Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor"

27 Comments -

1 – 27 of 27
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just saw the news and had to come here to offer my congratulations. On account of my currently using a computer shared by many people, I've avoided commenting here for quite some time but this is big enough news to allow for an anonymous comment.

It really pisses me off though that the other four decided otherwise.

6/29/09, 7:44 AM

Anonymous outlaw josey wales said...

Came down to meeting a certain evidentiary standard. No con law question decided. Ruling is fairly narrow.

6/29/09, 7:49 AM

Anonymous jody said...

of course the case is a slam dunk, which is why it should bother every white american that the vote was 5-4.

the vote should have been 8-1 if not 9-0. there's nothing complicated about the case, it's a simple discrimination case.

the diversity agenda has corrupted EVERY institution in the united states. now even the supreme court breaks down on ideological lines instead of just getting the easy things right.

there's no doubt about the united states being damaged beyond repair when the supreme court is only getting this stuff correct by the smallest possible margin.

6/29/09, 7:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to say GREAT, but we know the left is going to avoid following this, just like prop 209, or think a way around it.

6/29/09, 7:55 AM

Anonymous Bob said...

I note my prediction on an earlier thread was right. It was a 5-4 decision, and not a narrow one confined to the facts.

The Court said you can't have a policy of "screw whitey because if we don't we have a chance at getting sued for desparate impact" is not an excuse for screwing whitey.

Instead, the burden is now on those who want to discriminate against whites to provide "a strong basis in evidence that the remedial actions were necessary."

This opens the door to many other lawsuits by white government employees. The burden is now on those who want to discriminate to provide "strong evidence" that it is needed.

Or to put in another way, the Court closed a claimed loophole to its strict rule from Gratz that affirmative action by the government must pass the very difficult "strict scrutiny test" by claiming that AA is needed to avoid lawsuits.

6/29/09, 8:07 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

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."
=====



No vested right to a promotion? Not even when he PASSES A PROMOTIONAL TEST with flying colors?!

What is she? an idiot?

WOW that is scary. I find it scary that 4 SCJ's voted against Ricci.....this one should have been a 9-0.

6/29/09, 8:21 AM

Anonymous headache said...

Great job following and commenting this Steve!!
The agonizing over the result by the judges, the MSM and the political elite is such am embarrassment for any intellectually coherent person. I agree with the others that it should have been 9-0. For sure it would have been had any other race or gender rather than "white, male" been the subject. How pathetic an indictment of the ruling elite! Stooping down to such low intellectual levels. And all the accompanying babble.

6/29/09, 8:35 AM

Anonymous Bob said...

Josey Wales is wrong that this is narrow decision because it did not decide a constitutional law issue.

Courts never make a constitutional law decision if there are other grounds to decide a case, this is the principle of constitutional avoidence. Only Scalia touched on the issue, not even Thomas or Alito would join him.

6/29/09, 8:41 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It really pisses me off though that the other four decided otherwise."


They are just one tyrant short.

6/29/09, 8:45 AM

Anonymous Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

Well, Lugash predicted wrong.

Like everyone else, I think it should have been 9-0 or 8-1.

Is Ginsberg losing her marbles? I know she can't argue this case any legal principle, but the "no vested interest" argument is weak.

I am Lugash.

6/29/09, 9:23 AM

Anonymous Vortigern said...

Of course the other problem with Ginsburg's summary of the case is that "other persons" have "received promotions." Those are labelled "acting" promotions but come with all the power, pay, and perquisites of "real" promotions. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

6/29/09, 9:49 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Ginsberg losing her marbles?
Never doubt people like Ginsburg know exactly what they are doing. As with the neocons, they know the flimsy pretense, the most covuloted explanation, the most outrageous lie (like Perle's 'there are no neocons') will go unchallenged by the media. They are 'messages' about what to do they are little concerned with niceties like 'truth' or heh heh...justice.

6/29/09, 10:26 AM

Anonymous Italiangal said...

Ginsburg. Sotomayor. Bazelon and Allan. Even O'Connor many times.

I am embarrassed for my gender.

Thank God that I can salvage some pride through my paisans, Scalia and Alito.

6/29/09, 10:46 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huh. I'd like to see the Constitutional basis under which the Federal government may tell employers anything about who they hire. The whole thing is a crock.

6/29/09, 11:37 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ginsberg's smug assertion that the white firefighters who earned their promotions had "no vested right to promotion" borders on despicable. Ricci played by every rule and studied extra hours. The intrinsic unfairness of this is apparent to a 3rd grader and her glib dismissal is stunning.

6/29/09, 12:10 PM

Blogger Svigor said...

What is she? an idiot?

