Here’s an excellent article from the National Journal Magazine on the controversial ruling from Sotomayor on the Conneticut firefighter case. The article can be summarized as follows:

• Frank Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., spent 8-13 hours a day studying for an exam that he hoped would promote him to fire lieutenant. He paid $1,000 out of his own pocket for recommended reading materials and hired someone to read him the books because he was dyslexic.
• Over 100 people took the exam and Mr. Ricci had one of the top 17 scores – virtually ensuring him a position as Fire Lieutenant.
• After review, the town of New Haven decided to throw out the results since not enough minority applicants would get promoted under the scoring system.
• The top 17 scoring firefighters sued the town.
• The case was heard by the district court and thrown out: “Five of the majority judges, including Sotomayor, retorted that New Haven’s decision to discard the test results and deny what would otherwise have been virtually automatic promotions to the highest-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters was “facially race-neutral.” The reason? Because none of the low-scoring, ineligible African-American firefighters was promoted either. These five judges also endorsed Judge Arterton’s conclusion that the city’s decision was justified by fears that promoting the high-scoring whites might violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and bring a discrimination suit by the low-scoring blacks.” (Quoted from the article)

This ruling is absolutely ridiculous. Basically, what Sotomayor is saying is that she believes in racial quotas. She thinks that the color of someones skin and the individual rights of a human being are not mutually exclusive. I think Rand said it best in The Virtue of Selfishness:

…Consider the implications of that statement. It does not demand special privileges on racial grounds- it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors. It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination. But perhaps his grandfather had not practiced it. Or perhaps his grandfather had not even lived in this country. Since these questions are not to be considered, it means that that white laborer is to be charged with collective racial guilt, the guilt consisting merely of the color of his skin. ~Ayn Rand

Consider this quote from Sotomayor in a 2001 speech titled “A Latina Judges Voice.”

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. (Bold, mine)…

In other words, there is no such thing as absolute morality. She is saying that due to her gender and cultural background she is uniquely more qualified than a white man to pass judgement in the name of the constitution of the United States of America… Here is the definition of racism from dictionary.com:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Am I missing something here? I don’t know what else to say…

We are living in some strange times.

Trackback URI |