Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Sotomayor Decision Against Whites Reversed by Supreme Court

R-71 UPDATE: We are continuing to get encouraging reports from those gathering signatures for R-71. I received this message yesterday:

"We had an excellent day Saturday collecting signatures at the Olympia Tea Party Picnic. Despite the fact that there were several tables with R-71s (also with plenty of signatures), we went through the crowds and still managed to get 6 pages full of signatures!"

I know there is a concerted effort by many to have petitions at the Tea Party events scheduled this next week. If you are going, please plan to take several petitions with you to the event. I have linked a site that has listed most all of the Tea Party events in Washington State.
___________________

Decision Against Whites Reversed by Supreme Court
Many were not surprised when we learned how Sonia Sotomayor had ruled in the matter of the New Haven firefighters, given the fact that she has been telling people for quite some time how she rules. Sotomayor had ruled against 20 firefighters, 19 white and 1 Hispanic, causing them to not be promoted, even though they had scored high on their test, because the city had thrown out the result of the tests, saying too few minority firefighters had scored high.

Judge Sotomayor agreed with the city.

The Supreme Court, to which she has been nominated, disagreed with Sotomayor -- and the city overturning her ruling yesterday.

President Obama says it should not affect her being confirmed, however, Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told Fox News, "It was quite a rebuke actually to her and the opinion that was rendered."

He also said, "I think it raises questions in the minds of the American people as to whether some of Judge Sotomayor's speeches are being reflected in her opinions in terms of the favoritism for one group or another that might occur."

Judicial Activism.

Columnist George Will wrote, "Although New Haven's fire fighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won so narrowly---5-4."

Justice Scalia said yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, "Merely postpones the evil day," on which the Court must decide "whether or to what extent" existing disparate law conflicts with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

I agree with George Will. It is deeply depressing that this case was won so narrowly, with the most liberal judges ruling in favor of what was obviously racist.

It is also deeply disappointing and concerning that President Obama would nominate someone with such a propensity toward this kind of racist ruling and judicial activism.

With several presently serving on the Supreme Court due for retirement and the most far left liberal President in the history of our country, I suspect this is a glimpse of what is to come over the next three and a half years as Obama continues to "remake" America.

God help us.

3 comments:

  1. When something is handed to someone because of the color of his/her skin what is learned? The answer is nothing. Those who think people of color will advance by giving them preferential treatment, are doing those same people of color a great diservice. In fact in my opinion handing everything to someone because of the color of their skin keeps them down. "Give a man a fish you feed him for a meal, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gary, perhaps if you actually looked beyond the republican talking points you'd learn that she didn't rule that the city's action was correct. She was asked to rule on whether or not they had the legal right act as they did. Big difference.

    Also, since the Supreme Court told the local government how to act, isn't that what you would call 'judicial activism'? Oh, wait, it's only judicial activism if it goes against your viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What happened at Phillip's trial? How bad was it?

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.