Bet she'd get smart PDQ if someone messed around with her "who? Whom?"

Say, becoming a bit more granular in considerations of groups vis-a-vis the panoply of "anti-discrimination" laws.

(Think Harvard)

6/29/09, 12:27 PM

Anonymous testing99 said...

I'm shocked that as many as five Justices would rule for Ricci.

Steve, as your post points out, the real issue is the politics which drives the legal theory. Dems, or more specifically the political coalition of Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women, and SWPL liberals, depend on screwing over Straight White Guys, who are their enemy.

That was indeed Obama's 52-47 Win.

You can see the decision was as narrow as possible, certain to be reversed once Sotomayor comes on board, and the opening bell for the big struggle.

Most Straight White Guys did not care that much about the lost opportunities during good times, when rocking the boat meant ticking off women, plus non-Whites screaming "racism!" at you and threatening ala the thieving Reverend Kingmaker.

NOW, with Government running everything from GM/Chrysler, to health care, to making decisions about corporate hiring, firing, promotions, and raises, the stakes are too high.

However, White Men lack the numbers. Lost in this is that White Women are the biggest by number beneficiary of AA, and are mostly now unmarried. Particularly younger ones, with declining marriage and delayed marriage if it does take place -- White women have every incentive to support AA against their traditional enemies -- White Men.

BTW, like the Font Change. Serif is much nicer to read.

You can see how the politics are blowing by how Obama spends the Stimulus money. Nothing for construction stuff employing men, lots of makework social services employing women.

6/29/09, 12:53 PM

Anonymous Big Bill said...

Lesson: if you want to get bulletproof test results, do like the crew did here: get the minorities embedded in the test creation process for the very beginning. Ask them repeatedly whether they have a problem with the questions. Get them down on the record, every step of the way. Do a rigorous exam process like thisand you will not get second-guessed and reversed when the minorities fail.

Let's face it, if minorities suggest the subject matter of the test and approve of the questions, it makes them look like morons when they do worse than white gentiles and then start whining. It looks like a painful case of black "buyers remorse".

6/29/09, 1:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous 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."

They had no vested right to promotion?! The sole reason for their taking this test was to QUALIFY for promotions! They didn't take a test out of "The American Fireman" (or whatever) and then claim that this unauthorized test qualified them for a promotion. And those "acting" officers are nothing but a slap in the face to the men who did qualify.

6/29/09, 2:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one had a vested right to be promoted because they passed the test, not even the top scorer. The city is supposed to pick for promotion someone from the top 3 scores. Ginsberg's argument may be highly techical, but it isn't ignorant.

6/29/09, 2:41 PM

Blogger Michael said...

How is it politically damning for a democratic appointed supreme court justice to agree with all the other democratic appointed/ centrist supreme court justices? I really don't understand.

6/29/09, 4:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No one had a vested right to be promoted because they passed the test, not even the top scorer. The city is supposed to pick for promotion someone from the top 3 scores."

So, um... why didn't they do that?

Don't be obtuse.

6/29/09, 4:50 PM

Anonymous Lover of Wisdom said...

Will this ruling somehow hurt Sotomayor in the nomination process?

6/29/09, 5:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Might have bought us another 5-10 years but the writing is on the wall. Obama will appoint at least 2-3 more Sotomayor type judges and one day Scalia (who is in his 70s) or Thomas (I think late 50s but extremely overweight) will die or retire.

Affirmative action is just something whitey will have to learn to live with.

6/29/09, 8:26 PM

Anonymous oropax said...

t99 sed:
Dems, or more specifically the political coalition of Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women, and SWPL liberals, depend on screwing over Straight White Guys, who are their enemy.



I've got an itch under my foot... Something is missing here... somehow I feel testy has left a particularly energetic group out of his list... must be oversight on his part, er my part...wtf

6/30/09, 3:36 AM

Anonymous bluesky said...

So what was Ginsberg's vested right to promotion to the supreme court?? Mmmm what would it have been then...??

6/30/09, 3:37 AM

Blogger John Anello said...

Justice Kennedy kept his opinion very narrow and the strong basis of evidence test that this case has established will not be enough to put an end to AA.
As much as I would have liked this case to have been a sweeping decision that ended AA once and for all, I think it would have been a vulgar display of judicial activism had the Court done so. This case was not a pure AA case, it dealt with disparate impact, which is exactly what Justice Kennedy addressed. Perhaps the best place to eliminate AA is not the Court but the ballot.
Furthermore, I am a little disappointed with the narrow 5-4 decision, but in this age of Obama

I suppose we should take what we can get.

After reading Justice Ginsberg’s opinion I recommend that for the good of the nation that she retire.

6/30/09, 5:06 AM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL