Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way

From CNN via (Allahpundit of Hotair):

A new national poll suggests that nearly two-thirds of Americans think white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut where discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam after too few minorities scored high enough on the test.

Monday the Supreme Court, in a five to four vote, ruled in favor of the white firefighters.

And of course, this kind of discrimination is “endemic”:

And fair-minded people are sick of the racial politics because it serves no one except Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton:

And yet, Judge Sotomayor believes a person’s skin color is sufficient reason to force companies to give people raises or promotions. From Stuart Taylor of the National Journal:

The Sotomayor-endorsed position allowed such a “race-based employment decision,” Cabranes added, even though the New Haven exams were “carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality” and even though the city had neither found nor tried to find a more job-related test.

The Cabranes dissent and the voluminous factual record that was before the Sotomayor panel flatly contradict the widely stated view that her position was justified by evidence that the exams were not job-related and that they discriminated against blacks in violation of the “disparate-impact” provisions of federal civil-rights law.

In fact, neither Sotomayor nor any other judge has ever found that the exams — one for would-be fire lieutenants, one for would-be captains — were invalid or unfair. Nor has any judge found that allowing the promotions would have violated disparate-impact law.

Rather, the Sotomayor-endorsed position was that under 2nd Circuit precedents, New Haven’s discrimination against high-scoring whites must be upheld based solely on the fact that disproportionate numbers of blacks had failed to qualify for promotion and might file a disparate-impact lawsuit — regardless of whether they could win it.

Judge Sotomayor would be, in essence, promoting institutional racism. The disturbing fact is that four Supreme Court Justices agreed with her and dissented from the majority opinion. Should Sotomayor become the new Justice, imagine how this case would have turned out.

The American people voted for Barack Obama hoping for a post-racial, Morgan Freeman-style America. In fact, by nominating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has decided that identity politics should be front-and-center and that fomenting racial discontent are still essential to Democrat power.

Andrew Breitbart on the identity politics pecking order.

Michelle Malkin says racism lost.

William Jacobson notes:

One other interesting aspect of the case is the issue of “empathy.” Much has been made about Barack Obama’s desire for a Justices who show “empathy,” and Sotomayor made controversial off-the-bench statements regarding how a “wise Latina” judge would view cases (better or at least differently from white male judges). But in the second paragaraph of her Dissent, Justice Ginsburg noted that “sympathy” for the firefighters played no role in deciding the case. So what exactly is “empathy” as a valid attribute for a Supreme Court Justice? And if Sotomayor lets “empathy” enter into her decision making process, does that set her apart not only from Sandra Day O’Connor but also Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

National Review Online Ed Whelan says:

In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg, agreeing with the position that President Obama’s Department of Justice took, states: “Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration [whether the City of New Haven in fact had good cause to act] would be in order.” But because the majority saw no need to remand, Ginsburg explains “why, if final disposition by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, Ginsburg doesn’t believe that final disposition of the case is appropriate. She and her fellow dissenters therefore believe that Sotomayor and her Second Circuit colleagues and the district court were wrong to grant summary judgment to the City of New Haven.

Posted in America • Isms • Political Animals