I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.  I hope (but rather doubt) it will be enough to keep Sotomayor out of office.  The last thing the court system needs is a justice who is bigoted.

Charles your Link doesn't work. 

Thankfully even if Sotomayor was a Supreme Court Justice this ruling would have been upheld.  The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the firefighters.  Souter, whom Sotomayor is being sought to replace, voted in dissent of the majority opinion.

LINK - bottom of Page 4

Thanks Dude, I fixed the link. Nice to see that justace can still prevail but it's sad to see so many voted against this new ruling. Does it always have to be 5-4? I notice this happens quite often.

People need to wake up and realize that we are losing our nation to politicians. i don't want politicians in control of my life. I just wnat them to be there when we need them not be there at all times. I may as well commit a crime and go to jail, be almost the same.

Thanks forn the feature BTW JU.

NW.

I cannot understand how the 4 could have voted against this case.  This basically tells me that these 4 are either racist or they still feel like whites are still indebted to 'minorities.' 

Our judicial system was built upon the idea that everyone has equal access to justice and it is NOT to be based upon, social status, wealth, race, sexual preference, etc.  Sadly we are drifting away from this and anyone who speaks out against it is generally called a bigot.

That is my greatest concern, not only would one have to believe they are racist but nearly 50% of them voted against it. I just can't seem to understand how that many thought this ruling was wrong. Then again how did it happen the first time is beyond me. I can't help but wonder if those who hate us so much in other countries may be justified in their hatred. Corruption seems to be as American as Apple Pie.

i really don't have an opinion on sonia...but as far as this case goes....in the decision, it was pointed out that the appelate court panel that ruled on this that sonia was part of did what they were expected to do...follow precedent. 

in this decision, the 5 judges who overturned that were the ones who do what conservatives fear - legislate from the bench. they acted here like the SCOTUS has acted in affirmative action and other cases before, sighting "changing times" and evolving law. in this case, it came from the right side of the bench. 

some on the right wing who blindly tout "judicial activism" as the evil of all judicial evils should take note. had it not been because of such activism by the "conservatives", this decision remains the same as sonia's 3 judge panel found. 

so it seems that one has to either abandon the ridiculous racism charges being thrown out like beads on mardi gras from a shrinking right wing base that thinks it will resonate (it hasn't, it isn't and it won't.) or they have to admit that judges sometimes need to be "activist" to get it right. 

And where are the Democrat Defenders? Why is no one here defending Sotomayor? Could they be coming to their senses or is it just easier to ignore reality?

no charles...they just have seen thru this ridiculous racist charge like all the other absurd rhetoric from the right wing. no defense needed. y'all have been hangin yourselves, shrinking your base for some time now, and no one is gonna stop that train from wreckin. 

like here where everyone is havin a good time watchin y'all fall all over yourselves to try to pin some "racist" charge on her...and ya end up defending judicial activism. 

principles aren't principles when they are situational. then they are politics. instead of writing fear about a bogus racism charge, where is the right's outrage when it comes to this very admitted and pointed "judicial activism?"

The Supreme Court ruled, rightly, that race should not be a consideration in any way when it comes to hiring or promotions. I'd hardly call that legislating from the bench or judicial activism. Racial discrimination of any kind against anyone of anyone race should not be allowed. Period.

Denying those people promotions just because not enough black people scored well on a test is discrimination plain and simple. From what I have read, the test was about department policies and procedures as well as direct job related knowledge. Tossing it out simply because you're not happy with who scored well and who didn't is absurd.

I applaud those on the court who refused to go along with discrimination for the sake of political correctness, and ruled on the side of what is fair and right.

As for Sotamajor, I seriously doubt this decision will have much of an effect on her nomination to the court.

This statement made me smile.

I've heard the same statement about cops, and about women. (And occasionally men.)

You are being ridiculous Sean, this is obviously a racist charge. That you chose to ignore it and instead "write fear" about "judicial activism" from the right does not negate the fact that these firefighters took a fair test, passed it and were denied promotions simply because the black people who took the test were not smart enough to pass it. Does the fact that 19 out of the 20 who passed the test mean that this was a racist test? No, but the fact that they were denied their promotions due to fears of lawsuits makes it a racist problem because they feared these black people would have sued.

I don't know what is sadder, that the City thought they would be sued by black people and might have lost or that black people would sue based on the fact they were not smart enough to pass the test but it's not fair anyways. Had that been the case and they would have won, I would think it's only fair that every minority child should not have to take any exame ever again in school and should pass every grade withat least a B+ because if people can sue because they too stupid to pass a test and think it's unfair then I don't see how my idea is to exagerated.

I love the idea of knowing the next time I see a Captain or Sargent Fire Dept that he may only have that job due to his skin color and not his skills and my life and my familes life may be in danger due to it. You should be ashamed Sean for ignoring this problem and instead looking for ridiculous "judicial activism" excuses for a ruling that, as far as the majority of people goes, was fair by the Supreme Court.

BTW Sean,

The only reason Republicans and Conservatives have lost any footing is because they have abandoned their beliefs and standards of Conservatism to be more in the middle, closer to Liberal or Democrat, just to get those who wouldn't normally vote for them to side with them. Ironically Bush did just that and it is why we are where we are today. But I guess people like you wouldn't notice (or purposely ignore) how often Obama does that which he criticized Bush for doing.

Upholding the constitution (and any rational law) is not "legislating from the bench".

Affirmative action is simply incompatible with equal protections under the law regardless of race, gender, etc.

One of the two has to go. The judicial branch is supposed to find exactly such incompatibilities and strike down laws that violate the constitution ins such a manner as part of the balance of power.

Legislating from the bench is when they make a ruling based on nothing concrete.

I agree, it is funny when looking at it from your point of view. Guess I didn't say it quite right.