What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
364 Comments
- doctechnical, on 06/29/2009, -7/+138If you're making a decision on who gets a job based on skin color (regardless of the color) that's discrimination, period. There's a reason Justice is depicted a being blindfolded.
- fossilnews, on 06/29/2009, -8/+132The bottom line here is that the most qualified people should get the promotion. This will be used to make a political point about her confirmation, but the fact is that justice was served.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -99/+202Sotomayor can ***** suck it. She should be booted out as her race obviously influences her decisions.
The term "Reverse discrimination" is ***** ***** too. - heliumflash, on 06/29/2009, -5/+99I agree with the decision. If people are qualified for a promotion, they should get a promotion regardless of race.
- orangefly, on 06/29/2009, -28/+100good....
- djvchris, on 06/29/2009, -6/+77Good. Let's continue to make hiring and promotion decisions based on proven COMPETENCY, not race/ethnicity/sexuality, etc.
- cambob76, on 06/29/2009, -6/+66Qualified people should not be denied promotions due to racism.
- Solkre, on 06/29/2009, -6/+66If a test is modified so that everyone can get the same score, the test is useless. I don't want firefighters trying to save me and my property if they can only pass the Playschool version of a test.
- clemsontiger, on 06/29/2009, -55/+108She is overturned 60% of the time. I'm not sure about previous appointees, but that's way too many times for someone serving on the highest court in the land.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60 ... - SamSks, on 06/29/2009, -6/+56MLK once had a dream that all men would be treated based upon character and ability; not by the color of their skin.
A test based upon one's skill and knowledge in an area they're looking for a promotion in qualifies as being color blind. - DavidCEisen, on 06/29/2009, -10/+59The average is 75%. The Supreme Court gets to select what cases it hears, therefore it usually selects cases with a high chance of being overturned. The fact that Sonomayor has only had 6 court cases appealed that the Supreme Court has listened to is impressive.
- kemp34, on 06/29/2009, -1/+43You are right, discrimination is discrimination. There is no "reverse".
- Nekura20x6, on 06/29/2009, -26/+68The appeals court followed the law - there was precedent that forced their decision which is why the higher court picked it up.
For all the bitching the right makes about judges trying to "make law from the bench", this is a case where you got your wish. The judges followed the law to the letter. Of course, that doesn't stop conservatives from still crying foul... - chickenloco, on 06/29/2009, -7/+49Good. The MOST QUALIFIED people should get the job, especially in public safety. Races should be no factor.
- asgardshill, on 06/29/2009, -27/+68Sotomayor rejected the firefighter's claim because not doing so would have damaged existing civil rights law.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
(And aren't conservatives always going on about how they think judges should interpret the law, not make new law?) - imover, on 06/29/2009, -14/+55I can not believe that Ginsberg said this "In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
How can she voice her opinion stating that the "White firefighters" had no vested right to the promotion? They passed the test that was part of the criteria and should have been given the promotion based on that point. Instead she thinks it is right to throw out the test because no minorites past the test? I really do not understand people.
- TCSavant, on 06/29/2009, -58/+96Good. Her decision was racist to begin with.
- ShadowFusion, on 06/29/2009, -15/+52This is very good news, I'm tired of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and preferential treatment of "minorities" We are all Americans (with some illegals, but that's a different matter) and should all have equal opportunity and rights to the same jobs/bonuses/promotions/contracts/etc as everyone else. The fact that these firefighters who passed their promotion test were denied their promotions because the fire department was scared that they would be sued over discrimination is ridiculous. If 20 black firefighters passed the same test and no white firefighters passed they all would have been given their promotions, and I'm sure the department would have also received federal funding and national recognition for embracing a diverse workforce.
End it now. - djvchris, on 06/29/2009, -3/+35As far as I am concerned, any civil rights "law" that implies a qualification exam is illegitimate simply because no minorities (ethnic/racial/sexual, etc.) perform well on it probably is not a very good law in the first place.
When I'm trapped in a burning building, I want the on-scene incident commander to be the Captain who absolutely dominated the promotion exam and knows his procedures inside and out...whether he be white, black, or purple.
If somebody running his/her own business wants to hire only black people, only gay people, or only white people, that is is/her perogative. However, when the job is governmental and involves people's lives, the ONE factor in promotion/hiring should be proven COMPETENCY and nothing else. - maz2331, on 06/29/2009, -2/+31The actual decision is at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-14 ...
- LawScholar, on 06/29/2009, -15/+41This is being radically sensationalized. I disagree wildly with the decision, but she's not to blame for it. According to the laws on the books, the minority firefighters could have filed suit, as the results violated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It's ***** 100%, but that's the law's fault. Her job is not to make law, but to uphold and interpret existing law.
- zip000, on 06/29/2009, -0/+24Thank you. I am so - SO - sick of the phrase "reverse discrimination".
If white people discriminate against black people - that's discrimination. If black people discriminate against white people - that's discrimination too!
It's like if I'm walking and I turn around and walk the other way, I'm not walking backward; I'm just walking. - Crazyredivan, on 06/29/2009, -0/+20How was the test flawed? The city threw out the results because they were concerned that they could have been sued.
"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "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."
My father was a firefighter for 32 years and trust me- if someone can't pass this test, you don't want them promoted. Regardless of color. - luther70, on 06/29/2009, -9/+27Or you can look at as the person Sotomayor is replacing on the Supreme Court agrees with her. This was a 5-4 ruling not a unanimous over turning of the decision.
- Moonkeeper, on 06/29/2009, -2/+20If I call the fire department because my house is on fie, I will be more concerned about their ability to save the lives of my family and put out the fire then I will be by the representation percentage of each race in the fire company.
