After all, it was hardly to be expected that the five more conservative justices -- who held that the city had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by refusing to promote the firefighters with the highest scores on a job-related promotional exam because none were black -- would endorse an Obama nominee's ruling to the contrary.

What's more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel's specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit -- regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: "Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed... opinion" by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

This is like saying the Steelers won the super bowl 10 to 7, but because they didnt like the play the other team scored on, it was really 10 to 0

And hey right wing Im sure by being bitter, sarcastic, acting like you know everything even when making your selves look childish (as in this case) and against fairness for minorities is the fast track back to dominance!  Good Luck!!

Actually, it's more like saying that the score was 10 to 7, but one decision by a referee was universally acknowledged by the NFL to be a bad decision.

It's normal for courts to make decisions on many of the smaller issues within the case as well as on the case itself.  This is what the Supreme Court did.  They said the appeals court was wrong (well, 5 of them said it, the other 4 said that the appeals court was right), but they also said - unanimously - that Sotomayor's specific opinion on this issue was wrong.

I do believe the appeals court consists of more than one judge, so it is telling that while the court itself made a decision that, although incorrect, was defensible, Sotomayor's SPECIFIC opinion was completely at odds with the supreme court.

I wonder what other SCOTUS rulings we can change to 9 - 0 with a just little interpretative reading.

"Hi I'm angry leftist troll.  I don't say anything meaningful.  I just say things like repubs and rush and fox news, grrr.  Then I sign off with a biting rhetorical question.  Har har har."

Here, I'll give you a little teaser to get you started on this little thing we like to call... "thinking."  The point of the article is that every justice on the Supreme Court disagreed with the basis for the 2nd Circuit decision.  Do you agree or disagree?  If you disagree, on what basis would you seek to reconcile the various Supreme Court opinions with the 2nd Circuit's decision? 

Try not to hurt yourself.  If you start feeling dizzy or disoriented because of this new engagement with rational discourse, don't force it.  Take a deep breath.  Count to ten.  And just start at the beginning.  Remember: practice, practice, practice.

This decision is nothing but red meat for a bunch of right wing ideologues.  This despite the fact that this was clearly a case of justices legislating from the bench.  Activist judges, if you will.  But IOKIYAR.

Sotomayor will still be confirmed, by a wide margin, despite all the whining and dissembling going on in the right wing nutosphere.  Deal with it. 

This 9-0 headline is so much nonsense.

The election of Barack Obama was unanimous!  While 40 something percent of the electorate expressed their support for Obama by casting a ballot for McCain, clearly they were sending a message to their preferred candidate Obama that if he failed to perform as expected, they might vote for the Republican in 2012.

You lefties ought to understand an issue before venturing an opinion on it.  Sarcasm and vitriol don't compensate for ignorance, they compound it.

- Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs

- Summary Judgment for the Defendants

- Vacated and Remanded for a determination of whether the city had a "strong-basis-in-evidence" for fearing a disparate impact claim

You could have opinions that concur in the judgment but for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protetcion clause instead of Title VII).  You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm.  You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. You could concur in part and dissent in part.  I could go on but surely you get the point.

There are actually cases with no majority opinion because the Justices couldn't get 5 to agree.  To view Supreme Court decisions as a "yes/no" vote is preposterous.  There's a reason the Ricci decision is 93 pages (including 4 different opinions) and it's not because they wrote "yes" or "no" really really big.

Why?  I don't know.  I just made that up because it sounds like it supports my argument.

Stuart's point was already made early yesterday afternoon at ObamaPundit:

http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-rules-9-0-against-sotomayor/

"The one and only thing that should be understood about this case as it relates to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is that all nine members of the Supreme Court found that Sotomayor’s court was in error.  Press reports that the Court “ruled against Sotomayor 5-4 along partisan lines” fundamentally misrepresent the decision issued today."

                                                                             *     *     *

"[A]ll nine justices agreed that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of New Haven, a finding that Sotomayor had affirmed twice — once by summary order and once in an analysis-free, eight-sentence opinion.  Justice Ginsburg also found that Sotomayor’s court had used the wrong standard: 'The lower courts focused on [New Haven]’s ‘intent’ rather than on whether [New Haven] in fact had good cause to act.'”

