Prometheus 6

This morning I linked a Reuters report on the "White Firefighters" case. First paragraph read:

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that New Haven, Connecticut, discriminated against a mostly white group of firefighters who were denied promotions, overturning a decision by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

It's been updated twice. Now the first paragraph reads:

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama's high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Monday, overturning a ruling by her that it said would illegally deny promotions to white firefighters based on race.

This leads me to ask of Reuters, "What the hell is your problem?"

An appeals court judge only rules on whether or not the proceeding proceeded as the law requires. They deal a lot in precedent.

In the firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano, white firefighters challenged New Haven’s decision to throw out a test for promotion that few black or Hispanic firefighters passed.

Judge Sotomayor — like the trial court judge and a majority of her appeals court colleagues — rejected the suit. She adopted the lower court’s conclusion that New Haven was within its rights to try to find a fairer test and to protect itself from being sued by minority firefighters.

Two errors were made here, one by the city and one by the lower and appelate court. The city should have made those efforts before anyone took the test. And the courts "should" have recognized that this Supreme Court has no respect for precedent as far as racism repair goes. I recognize it, so though I do not like the decision I am totally unsurprised. So why am I writing about it?

I am not. I'm writing about that Reuters thing up there. And the NY Times thing.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, in a case with enormous implications for workplaces across the country, that white firefighters in New Haven suffered unfair discrimination because of their race when the city scrapped the results of a promotional exam.

"Enormous implications."

Everyone is gassing it up. The Supreme Court had already blocked voluntary diversity programs, and what will Congress do about it? It is within its Constitutional power to do something about it just as it acted to reverse a Supreme Court decision on gender bias. But nothing was done then and I'm sure nothing will be done now.

And the thing is, it should not have enormous impact. Because, in my opinion, New Haven behaved stupidly. It reminds me of the case of Southern Illinois University - Carbondale...that stupid. The facts of this case should not discredit the principle on which the law was based.

But of course it will.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

We are counting down, not to the end of affirmative action, but to the end of any effort at reversing the damage done to the Black community by slavery, and Jim Crow, and Incarceration America.

And what I want to know is, when time runs out will be forced to admit the United States Government can not guarantee equal protection under the law to Black Americans or  that it will not?