Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jmhollen who wrote (67571)	6/29/2009 11:51:11 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 224724

Stop dreaming. The skids are greased. She will be confirmed.

To: jmhollen who wrote (67571)	6/29/2009 12:37:29 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 224724

I hate to agree with Kenneth on this, but the seat is hers. I won't be surprised if a few of our RINO senators vote to confirm. Snow, et al.

To: jmhollen who wrote (67571)	6/29/2009 1:05:24 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 224724

Doubt it

To: jmhollen who wrote (67571)	6/29/2009 1:19:25 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

This is the e-mail alert article from the NYT------ Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals court judge. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, in a case with enormous implications for workplaces across the country, that white firefighters in New Haven suffered unfair discrimination because of their race when the city scrapped the results of a promotional exam. Monday’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428, came on the last day of the court’s term and was one of the most closely watched discrimination cases in years. The ruling is sure to be closely studied by personnel departments and their lawyers for indications of how far employers can go, and under what circumstances, in considering race in decisions on hiring and promotion. And while the case concerned public employees, the ruling is likely to affect private employers as well, since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers private employers as well as public ones, according to Prof. Sheila Foster of Fordham Law School. (Professor Foster teaches anti-discrimination Law and has been involved in litigating cases under the Civil Rights Act.) The case was rooted in tests given in 2003 for promotion to lieutenant and captain. The exams yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement, prompting the city to throw out the results and promote no one. That move, in turn, triggered a lawsuit by 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, who claimed racial discrimination, or what is often termed “reverse discrimination.” The ruling reverses a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had found in favor of the city, and sends the case back to the lower courts for further action. (Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, had ruled in the city’s favor as a Second Circuit judge.)The ruling on Monday, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acknowledged that the city faced a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, as Justice David H. Souter put it when the case was argued on April 22. That is, if the city had allowed the promotional exam to stand, it would have faced a lawsuit from black firefighters. But the city’s dilemma did not justify scrapping the exam results, Justice Kennedy wrote, in a conclusion also embraced by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” the majority said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority. “It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,” she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority’s finding, there was “substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.”"