God knows from where the Sotomayor defenders are drawing their conclusion that any of the justices agreed with the two decision issued by Sotomayor's panel.  While it can be argued the precedent was foggy when that panel issued its decision, those 3 justices (lead by Sotomayor) didn't even attempt to wrestle with the issues, instead issuing summary decisions (the first of which could not have even been appealed).  There is no defending that.

If 5 justices voted for Miss North Carolina, 4 voted for Miss California and Sotomayor voted for Perez Hilton, didn't all nine justices disagree with Sotomayor? 

That's the 9-0 reference.  All nine disagreed with Sotomayor.

Pretend as you may, but the court was unanimoous and they said "We had hoped that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life; but in this case the Latin chick got it wrong"

Go to page 4 of this pdf, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf, the actual ruling you idiots:

"KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opin-ion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined."

Hmm, looks like 5-4 to me.  I guess you rightwing tools need to go teach the USSC Justices how to count.  "But, but, but, but, but...we have hairs to split to make ourselves look like morons!" you say.  Continue on.

That's because the Supreme Court was not tasked with, nor was it answering, the question: "was Sotomayor's decision correct?"

If it had been, the justices would have ruled 9-0 in the negative.

But, since the question they answered was -- "did the firefighers deserve summary judgment?" -- the ruling was 5-4. 

This whole thing was already covered over at ObamaPundit:

http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-rules-9-0-against-sotomayor/

Read that entry, and you'll understand.

Liberal debate techniques:  When all reasonable arguments fail resort to ad hominem attacks.

I am not a wingnut. I am not a Limbaugh drone. What I am is a person who reads and thinks critically, and I must say to the people who aren't even acknowledging the article itself or the many, many explanations of the "9-0" remark in the comment, what is your malfunction?

Within majority and dissenting opinions there can be commonground. In a concurring opinion, in which someone signs on to form the majority, but has a slightly different take, it still counts towards the majority vote, or vice-versa with the dissenters---it is a matrix of ideas and opinions that converge at certain reconciliable points and completely diverge in others.

If you can read, which these "republican'ts" drones seem not to be able to do, then you'd know that the author's original point was that while the 4 dissented and did not side with the plaintiffs, they did write that ALL lower courts failed to do what was right: have the city produce evidence supporting its claims that the test was racially-biased, and allow a jury/trial to decide whether it was or not. The lower courts did not question the city's motives or actions at all, and even the SCOTUS dissenter's had a PROBLEM with this.

The vote came down 5-4 for the plaintiffs, but within that arena that is a myriad of opinions, and before you make a big hubbub about the "9-0" quip, please read critically.

Suppose Sotomayor in a civil case found for the Defendant.  On appeal, all nine Supreme Court justices could, as a matter of law, reverse in favor of the Plaintiff with five justices awarding both actual and punitive damages and four awarding only actual damages.

It would be a 5-4 decision over the issue of punitive damages with none of the justices finding for the Defendant.  The 5-4 split is over the remedy and not the general liability.  That is how a 5 to 4 decision can be 9 to 0 against Sotomayor's decision.

I presume all liberals can't be as obtuse as you.

I read your post with much interest: It has re-confirmed SCOTUSBlog as the definitive resource in these matters. I thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours,

Michael

To be fair to Judge Sotomayor (and I don't think that Mr. Taylor or any of the other Republican supporters are interested in being fair to her), the lower courts' focus on "intent" was perfectly reasonable, given that the lawsuit alleged intentional discrimination.  In such lawsuits, intent is the predominant issue.  Ginsburg's dissent essentially suggested a new way to look at unusual cases like this, where the alleged intentional discrimination was justified by the City's argument that it was trying to avoid a disparate-impact lawsuit.  In those instances, Ginsburg (splitting hairs, I think) wrote that the focus should be on whether there was good cause for the City to fear such a lawsuit.  If so, then the City would be justified to throw out the tests and start anew.

In short, this whole BS that the Supreme Court unanimously "rejected" "Sotomayor's" analysis is really bad-faith propaganda, and doesn't do justice to the serious and complex issues involved.

