It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US top court rules against city on race, overturns Sonia Sotomayor decision

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Jacob08
People should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

When it comes to fire fighting it should be based SOLE on the ability to do the job. We had a case years ago in Toronto... it was made a political issue because it involved a female applicant who was not passed. She took it to the papers as a discrimination against women... but the reality was she was small of stature and could not pass the physical requirements, such as carrying a heavy sack down a ladder

If you base this on race or other similar issues and not ABILITY to do the job, what happens when a rescuer gets to you and finds he/she cannot carry you out?

Fire fighting is a hard physically stressful job... I would be real worried if people were picked by any other reason than ability

[edit on 29-6-2009 by zorgon]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by WinoBot
I certainly don't think Sotomayor perpetuated that reverse racism. She saw that the council decided the test was unfair to minorities and upheld that ruling.

To chastise her for this is unwarranted. You must also criticise the other 4 people on the Supreme Court who voted against overturning Sotomayors ruling, and also the council who decided this test was unfair. So far all the headlines I've been seeing is Sotomayor's name and how awful her ruling was.

For once, I think the headlines are right. Maybe Sotomayor didn't "perpetrate" it and the council did, but you seem to be missing that the job if a judge is to right wrongs committed or "perpetrated" by others, like the council. What is racially biased about asking how many 50 foot hoses it takes to make a 520 foot hose in a firefighters test? To chastise her for calling that a racially biased question along with others like it on the test is completely warranted.

And I have seen others criticizing the other 4 supreme court judges, I'll do it too. People should be hired and promoted irrespective of their race, color, or creed, these decisions should be based on qualifications, abilities and performance and any judge that rules otherwise deserves to be chastised, including not only Sotomayor but also the other 4 judges.

Now if for some reason minorities are having more difficulty figuring out the answers to questions on these qualification tests, perhaps further action is needed to provide better minority education etc and that would be a valid response to the facts provided in this case, but the actions of Sotomayor are not the way to handle this.

I meant to use the word perpetuated... meaning keep it going. I don't know if you were trying to correct me or be clever?

You gave one example from the test, which I agree seems stupid to base the whole issue on... but their are psychologists who are saying that the test was unfair towards minorities. I'm not sure how they came to this conclusion but you have to weigh that into the whole issue.

From my point of view I do not see racism at all. The minorities did not get the promotion instead, nobody got the promotion. Everybody is still in the same boat they were in to begin with. When I think of racism or reverse racism in the work place i think of somebody either succeeding or being placed aside because of their race, religion, sex etc. Nobody was repressed or succeeded because of their race. Their was a race related issue that arose because of this, but nobody was hurt. Sure, those men probably deserved those jobs, and they now will get the jobs... but if the test was faulty then who knows?

Main point being is that Sotomayor now has to deal with having this 'reverse racism' monkey on her back, when all she was doing was what seems to me like the right thing to do. I'm a white person, I have never felt once in my life like i was being discriminated against... and for people on this board to relate issues like this to the Civil Rights Movement is like comparing Waco to the Holocaust... so please stop doing that.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Fire fighting is a hard physically stressful job... I would be real worried if people were picked by any other reason than ability

[edit on 29-6-2009 by zorgon]

I couldn't agree anymore! I think I'm a pretty smart fellow, if I took the test and got a 98 I would be very proud of myself. If they put me in front of a burning building and told me to go get people inside, well now that's another story... I could lie right now and say I would rush in and save people in the manner most fitting for a fire fighter, sort of like I could on a test... but in reality I would probably crap my pants and shake a lot.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Hemisphere
We've all seen the taped sessions of her with the *wink* to her cohorts regarding this issue.

I have not seen this tape... Can you be a dear and post it?
Also, thank you for being a dear.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:35 PM
The right thing got done , I cant believe it ,we did something right in this country, I am in shock,

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:36 PM
This has got to be the first case of reverse racism I have ever seen that succeeded. THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!

This was racism, plane and simple. Maybe this will change the way some things are. I doubt it but holding out hope.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

Frivolous? Waste? What are you smoking? can i have some?

It is frivolous, especially in these hard economic times, for a group of people, who are being denied promotions and payraises based on their race, to take this to the supreme court?

I think not. This is perhaps one of the first SENSIBLE cases and descisions that have come up in years.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by WinoBot

Originally posted by Hemisphere
We've all seen the taped sessions of her with the *wink* to her cohorts regarding this issue.

I have not seen this tape... Can you be a dear and post it?
Also, thank you for being a dear.

I'll do what I can. Here you go WB:

It's a laugh riot.

She's not promoting it, she's not advocating it, she's just doing it.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Hemisphere]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Frivolous? Waste? What are you smoking? can i have some?

