The general topic is fascinating, as is what has become all too routine in the Supreme Court; a 5-4 decision. My interest in this particular case includes several facets, from the law, what is fair or unfair about the case, and the remarkable tendency of the court to split along ideological lines on nearly every major decision these days.
So if you don't already know the basics of the case, here's what I've gathered from my reading about it:
The case arose when the city of New Haven, Connecticut, chose to deny promotions for qualified people within it's fire department. The specific reason for denying those promotions was that there were not enough minorities qualified for promotion, therefore the city would not promote anyone. The reason given was fear of legal action by minority firefighters, as no blacks and two hispanics passed the qualification examination.
So the firefighters who passed the examination and reportedly qualified in every objective measure for promotion to leadership positions in the department filed suit.
What makes the case interesting to many is the involvement of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a summary judgement in favor of the City. In other words, she essentially decided without any hearing or serious review of the facts of the case that it did not have merit.
So what did the court say about the law? Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that the court narrowly struck down Sotomayor's appeals court ruling because the Civil Rights Act does not permit such public employee policies being denied simply because of a fear of a lawsuit. Unless the testing and qualifications process in place at New Haven is found to unfairly favor majority candidates (which was never alleged), the City cannot arbitrarily refuse to promote the candidates who qualified for promotion under the City's own criteria.
The court steered clear of the larger constitutional issue, which of course most conservatives have hoped to see addressed for years; the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Affirmative Action programs across the country are designed not to provide equal opportunity, but instead preference in hiring, promotions, and university admissions to members of racial minorities. The left-wing argument for this practice is that such preferences are remedies for past discrimination.
So even though the law seemingly could not have been clearer on the subject, Judge Sotomayor and the 4 liberal justices who banded together in support of Justice Ginsberg's dissent would prefer to ignore the law in favor of their ideology.
As a simple matter of fairness, it is astounding to me that anyone would think it fair to slam the door on the most qualified candidates for promotion in any situation for the plain and simple reason that the candidate does not have the right skin color or ethnic background. It seems to me that such discrimination is always unfair, regardless of the individual victimized by it.
What other conclusion can any resonable observer reach from this decision, other than this: Barack Obama, Sonya Sotomayor, and the 4 liberal justices on the court, are driven by political and left-wing ideological priorities only. When the law on a specific issue before the court is crystal clear and without ambiguity, they will manufacture their own logical pretzels in pursuit of an outcome that fits their ideology.
That's what is called "Judicial Activism". And that's one more item on the Obama agenda to remake America. Apparently part of remaking America is destroying its constitution and rule of law. I'm not even certain the objective is their socialist utopia, but it seems more likely that dream is absolute power.
Thus my somewhat mixed feelings on this judgement, somewhere between relief that reason and sound interpretation of the law prevailed and disappointment that the court failed to address the underlying constitutional issue.
Do I think Sotomayor should be stopped from taking her seat on the court? Actually, I wish it were possible, but it's not. There aren't enough senators with the courage to stop her, the President was elected and has the right to pick his appointments, my interpretation of the constitutional role of the Senate to "advise and consent" doesn't mean blocking a nominee on ideological grounds, and blocking Sotomayor will simply lead to Obama naming another justice just as bad or worse.
Then again, if she can be proven to be incompetent, unqualified, or openly hostile to the oath of preserving and protecting the constitution of the United States, then shame on any senator who allows her nomination to be approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment