The United States Supreme Court announced today its ruling in the highly publicized firefighters case styled as Ricci et al v. Destefano. Basically the Court decided that a lower appellate court had erred and that the Plaintiffs, white and Hispanic firefighters, had been discriminated against by not being promoted. These firefighters were denied promotion because fellow black firefighters had done poorly on the same standardized test. The liberals proclaimed that the test gave a "racially skewed result" and was prejudicially slanted against blacks. In fact, as the Supreme Court's decision made clear, the test was ability skewed and rewarded those who demonstrated ability regardless of color.
Like almost everything that originates from Washington, there are a number of important aspects to consider.
This ruling may very well be the beginning of the enforcement of a very American tradition - the most talented succeed. Whenever an American asks for someone to perform a service, that American wants to know that the provider is qualified to render that service. It is unacceptable for any individual regardless of ethnicity to be granted an authority and preeminence based not on talent but rather on the color of skin. The argument that 150 years ago my ancestors were slaves or that 50 years ago closer relatives were discriminated against is no long legally persuasive. America, particularly governmentally run sections of America, are and have been for some time beyond that prejudicial persuasion. Talent is now the only requirement.
The divided political nature of the Supreme Court and the very tenuous nature of this current political division is also highlighted by today's ruling. The 5 known conservatives (Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) voted in a group to support the Plaintiff firefighters and the 4 known liberals (Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens) voted in a group against them. One loss on the side of the conservative faction would mean an absolute reversal in the direction of this branch of the federal government. It would also mean the loss of a constitutional brake on the policies of the Obama Administration. Discounting an untimely death, a sudden permanent impairment or an unscheduled retirement of one of the conservative Justices while Obama is President, there are two conservative Justices that are approaching the traditional end of their service on the bench. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia have been on the Supreme Court for over 20 years and both are 72 years old. The remaining length of their terms could well be short measured.
Even with Souter being finished with his judicial career and Justice John Paul Stevens approaching 90 years of age, their vacating the bench only means that Obama will appoint a liberal. The Senate, as it is today comprised, will confirm. There will, therefore, be no political modification in the Court by the loss of Stevens and/or Souter. The real concern is if all the conservatives can remain healthy and active for the next 4 and maybe even 8 years. This could be too much to hope for.
Finally, there is the question of the impact of this Supreme Court ruling upon the future of nominee Sotomayor. The lower court that was found today to be in error was hers and she had joined in the now reversed decision. Unfortunately there will be no impact. The GOP does not have the resources needed to prevent her confirmation and the Obama White House will not join in the reversal course set by the Supreme Court
As a final bow to ethnicity over talent, the sanctioned Judge Sotomayor will become Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent post but I believe you are missing something important. The issue of race has become such a point of contention that everyone is terrified of being called a racist. The city of New Haven threw these test scores out because they were terrified of having a race suit against the city and the mayor, up for re-election, stood to gain votes by siding with the black community and thorwing out these obviously "racist" tests. Further Judge Sotomayor, so concerned about touching this racially charged issue, chose to write a one paragraph opinion on a case that obviously deserved much more attention and garnered a more thorough legal examination. The Supreme Court scathed her in their opinion for being so matter-of-fact with her opinion and failing to touch on a great majority of legal issues the Supreme Court discussed. (The S.C. wrote 93 pages of opinion, Sotomayor's court wrote one short paragraph.)
ReplyDeleteThe reason she wrote such a flimsy opinion? Because there was no logical legal argument could be framed to uphold that her desired outcome. Plain and simply the defense did not meet their burden of proof. However she chose to ignore this out of fear of being a racist and in order to push her own political agenda.
Now will we hear one iota of the opinion that speaks negatively of her court for being so lazy? Of course not, but I have a feeling you knew that already.