- Bloodwine, on 06/29/2009, -7/+23I beg the question, how can there be a racist exam? I figure the exam would be over common firefighter terminology and procedures and whatnot, pretty much a standardized exam on the material. How can it be racist?
That is still not as bad as my wife's university being sued because they said the Mathematics classes were racist, because the exams favored whites. IT'S FRIGGIN' MATHEMATICS, FOLKS, THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNIVERSE!! - LawScholar, on 06/29/2009, -5/+21Just lawsuit, no e. :)
The law the appeals court followed declared that if no minorities were represented in test results, they must be slanted results and were invalid.
From Slate:
"New Haven claims that the test it tossed out had a disparate impact. Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven's test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. This result counts as discriminatory under the rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. New Haven was right to worry about the possibility of a lawsuit from black firefighters if it accepted the results of the tests."
So you see? According to the laws on the books, the results were invalid. Unfortunate and inaccurate, but Sotomayor did what the law said to do. - kleon777, on 06/29/2009, -4/+20A 5-4 vote? How the hell was it so close?
- Animan351, on 06/29/2009, -16/+32Her ruling on this aside even, she has publicly said that she lets herself being a woman and having a Latino heritage influence her decisions she makes as a judge. She's admitted to not being impartial.
- LawScholar, on 06/29/2009, -10/+25You say enough race-based crap, then follow it up with "Halfrican"?
- eKalb33, on 06/29/2009, -0/+15What are some examples of the bias in these tests? I would like more information than someone claiming the tests are racially biased. What circumstances gave whites an advantage over minorities?
- sb66, on 06/29/2009, -1/+15dunno man, I'm a white liberal and I totally support this decision. Equal standards for all.
- 3The3Dude3, on 06/29/2009, -4/+18zip000, I would hope white judges don't reference their whiteness for anything other than an excuse for being bad dancers when not on the bench (although I dance alright when I'm drunk). Nothing should influence a justice of any color other than the Constitution and whether the ruling, rendered on the case in front of them for review, is consistent with the Constitutional protections of the people/limitation of power of the court.
- JohnGalt750, on 06/29/2009, -5/+19Would you see it as wrong if an organization threw out test results becasue no white people scored high enough? Would you support the 19 black people that passed?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+15and unqualified people should not be given promotions due to racism.
- diggduggDOOM, on 06/29/2009, -11/+24"She is overturned 60% of the time. I'm not sure about previous appointees, but that's way too many"
You could have just said, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this is outrageous." - letdowntourist, on 06/29/2009, -8/+21clemsontiger is a 23 year-old legal expert from the United States who joined Digg on July 3rd, 2006.
- channeleaton, on 06/29/2009, -2/+15By saying that a test is "racially" biased you are saying that minorities are unable compete at the same levels at whites. Minorities are keeping themselves down by making these accusations. If the questions are the same for everyone and everyone was given the same amount of time to prepare for the test it is not biased in any way.
- superkendall, on 06/29/2009, -1/+14You have one paragraph to explain how you make a test on fighting fires so that it is NOT culturally blind. How do you add racially specific questions into a test on firefighting?
- jedicurt, on 06/29/2009, -1/+14yes... i'll say that the city was being racist... apparently because a few people whom the city wanted to get promoted didn't while taking a test that had been in place for quite some time, they decided to deny those who did well on the test (not just whites) based solely on the fact that those that they wanted to get promoted were black... so the city brought up race as the reason....
- lnxfi, on 06/29/2009, -2/+15reverse discrimination - end that term now
discrimination is discrimination - FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -10/+22Hate to break it to you guys, but disagreeing on issues with fellow judges is a key part of our legal system. Sometimes you are in agreement, and sometimes you are not. That's just how it goes, so save your outrage.
- sb66, on 06/29/2009, -1/+12rampant political correctness
- unclefire, on 06/29/2009, -2/+13I find it rediculous that race comes into the picture. As far as I know, the promotions are based on "testing". If you score well, you get promoted, if you don't, you don't get promoted.
I seriously doubt a plausible claim can be made that the test is racially biased. I'd be willing to bet that the test is almost entirely made up of policies and procedures necessary to do the job. - Nonplussed, on 06/29/2009, -12/+23Judges apparently only activist when overturning laws disliked by conservatives.
- CylonsOfTheLamb, on 06/29/2009, -6/+17Are you stupid or something? The fact that her decisions are overturned "more often than not" as you put it, is because "more often than not", the bitch is wrong. That's reason enough to not only keep her off of the supreme court, but keep her off the bench in any court. I sure as hell don't want someone who is wrong "more often than not" having the power to make decisions about the meaning of laws.
- samoan27, on 06/29/2009, -10/+21Thank you for stating the exact reason why Sotomayor should NOT be promoted to the supreme court.
- opinionsstink, on 06/29/2009, -1/+11"Sotomayor rejected the firefighter's claim because not doing so would have damaged existing civil rights law."
A short rebuttal to the argument that sotomayor's ruling was within the law.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/29/supreme- ...
from the link
"... The city’s rationale for engaging in this intentional discrimination was to avoid a suit by black firefighters. But the city could take the position it did only if there were strong evidence that its test was racially biased or not job related or that there was some other equally valid non-discriminatory test that the city refused to administer. There was no such evidence, ..." - nepidae, on 06/29/2009, -9/+19For all the people who thinks this makes her unqualified, does it make the 4 judges currently on the bench who agreed with her also unqualified?
- dolemite01, on 06/29/2009, -8/+18Reminds me of when I applied to law school. A minority's LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) entrance score is lower than that of a white applicant. Typically the school I applied and was accepted 170 is for whites and 162 is for minorities, that's a huge gap when were talking about a 40 point scale (140 - 180)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 371 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is