Earlier this year I told you about a case called Ricci v. DeStefano. The fire department in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out the results of a promotions test because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions. In other words, white firefighters (over a dozen) and two hispanics who qualified were denied promotions because of their race.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the firefighters and against New Haven. (Also see video)
Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who sided with New Haven. In other words, she ruled against the firefighters denied promotions because of skin color.
A developing meme is that the Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor. Will it make a difference during confirmation hearings? I’m not hopeful Sotomayor-reversed will generate much steam. I doubt Republicans have the heart to grill Sotomayor the way they should. They’re not of stout heart.
For a little light reading, download the 93-page opinion. (PDF)
Minutes ago the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on Proposition 8, the measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The people’s will is upheld. Sort of. The court will allow existing homosexual “marriages” to stand. On what grounds?
More later.
Update: The court’s web page is getting swamped, but I managed to download a Word version of the 186-page opinion. Download it here.
Last month I mentioned that the fire department in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out test results and canceled promotions because too few black firefighters scored high enough to receive promotions. The department was concerned about promoting too many whites, a clear case of racial discrimination.
Firefighter Frank Ricci and others (one hispanic and more than a dozen whites) who scored high on the test sued the city, citing equal protection violations. After a district court judge dismissed the case, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal. Conservative judges on the court sought to have it re-heard. Judge Jose Cabranes defined the issue this way:
“May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”
The appeals court declined to hear the case by a vote of 7 to 6. Download the 72-page opinion (PDF).
Ricci petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and last week, the court agreed to hear the case.
I’ve written about this issue before. A few years ago, I spent an hour on a conference call with three people at a consulting firm hired by the Denver Fire Department to water down the test so black applicants could pass it at higher rates. They told me, somewhat proudly, they’d been hired to create watered down tests for fire departments in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, too. I asked them repeatedly what changing the test would entail: more pictures, fewer words, no math…what? I just got jargon. No straight answers. My request for a copy of a sample test was denied.
According to the firm’s web site, the new test would measure a “broader range of job related abilities than traditional written tests” to identify “well-rounded, motivated, and qualified” applicants. In other words, the goal was to play down what apparently made blacks look bad — abstract reasoning ability — and play up “interpersonal” skills.
I also blogged about a fire department that eliminated a swimming test because too many black applicants can’t swim. Can you believe it? Instead of eliminating non-swimming applicants or even doing the paternal thing – sending them to swimming lessons like dependent children – the department eliminates an important requirement for the job!
I wish blacks would protest in the streets and burn cars over this. How much more demeaning can you get? Lowering standards for black applicants? What happened to “We shall overcome” and being treated equally? And all that talk about being given a chance, the same chance as everyone else? Black America should be in an uproar over being perceived as stupid and incapable.
But, no. Government-wide lowered standards for blacks don’t raise anyone’s blood pressure but mine.
Ricci v. DeStefano is an important case. Even if the Supreme Court sides with Ricci and rules that throwing out the test results because too many whites would get promotions is unconstitutional, however, the practice won’t disappear altogether. In some form or another, the government will find a way, any way, to lower the bar for blacks and keep it raised high for everybody else.
Those who fought and died during the civil rights movement must be so proud.
To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them. - George Mason
I knew all I had to do was wait.
Today, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court DC gun ban case, filed another lawsuit against DC, claiming its new regulations violate the Second Amendment.
He calls the regulations “highly unusual and unreasonable.” (Source)
Earlier this month, I told you about DC’s so-called compliance with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. Five out of nine justices said that DC’s former handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. In response, DC drew up new and restrictive gun laws. Follow this: I may buy and register a handgun and keep it in my home, but I must allow the police department to perform ballistics tests on it, I must take and pass a written exam, and I must keep my handgun unloaded and disassembled in my home. If I or anyone in my home feels threatened, I may assemble and load my gun and shoot the person. Such sweethearts.
Heller’s lawyer illustrated the absurdity of the new regulations, saying that a thug would have to make an appointment to rob a resident in order for that resident to use his/her handgun under DC’s new regulations.