NO YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD TOO MUCH!! Put down the kitty and back towards the cruiser with your hands up and your pants down.

I agree that it is good that the firefighters were vindicated in their fight to better themselves and further their careers.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:04 PM
If a public entity chooses to discriminate based on the color of someones skin, they should be held liable for damages. That is what the supreme court has determined.

Imagine for a minute that the skin colors were reversed. The eighteen people with the highest scores were black and the city chose not to promote them. The racism is obvious.

However, in this case, the highest scoring people were white and Hispanic. To throw out the results of the test after determining the race of the individuals is racism.

Perhaps public entities that use tests as a basis of promotion need to assign the individuals a number. The race of the individual would remain unknown. If there are job recommendations and/or reviews, the name would be replaced by the identification number.

No one would know the race and/or name of an individual to be promoted until that person accepts their promotion. You avoid so many problems if you have a blind system to determine eligibility. Race cannot then be a factor. The only factor would be the qualifications of the individual not their skin color etc.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by Hemisphere

Frivolous? Waste? What are you smoking? can i have some?

It is frivolous, especially in these hard economic times, for a group of people, who are being denied promotions and payraises based on their race, to take this to the supreme court?

I think not. This is perhaps one of the first SENSIBLE cases and descisions that have come up in years.

Skadi, you misunderstood or I was not clear enough. My apology. My contention is that 40+ years after the civil rights movement and we continue to have the need for this to be rehashed. Is this case worthy? Of course. Was this case necessary? Only due to the poor decision by Sotomayer. Her decision was an opinion not based on law and that is what made it frivolous. Just another former lawyer, now judge, clogging the system, infringing on rights.

And so I agree with you that the case and the Supreme Court decision were sensible but the root cause was not.

What's up with the all caps? I hear you just fine.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

Ok, now I see what you are saying. That it could have been avoided altogether had Sotomayor had a brain and made a sensible decision in the first place. I agree in that respect. However, I do believe that taking it to the Supreme Court, in the long run, will be a great boon, because it has finally set the ultimate precedent for future issues of reverse discrimination. Perhaps because of this case, future cases will end up deferring to the supreme court decision and we will not see this happen again.

I hope this also extends to public aid and welfare issues. I have seen genuinely sick and needy people apply for welfare/government assistance just to survive, but ended up being turned down on race and nationality (i.e. white and American citizen).

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
Everyone here seems to be on the right track, championing the cause
against racial discrimination, and/or reverse-discrimination. This is the way
society should be, but sadly discrimination still exists in our mostly
PC world.

I have a unique perspective on this. I am a pale, blond, white male. And
at the same time, I am a card-carrying American Indian. I have
(rather greedily) sought to use my status as a minority several times
for my own benefit. It has never helped, nor hindered me...that I can

However, I have another story...

I live in a small, entirely white, town. My son had a friend from another
area who lost both his parents in an accident. I let this young man
(who is black) move into my home. I helped him get a GED, a driver's
license, a car, and a pretty good job. I was happily patting myself
on the back, after he moved out, thinking what a great guy I must be,
when a letter arrived. It was a letter of eviction from my landlord.
On the same day, authorities from the local county drug task force
knocked on my door and wanted to come in and talk to me about
some drug-dealing accusations that had been made against me.
I refused them entry and was sitting with my wife, perplexed, when
another knock came on my was CPS (we have a daughter in
4th grade). I wanted to refuse her entry (actually at that time I was so
mad I wanted to kick some ass) but my wife said "No, let her in
and let's clear our name."

We spent the next hour letting this woman question us. Then she
began to question our daughter (she wanted to do this in private).
When her questions turned to sex (my daughter who is innocent of the
birds and bees as yet) I pulled the plug and told her to get out.
She told me she could take my daughter if I didn't comply with her
wishes, and I said something in a rage about "Over my dead body."

Anyway, I was able surreptitiously look at her papers while this was going
on, and the wording was insane and ridiculous. We had been accused
of actually having a drive-thru window on our home where supposed
druggies could make their transactions without leaving the comfort of their
frikken vehicles! I couldn't believe it!!

Long story short; I talked to my landlord, talked to the chief of police,
endured a voluntary (or you could possibly lose your daughter)
drug test, got a ticket (harassed) I didn't deserve, endured police
surveillance for a week, and finally endured having CPS come to our
dsughter's school and question her, before our family's name was cleared.

And all this simply because I let a "black man" move into our home,
in this lily-white, racist, backwoods, backwards town I live in.

Racism exists folks, whether you like to admit it or not. And those folks
who deem/believe themselves to be spiritual beings (who should be
the least prejudiced of all, considering that they are spirits and are not
anchored to this world we live in or to the the skin that they happen to be
wearing) are the worst racists of all...

