My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« More evidence Bill Ayers helped write Barack Obama’s ‘Dreams of My Father’ | Main | Because it’s fair, we can live with the Ricci v. DeStefano decision »

June 29, 2009



Ginsburg should be put out to pasture. She provided an offending dissent:

1) Ginsburg noted that the court’s decision would prevent New Haven from achieving a diverse workforce.

Do you want the best people for the job or do you want a bunch of knuckleheads who can't pass the test in your "diverse workforce"?

2) In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the majority ignored evidence of flaws in the New Haven tests.

Uh huh. Minorities are always the victims in her mind. The test was made by "the man" to hold down minorities. Don't trust whitey.

3) Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the firefighters would "attract the court's empathy. But they had no vested right to a promotion, and no person has received a promotion in preference to them."

It was a promotional exam. It was a test to determine who was qualified for a promotion. Why would they administer the test if they weren't going to promote anybody? And how can you throw out the results based solely on race?

David Holliday



Ruth Bader Ginsburg knows that if she weren't a woman, she'd still be at the ACLU.


Isn't the person she hopes to replace one of the 4 in the 5-4 decision?

jj mollo

Well, what if the test really was flawed? In the South the registration literacy test was used to keep out black people. How do we know they haven't found a more subtle way to do the same thing? I don't really have an opinion on the case itself, but I'm saying that the nature of the test is relevant.

David Holliday

From what I've read none of the justices sided with Sotomayor.

The comments to this entry are closed.