Mayor Adrian Fenty and his Second Amendment-hating liberal cabal are determined to keep guns in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of law-abiding residents.
Also see Packing Heat In VA/Defenseless In DC.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns unconstitutional.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
As expected, the District has set up an obstacle course to owning and registering firearms. Under the former ban, residents could own and keep shotguns in the home, but these firearms had to be disassembled and/or fitted with trigger locks. In light of the Supreme Court ruling, District residents may own handguns, but the government will require that these handguns be kept unloaded “and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device.” (press release)
So, I may own a handgun and keep it in my home, but I must keep the gun unloaded and disassembled? Not a chance.
[click to continue…]
Everybody makes mistakes.
You may recall that last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that imposing the death penalty for child rape violates the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
A blogger who read the brief noticed something was amiss. Col. Dwight H. Sullivan found an error in the court’s 65-page ruling.
[click to continue…]
Woo-hoo! Ding, dong, the ban-witch is dead!
I’m happy to announce that today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns is unconstitutional. (Source) Individuals have a right to bear arms, so says the court, and this DC resident is about to start bearing, baby! 
Background
In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia passed gun control laws in a misguided and fruitless attempt to curb the violent crime rate. Residents who owned handguns before 1976 could keep them, but only in the home. While the laws banned handgun ownership, residents were permitted to own and keep registered rifles and shotguns inside the home – unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked.
[click to continue…]
Tuesday, July 1: Good riddance.
——————————————————————-
A little over a year ago, I wrote a Townhall column about a child rapist named Patrick Kennedy. He brutally raped his wife’s eight-year-old daughter. If you’re squeamish, don’t read about the physical damage he caused.
In Louisiana, the rape of a child under 12 is (or was) a capital crime. Kennedy was found guilty of aggravated rape and sentenced to death. His appeal reached the Louisiana Supreme Court, which upheld his death sentence.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that imposing the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (Source)
[click to continue…]
9:15 a.m. PT: I’ve blogged about a case called Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell a few times, and I wanted to give you an update.
You may recall that the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) sued a couple for transferring copyrighted digital music files to a peer-to-peer network (P2P) called Kazaa.
According to an earlier RIAA motion for summary judgment, Jeffrey Howell admitted to loading Kazaa file-sharing software onto his computer and placing the files at issue into the folder. The court granted the motion for summary judgment. (A summary judgment means that a court makes a judgment in a case without a full trial.)
Howell later said he admitted no such thing. In his motion to reconsider, he admitted creating a Kazaa account, installing Kazaa software, and authorizing “certain types of files to be shared through KaZaA.” But he denied placing copyrighted files into the shared folder or authorizing sharing those files. He claims that his computer placed the files into the Kazaa folder.
It wasn’t me. It was my computer! Sounds strange (as a defense), but it makes a difference legally.
The RIAA filed another motion for summary judgment. On Monday, a federal court denied it on two grounds. Download the 17-page order in PDF.
As I mentioned before, the RIAA wants to nab people on a “make available” claim. If a user has placed copyrighted files in a P2P folder, the files have been made available for distribution. Regardless of whether the user intends to distribute the files or actually distributes the files, he has infringed copyright and should be held liable.
[click to continue…]
8 a.m PT: Silly, overreacting, hyperbole-uttering black politicians bored with the important work they should be doing will have to get over themselves. The Supreme Court has spoken: it is not unconstitutional [or racist] to require voters to present photo identification before voting. (Source)
Always reminded of the Stepin Fetchit stereotype whenever black liberal politicians open their mouths, I’m pleased the court understands that no matter who you are, what color, or how old, you’re expected to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen reasonably intelligent enough to get yourself down to the local DMV and obtain a driver’s license or non-driver’s license ID before you can vote.
If you’re not, shuffle along.
Previous posts:
Friday, January 11: Blogger Stacy Harp is having a contest to give away an Archaeological Study Bible. Check it out.
———————————————————–
I don’t know how to tag this post. Lunacy? Comedy? Faith? Judiciary? A group of Christian parents in South Iron School District near St. Louis, Missouri, sued to stop the Gideons from distributing Bibles in classrooms. Why would Christians want to get in bed with the ACLU? Yuck.
