What the New Haven firefighter’s Ricci v. DeStefano SCOTUS case says about Justice Sotomayor, affirmative action and reverse racism.

Alix Walker, Staff Writer
Ideology:  Moderate conservative | Writing From: Madison, Connecticut

In the now-famous Ricci v. DeStefano case, the city of New Haven made the claim that Federal civil rights laws forced it to discriminate on the basis of race.  The plaintiffs had earned promotions by outperforming their colleagues on a test, but the city threw out the results because almost all of the top performers were white.  Officials claimed they feared black firemen would sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on minorities.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case Ricci v. DeStefano of the, New Haven Firefighter reflects the highest court’s concern over biased racial decisions made in the lower courts. The lower courts decision to not allow test scores to qualify firefighters for promotion has added importance since Sonia Sotomayor’s decision in the lower courts was negated.  Does this reflect on her ability to be unbiased when serving as a Justice on the Supreme Court?

Sotomayor’s decision to enforce affirmative action and making it a racial issue contrary to the results of a state exam given to fire fighters in New Haven CT is a serious issue that needs to be examined.  There are two very strong opinions about the outcome of the case and where affirmative action should be administered.  The decision in the court should not be based on her feeling towards the best interest of the minority.

When deciding on the appointment of Supreme Court Justice, the senate should be looking for someone with neutral opinions.  They cannot take sides, which is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor is accused in the New Haven firefighters case. She has been very forward about her opinion for the less fortunate ethnic groups that she feels are suppressed.  In the court of law, the job of a Judge is to uphold the laws under the Constitution; the Supreme Court is based on Constitutional law.  I find it disturbing that Sotomayor has had to spend the last two weeks studying Constitutional law before her confirmation hearing.  As a Federal judge I would expect her to already be knowledgeable on the subject.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the denial of a job or promotion on the basis of race. Under this legislation, the white (and Hispanic) firefighters should not have, legally, been denied the promotion.  Beyond the Civil Rights Act, there is a strong argument that the city’s interpretation of the law violates the 14th Amendment.  As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in a concurring opinion: “If the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties — e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal — discriminate on the basis of race… The war between making an impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later.”

Racial arguments have caused more controversy than relief to minorities.  Equal rights has moved forward successfully in the last 30 years.  The fact that we have an African American as President and a Hispanic woman as a nominee for the Supreme Court are great examples of how we have moved forward as a society.  People should be looked at for their qualifications and be expected to rise to the standards of whatever they desire to achieve.

As for the outcome of the Supreme Court nominee, the Senate should look into every piece of evidence of the New Haven case and question her ethics behind her decisions with in-depth questioning.  The law is not based on feelings; it is based on what the law is. If it is found that she indeed made the decision to hold the promotions of the firefighters in New Haven due to an emotional bias, it should be the reason she is denied a seat in the Supreme Court.  The question as to her ability to be unbiased in her decisions is a viable question that should be asked.