FWIW, I think that Scalia's concurrence is the key opinion in the case, and he gets it completely correct as far as I'm concerned.

Stuart, You have exactly as much credibility now as you did when you were tossed off PBS's News Hour for being a partisan right wing hack. Or possibly even less, although I think zero is as low as one can go in credibility.

Clearly, any Supreme Court justice who finds him- or herself on the short end of an 8-1 decision (like Thomas did just the other day) should immediately resign from the court because the rest of the justices were unanimous in their disagreement with the minority opinion.

Desperate people seek desperate measures, but this argument is so stupid it boggles the mind.

It's true that all the SC Justices did not agree with Judge Sotomayor's basis for ruling.  That's not altogether shocking for those with some legal understanding of the applicable law.  What is shocking is the one paragraph dismissive action by Judge Sotomayor.

Even the 4 dissenters choose to find other means to support the action against Ricci and other firefighters who filed the action.  They also recognize that the basis for this is not fully completed either.

MLK's dream of a man being judge by the content of his character, not his color has not yet been realized.  We have to twist that obvious truth into knots in order to placate the extreme politicization of our courts.

Where have we seen this broken record? Change indeed.  

I think that you really need to go back and read Justice Ginsburg's dissent again (especially the two pages you cite).  Justice Giinsburg is not rejecting the lower court's reasoning.  She is objecting to the Majority SCOTUS opinion.  Her claim is that the Majority opinion is offering a new substantive principle.  Traditionally, when a new substantive principle is put into place, SCOTUS remands the case back to the lower court, to retry the case based on the new substantive principle.  The Majority in this case failed to do this, and instead made their own opinion on the factual question that had not been before the lower court (i.e. whether there was a  "substantial basis in evidence" that New Haven would have been liable to a disparate impact lawsuit). 

So Ginsburg is not rejecting Sotomayor's opinion (which, by the way, does not claim 'that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit' as you suggest) but rather the MAJORITY'S decision not to throw the case back to the lower court, so that further testimony could be called to determine whether there WAS a "substantial basis in evidence" that New Haven would have been liable to a disparate impact lawsuit.  (And as you point out, Ginburg thinks that the Majority got the factual issue wrong too--if you look back at the record, there IS a "substantial basis in evidence" that the test was not a matter of "business necessity" and so upholding it WOULD have made them liable to a Title VII laysuit.)  But I suppose you cannot really be bothered to read things carefully before you opine about them.

-Steve

If, indeed, it really can hardly be expected that they would endorse the judgment of someone who Barak Obama has nominated, what is the use of arguing such highfalutin concepts as original intent or legal precedent or even the merits of the case? This is just plain, old, bare-knuckle politics and a foregone conclusion.

Kaspersky coupons

Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.Keep blogging

Las Vegas Upholstery Cleaning

Corporate Awards

Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me. I am apreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great article. Good luck to the author! all the best! 

 Replica Louis Vuitton

Thanks this post really opened my eyes. it is not only eye opening rather very beneficial for the people those who want to do something good in his life .

Thanks for the nice post. I have already bookmarked it.It was really a good read. I also think quality is vitally important! But saying that, your articles are always a fab read., Keep up the good work. acceptance letter

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the kitchenaid case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

www.trafficdr.com

No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

This is like saying the Steelers won the super bowl 10 to 7, but because they didnt like the play the other team scored on, it was really 10 to 0.

retro furniture | retro sofa

I am not a wingnut. I am not a Limbaugh drone. What I am is a person who reads and thinks critically, and I must say to the people who aren't even acknowledging the article itself or the many, many explanations of the "9-0" remark in the comment, what is your malfunction?

Within majority and dissenting opinions there can be commonground. In a concurring opinion, in which someone signs on to form the majority, but has a slightly different take, it still counts towards the majority vote, or vice-versa with the dissenters---it is a matrix of ideas and opinions that converge at certain reconciliable points and completely diverge in others. from http://travelinsuranceforseniors.org

Hermes Picotin

Esponjas

Mighael donahuue

carlei murciali

Halloween Costume

http://www.lecithinbenefits.org

http://www.asthmarelieve.com

travel insurance for seniors

Tropical Aquariums Adelaide

free cell phone spy software

spy text messages