Supreme court ruling

[Guest]

Well I feel this is some good news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html

:beer3::beer3:

[Guest]

Well I feel this is some good news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html

:beer3::beer3:

Yep, Doesn't make Sotomayor look very good. She tried to bury this case.:beer3:

[Guest]

I think it is a great decision by the Supreme Court. Discrimination was (and still is) bad but America has come a long long way towards eliminating discrimination. Unfortunately, the willy-nilly courts let the pendulum swing too far the other way and "reverse discrimination" became a fact of life. That was just as wrong as discrimination. This ruling attempts to put the pendulum back in the middle, where it belongs, and attempts to balance the scales of justice.

[Guest]

I think it is a great decision by the Supreme Court. Discrimination was (and still is) bad but America has come a long long way towards eliminating discrimination. Unfortunately, the willy-nilly courts let the pendulum swing too far the other way and "reverse discrimination" became a fact of life. That was just as wrong as discrimination. This ruling attempts to put the pendulum back in the middle, where it belongs, and attempts to balance the scales of justice.

:agree: You said it very well.

[Guest]

Before this thread runs away too far, it should be noted that this ruling is a very technical ruling by the Court regarding the burdens of proof in disparate impact discrimination cases. The City of New Haven tried to justify its decision based on the unbalanced results of the test in order to avoid litigation but the Court ruled that such a defense was only available if the City could show it had a "strong basis in evidence" that had it not taken the action, it would have been liable for discrimination by the racial groups that did not pass the test. The Court held that the record in the case did not support the City in that decision and that the City could not meet that burden. In the ruling the Court also rejected two of the arguments made by the plaintiff firefighters.

Sorry to play employment lawyer with you but this ruling really is a limited ruling on legal burdens of proof that should only get a rise out of the employment lawyers advising business clients.

[Guest]

Yep, Doesn't make Sotomayor look very good. She tried to bury this case.:beer3:

What this decision did was to write a new law. Sotomayor interpreted the law as it was then currently written.

[Guest]

in the majorities column.

To the average person it is a response to the all to often reverse discrimination.

It also should encourage some backbone for a change for sheepish employers in the future.

btk

[Guest]

Why is this thread in this location? Shouldn't it be in the political forum?

[Guest]

I thought it was great.....its about time:eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Guest]

Why is this thread in this location? Shouldn't it be in the political forum?

You mean were not in the political forum? Heck, lost again:beer3:

[Guest]

What this Supreme Court decision did was to write a new law-the very definition of an "activist" court. Sotomayor simply interpreted the existing law as it was currently written by the Congress and signed by the President.

I guess it's ok for the Supreme Court to rewrite law as long as the right-wing majority do the re-writing. The intention of the law is quite clear as expressed by Congress, who, I thought, was the body charged with writing the law.

All that crap about "activist judges" writing their own law only applies to one part of the political spectrum- the liberal one. Meanwhile Uncle Clarence Thomas and his white male posse can trash congressional laws and "stare decisis" as much as they choose.

Now Rush and the zombieheads will go crowing about how Sottmayer is out of the mainstream, when in fact, she voted to uphold the law amd the right-wing of the Supreme Court chose to rewrite it.

What ever happened to the right-wing's crowing about "Change the law if you don't like it-don;t expect the Courts to rewrite it on their own. Hypocrites all.

To paraphrase Anne Coulter, maybe AMerica will be lucky and a limo carrying Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will get stuck on train tracks.

[Guest]

Looks like all 9 justices did not agree with Sotomayer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/