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by rival

Oh, racism exists. It exists on all fronts. I've lived in neighborhoods where I was the only white person around and believe me, it's just as bad when the perpetrators of racism are not white.

When people start attacking racism on all fronts, including attacking it amongst Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics, we might actually get somewhere.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by dampnickers
The simple fact here is that whites are the one group who are most discriminated against. Especially if you are a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), and male!
[edit on 29-6-2009 by dampnickers]

I can not agree with you on this statement. I believe that the most discriminated group in the U.S. are the Asians. In education and professional work environment, Asians are lumped into the same group as Whites. Although they make up a substantially small portion of the U.S. population, (4%). I have seen jobs being given to other minorities, and yes, even Whites, over that of a more qualified Asian individual.

I find that the older generation of Asians, and those who were born here, are still criticized and discriminated, in the big cities and the countryside. Not only by Whites, but by the 'majority' minorities as well. The reason why you don't hear more about Asians in the U.S. being discriminated upon, is due to the simple fact of culture, which teaches 'not to make waves.'

I hear about reverse racism, and it is an unfortunate issue brought upon by a nanny state, which caters to those who are not willing to work hard enough for something that they want. However, I feel that crying reverse racism is just as bad as those who cry about racism. If only this country would learn to give to those who deserve what they earned, rather than give them based on the color of their skin. We cannot move forward, but rather, take many steps back. But, by my experiences, people still only see the color of one's skin, no matter what their accomplishments and experience.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:51 PM

If we learned anything today - the winners in this case were the firefighters - not the lawyers.

I doubt that there were any pro bono lawyers for the Caucasians.
I'd bet that the lawyers made way more money than the FireFighters.
The FFs got their promotions and backpay but the lawyers got richer, win or lose.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:52 PM
rival....... that is not racisiam , That was to protect your child you got it twisted a bit ,

The system worked in your case some one called and it was checked out , they thought you were dealing drugs

[edit on 053030p://pmvpm by yenko13]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Retseh
And so the Supreme Court makes its last ruling based on sanity and what is right and just.

When Sotomayor takes up her position, the split will switch to 5:4 in favor of the deranged liberal members of the court.

Anyone got a hammer, we need to nail our coffin shut.

Wow, you've been here since 06 and you haven't learned the whole deny ignorance thing?

Pay attention.

Appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush, Souter served on both the Rehnquist and current Roberts courts, and was often considered a member of the court's liberal wing...

On May 26, 2009, President Obama announced that he was nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Court. [2]

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."
Justices Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Speaking dismissively of the majority opinion, she predicted the court's ruling "will not have staying power."

Bold added for emphasis.

Sotomayor replaces Souter, the court remains the same. 4 libs, 4 cons, and Kennedy manning the middle. However I'm personally of the opinion that this will never change. No matter how stacked the court seems to become, opinions will shift to even things out.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by FredT

I know this isn't on topic but I was told the exact same thing except I was trying for a small business loan! I have a MBA and I am USMC veteran .It's not much but I do get a slight disability payment for an injury suffered in the gulf (nothing major only 10%). However, I was told that because of my education and "disabled" veteran status I would definitely qualify for a loan, not to mention I have a very high credit score. I filled out the forms even after I was told by the loan officer that it wouldn't matter unless I was a female or minority. Of course the results were denied. I have tried at multiple banks and credit unions...only once was the loan officer honest with me about the reason why I am being denied. I was qualified for a 20K after asking and needing 5x that. Oh, BTW I live in the grand state of CA. Honestly I guess that's enough said.

On topic, I am shocked that this was over turned.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by yenko13
rival....... that is not racism, That was to protect your child you got it twisted a bit ,

The system worked in your case, someone called and it was checked out , they thought you were dealing drugs

True to a point. But racism was the basis for the accusations against me.
The ex-mayor was the person responsible for the completely unfounded
accusations (I found this out later from some folks in the community who
felt bad for me). The fact was that this man could not tolerate a black man
living in his community and was not above making false accusations to
drive him/me away. There exists no other reason than race for this man's
actions. The sad part is, this bigot probably still feels justified to this day, and
probably feels as though he won, considering the black man moved out.
He never knew that my son's friend had already moved by the time
action was taken based on his accusations. It was very nearly a VERY
bad situation. I came quite close to going ballistic before this thing
finally played out. I'm glad I restrained myself because I could have
ended up in jail...and then, of course, the schmuck ex-mayor, could
have pointed (if he actually could have accomplished the pointing
manuever--I have heard it is hard to do when you have severe trauma
to the head) to my actions and said "See...I told you so....he's a BAD GUY!"


(not you...the ex-mayor)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in