This is a tough one

[Number23]

"Supreme Court: White firefighters bias victims"

The Supreme Court declared Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race, ruling against minorities in a major reverse discrimination case that could affect bosses and workers nationwide. The justices threw out a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.

In Monday's ruling, Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

...
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract the court's empathy. But they had no vested right to promotion and no person has received a promotion in preference to them."

Justices Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Speaking dismissively of the majority opinion, she predicted the court's ruling "will not have staying power."

... Labor and employment lawyers suggested that companies that act to encourage and preserve racial, gender and age diversity would need to be very careful to avoid reverse discrimination lawsuits.

What say you, AAIG??

[Raineyb]

1. I call judicial activism on the part of the right wing five

They have never met a discrimination case against a black person (or a woman) that they couldn't come up with excuses for why they weren't discriminated against yet manage so much sympathy for a bunch of white men who I really can't say were discriminated against their activist ruling notwithstanding. It sounds like what they are saying is that even if a test is biased and produces discriminatory result it's discrimination to not use the test for anyone? That sounds asinine to say the least.

... Labor and employment lawyers suggested that companies that act to encourage and preserve racial, gender and age diversity would need to be very careful to avoid reverse discrimination lawsuits.

I find this rather telling. My translation: "Do be careful to avoid reverse discrimination lawsuits but don't bother worrying about actual discrimination lawsuits because we'll make sure those fail in court."

Seriously though, what the hell do we have here? Any opportunity to even things out will be sued by the "reverse discrimination" people and when they aren't and black and brown people are disadvantaged (which is usually the case) they sue on grounds of discrimination?

Some idiot had the nerve to yammer on about merit. Merit? When the hell did that ever have anything to do with anything?

I'd like to be less pithy but frankly, I've got class in an hour and need to get out the door.

[Number23]

3. Even your "pithy" posts are on point, Rainey

To be honest with you, I'm a little surprised by the entire outcome.

On the one hand, I feel for those white firefighters. I really do.

On the other hand, if black and brown folks sued every time a test skewed in favor of whites deprived them of an opportunity, the SC Justices would be in court 24-7-365 and wouldn't even have time to go to the bathroom.

[Raineyb]

5. I think that this quote explains what infuriates me about the discussion

This is empowerer's response to my post where I sardonically remark on someone's indignation at the implication that a the two black memebers of a group of predominantly white people discussing this court case may not be inclined to be completely honest about their feelings. "We're a Fortune 100 company we have people kof all races!" (As if a Fortune 100 company would never discriminate.) I didn't think that it was likely that the two black people in a group would be inclined to discuss this case in a group that was predominately white.

Empowerer's response:

The reaction to this case from the beginning would have been altogether different

if the shoe were on the other foot and only black firefighters scored high enough to merit promotion while no white firefighters made the cut.

It would have been widely accepted that there was a problem with the test - in fact, anyone who claimed that the white firefighters just weren't as qualified would have been shouted down and then laughed out of the room. Those now screaming "reverse discrimination" would be demanding that the test be thrown out. And when the test was thrown out and the black firefighters sued, the conservatives on the Supreme Court would NEVER have twisted themselves into knots rewriting Title VII (you know, "legislating from the bench") to ensure the black firefighters' promotions were reinstated.

This is what pisses me off about this whole case. That test had to be flawed there's just no way that only white people managed to qualify. Yet we have people here who are literally a nanometer from saying that basically the black people who took the test were just too stupid to pass and qualify and have absolutely no problem allowing such disdain pass their lips but should I point out the asshattery of the right winged 5 and say that the test was clearly flawed I'm just making shit up. I don't need a scientific dissertation to tell me that that test was flawed. If it were fair then 14 out of the 15 slots wouldn't be filled by white people with a token Latino man taking up the last slot. As Empowerer says, if the test excluded all the white people and the 14 out of 15 slots were taken up by black men there'd be no demand for a scientific dissertation as to why the test is flawed, the flaw would be considered obvious and that it had to be thrown out a matter of fact. Empowerer says it so much better than I.

[Number23]

7. I LOVE Empowerer. I'm about to donate to DU in her name to get her a star

so that she can participate in AAIG.

Those now screaming "reverse discrimination" would be demanding that the test be thrown out. And when the test was thrown out and the black firefighters sued, the conservatives on the Supreme Court would NEVER have twisted themselves into knots rewriting Title VII (you know, "legislating from the bench") to ensure the black firefighters' promotions were reinstated.

Lord, WHERE is my church fan??! That is some straight up TRUTH right there. Whew!!

Can you even IMAGINE the uproar if the situation, just as you and Empowerer are saying, was reversed??! I get the :scared: just thinking about it. White folks would have new laws on the books so fast it'd make your damn head spin. But we all know that would never happen because black people are far too stupid for such an event to ever occur. At least I'm sure that's what so many (not so) secretly believe.

[Brewman_Jax]

2. Another destructive blow against affirmative action

as Tim Wise so apply puts it. This decision puts employers, esp. municial and other govermental organizations, on the defense if they want diversity on the job. This grants an unfair level of legal protection to a demographic group that is not normally targeted for discrimination--white males. To add insult to injury, in spite of the evidence of an obviously flawed exam, the High Court shows disregards the results in favor of "fairness". THIS is a glaring example of judicial activism that the rabid right is so "concerned" about. This also shows the racial caste system at its most malicious. Like the University of Michigan cases, fairness is irrelevant, the point that people of color, black people especially, should be kept "in their place" is the point.

[Number23]

4. What a fantastic post. Thanks, Brew

THIS is a glaring example of judicial activism that the rabid right is so "concerned" about.

Yeah, but people who look like them will be the ones who benefit so it's all good.

Another destructive blow against affirmative action as Tim Wise so apply puts it.

Republicans are working overtime. They see Obama in the White House and in between bouts of despair and thoughts of suicide, have decided to use this unprecedented time in history to "even the score" against those Uppity Negroes.

Political Tiger's OP here in AAIG about their attacks on the Voting Rights Acts fits in perfectly with this. This is not an accident that all of this is happening while Obama is in office. Republicans (and lets be real, probably more than a few Dems) are using Obama's success as proof that the special legal protections afforded racial minorities should no longer exist. That Obama's ascendancy to the presidency MUST mean that racism, racial discrimination and racial oppression are ugly chapters of America's PAST, not present and certainly not the future.

I am encouraged by Justice Ginsburg's dissent in which she says that she doesn't expect for this decision to stand. But you can best believe that any challenge to this decision will be fought tooth and nail and no expense to kill it will be spared by white conservatives.

[jmm]

6. The Supreme Court declines most cases so why take

a case where an outside company was hired to design a written test for firefighter and the results weren't even used? Recently they've decline a same sex marriage case, a don't ask don't tell case, and a case involving Valerie Plame but they decide this would make a good legal precedence?

Simply deciding to hear a case sometimes is a form of judicial activism. Topics they want to avoid can be avoided while rulings they want to make can happen.

[Number23]

8. Word on "the street" is that this was a deliberate blow to affirmative action

Simply deciding to hear a case sometimes is a form of judicial activism.

Very true. Making "the word on the street" have an even greater ring of truth to it.