent that must be honored by lower courts is legislation from the bench.

I don't know how this notion ever got such a bad rap. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but from my point of view, legislation from the bench is an intended feature of a common law system, not a bug.

It's rather kooky to rail against "judge made" law. There are three sources of law in the US; 1) The Constitution, 2) Statutes, and; 3) common law, i.e. "judge-made" case law. It's been that way since the 18th century.

I think what frosts people is when judges invoke funky interpretations of the first two above, with bizarre results. Rather like finding a right of individual privacy concealed within the Fourth Amendment that trumps states' outlawing abortion.

OTOH, odds are those same folks are delighted when the Court interprets the Second Amendment broadly. Even overly broadly. I know I am.

In the final analysis, it depends on whose ox is being gored.

[NYC Poke]

Yep, and people used to own other people, but that too ended a long time ago. It's high time to turn the flippin' page.

Let's not act like this was that long ago. These things were still going on during both of our lifetimes. If you want to turn the page, you should at least acknowledge what's written down on the one in front of you.

[StoopTroup]

In all seriousness.....there comes a point where many people are going to always feel they are being treated unfairly....

Life ain't fair....

Having a law for speeding on the highway hasn't stopped speeders....

It's your everyday actions as people that will get the most change to occur not the SCOTUS.

[Collier11]

When discrimination is institutionalized it becomes racism, otherwise it is just bias and hatred