I haven't yet read the babble, dribble, drool, and spew over this from the Blue Bozo Brigade near and far, but I'm sure it's the total knee jerk-ness we always expect when one of their cherished agenda items like Identity Politics/Victimization gets dealt a major and well deserved setback.
From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:
" '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,' Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
Ginsburg's predictable and poorly reasoned minority opinion:
"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.' "
The fireighters who were denied justice initially clearly had vested interest under the Constitution. They were clearly denied promotions based upon racial considerations. The fact that four justices in the minority refuse to acknowledge that doesn't change those firefighters' rights.
#
But Blacks do have vested rights to promotions?
ReplyDelete"But Blacks do have vested rights to promotions?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
They have vested rights to equal protection under the law, as do ALL citizens.
Here is a link to comments of Walter Williams that have some parallel to this topic.
ReplyDeletehttp://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams062309.php3
Here's Justice Alito's concurring opinion, via Power Line:
ReplyDelete"Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.
The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is 'unfortunate' and that they 'understandably attract this Court's sympathy.' But 'sympathy' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them."
In addition, the majority opinion ruled that the City of New Haven's rationale for the adverse decision on those who earned promotions, to protect itself from disparate-impact liability, was not valid. Indeed, the city could not be sued under those terms.