“New Haven firemen passed their test, but lost a promotion … The city doesn’t deny that its decision to scrap the test was based on race, but it justifies it under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires employers not to rely on exams that have a racially disparate impact.” Race in the Workplace, The Wall Street Journal Online, April 22, 2009
Ricci v. DeStefano
Firefighters in New Haven, CT passed a qualifying exam but were denied promotions because they were white. New Haven threw out test results after no blacks passed the test. As noted above, the City’s argument was based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The fallacy of that argument is that any ‘racially disparate impact’ was generated not by the test but by difference in knowledge. To discriminate against any individual because of his/her intelligence is to invade the privacy of one’s mind and penalize for knowledge contained therein. The State has no such jurisdiction.
In this case, the white firefighters have been penalized not only for being Caucasian but also for succeeding where their counterparts failed. ‘Punish success, reward failure’ – the across-the-board Radical Left philosophy currently emanating from our seat of government. Never mind the Constitution or individual rights under that Constitution. Decisions in this case, to date, clearly show the State’s misapplication of the Law to effectively deny those who passed the exam the fruit of their labors. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…” The Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV. The State seized the personal product of preparation, ability, and effort and declared it null and void. Why? Because said product was not derived from Black intellect – that is unconstitutional. And Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, played a role in making that happen.
To RIGHTLY divide the word of truth, the first question that must be asked of Sotomayor is this:
Would your opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano be identical if the racial ethnicity of the plaintiffs was anything other than Caucasian?
Unless that question is asked and a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is received, the full scope and intensity of Sotomayor’s prejudice will not be known. Under that circumstance, only a collection of fools would permit her nomination to move forward. Having unabashedly politicized the seat soon to be vacated by Souter, Obama and his lackeys are undoubtedly certain that no real opposition to Sotomayor’s appointment will surface from any Senator for ‘fear’ of losing the Latino vote. I submit that such politicization is nothing short of holding the people hostage by attempting to effectively gag the duly-elected representatives to whom their authority has been granted. Sotomayor’s nomination is the perfect opportunity for elected representatives to take a stand for the people. Chief Justice John Roberts opined the following in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Sotomayor’s actions in the Ricci case prove beyond doubt her unwillingness to adhere to that principle. She, in fact, has perpetuated racial discrimination and that action alone should disqualify her from the bench. By her own actions she has (1) proven her disregard for equality under the Law, (2) that she will punish success and elevate failure, and (3) that she will confiscate the fruit of Caucasian individual labor if said confiscation serves to benefit any minority.
Sotomayor is incapable of impartial adjudication – the Ricci case reflects that. Elevation to the Supreme Court should be denied.