According to an ACLU lawyer, the parents “believe religious beliefs should be taught in the home, not school.”
Once upon a homogenous time in America, that statement would have been utter nonsense. In a town where everyone was “Christian,” whether or not they actually were saved or even attended church, Christianity was more than a faith. It was a way of life. (On a grander scale, it’s the foundation of Western Civilization.) While parents understood it was their job to raise their children in the faith and teach them good morals and values, these morals and values were reiterated in the classroom.
Imagine this scenario: a child is boasting in class about his A+ paper and making fun of a classmate who received a C+, and the teacher gently reminds him of the pastor’s sermon on humility the previous Sunday. I’m sure this has happened countless times in various ways in the history of public schools in small towns across America. I should know. I grew up in one of those towns.
[click to continue…]
Wednesday, June 25, 2008: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that imposing the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
————————————————————
Tuesday, January 8: Mark La Roi says: “Quick, clean and over is what they would want, right? Guillotine!”
That’s better than choking on gas or feeling electricity or poison running through your body, isn’t it? The guillotine is quick, clean, and painless, yes?
——————————————————————
Last June, I wrote a column for Townhall titled, Death to Child Rapists.
A Louisiana man brutally raped his wife’s eight-year-old daughter. Louisiana allows for consideration of the death penalty in rape cases involving a child under 12. The man was found guilty and sentenced to death. He appealed to Louisiana’s highest court, which upheld the sentence.
He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case. Louisiana is one of five states that allows the death penalty in child rape cases. South Carolina, the state of my birth, is another.
You know what decision I’m hoping for. More later…
Update (1/7): States got rid of the gas chamber because some cried, “That’s cruel!” Then more got rid of the electric chair because that, too, was “cruel.” (Although one can choose the chair, the chamber, or the gallows in some states.)
Now, some folks have issues with lethal injection, a modern and humane-if-you-ask-me way to execute murderers and rapers of children. What do they want? To fall peacefully asleep in a candle-lit room while lying on a bed of sweet-smelling roses? If I were running things, the only “choice” the condemned would have is the electric chair.
Related posts:
by La Shawn on November 20, 2007
in Judiciary
10:49 a.m. PT: Back in 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia thought it would be a good idea to ban the sale of handguns and require shotgun and rifle owners to keep these firearms disassembled. The council thought the ban would cut violent crime rates.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
In fact, violent crime, particularly murder, went up. The ban deprived law-abiding citizens of the constitutional right to bear arms and to protect themselves, while thugs ran free and killed without conscience.
Last March, a three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared DC’s ban on handguns unconstitutional and refused to rehear the case in May. The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today the court has decided to hear the cases.
I am hopeful that sometime in 2008, I will be the owner of several (legal) firearms.
Does owning a gun go far enough? How about concealed carry? I dig that. 
Previous posts:
Tuesday, November 20: The Supreme Court has decided to hear the DC gun ban cases.
Tuesday, November 13: Did you land here from a Google search? No word from the Supreme Court yet on whether it will take up the gun ban cases. Check this space for updates. While you’re here, visit the front page.
——————————————————————-
***Scroll down for a correction!***
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Second Amendment)
In the high-murder-rate District of Columbia, law-abiding citizens cannot register handguns or keep them inside their homes. Licensed rifles and shotguns are allowed, but they must be kept locked and disassembled. (At a recent presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he’d support DC statehood if the city repealed the gun ban.)
In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) declared DC’s ban on handguns unconstitutional and refused to rehear the case in May. For a bit of light reading this weekend, download the 75-page opinion, Parker v. District of Columbia, in PDF. The case was the result of a suit filed by a group of DC residents, only one of whom had legal standing to challenge the gun ban law. He was a security guard whose application for a handgun permit was denied.
The U.S. Supreme Court began a new term earlier this week. After declining to hear Second Amendment cases for several decades, the court decided may decide to hear the DC gun ban case. Does the awkwardly worded Second Amendment grant individuals the right to own guns, or are state militias in view? You know what I think. But read on in case you have doubts.
[click to continue…]
