Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), GOP ranking member of the Senate Judiciary
Watch Senator Clown's opening act here.
Connecticut firefighter, Frank Ricci, will testify on Thursday in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. What he knows about Supreme Court Justice qualifications, I have no idea. But he'll make a good prop for the circus Republicans are hoping to run in the Senate hearing room this week.
Read on….
Frank Ricci is a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter, who is one of the GOP's showcase witnesses on Thursday. His reverse-discrimination suit against the city of New Haven was rejected by a three-judge appeals court panel that included Sotomayor.
Liberal groups and bloggers are noting that Ricci, who has dyslexia, got his firefighting job in New Haven "by claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects Americans from discrimination over disabilities."
Marge Baker, People for the American Way's vice president, says: "I don't think Mr. Ricci thought that his being hired was a case of reverse discrimination against those who weren't disabled … You can't have it both ways; these laws can't be good when you use them to protect yourself and bad when they're used to protect someone else."
Republicans and conservatives are calling this a smear campaign. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said: "it is beneath both contempt and the dignity that this process demands." Conservative bloggers and at least one conservative group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, are trying to rally conservatives behind Ricci.
It's interesting to note that Republicans, like Hatch, are complaining about the potential "smearing" of a witness, a witness who is testifying for the purpose of smearing Judge Sotomayor.
Meet the real…… Mr. Ricci….
According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.
That was just the beginning….
August 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."
In August of 1998, a state Department of Labor investigation cleared Chief Wayne S. Bartolotta of any wrongdoing in the firing. The Aug. 3, 1998, letter from the state Department of Labor indicated that the case was closed with a finding of no violation. "After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the South Fire District did not discriminate against Mr. Ricci." Ricci's response? According to the Courant, Ricci contended "Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong." He told the paper he would "pursue the matter in civil court."
And all of that led to the New Haven case in which Ricci along with other firefighters sued again. This time because Ricci thought he was entitled to a promotion, and the only reason why, he thought, he didn't get promoted, was because he was discriminated against. Four Supreme Court Justices led by the Activist Chief Justice Roberts agreed to write new law from the bench justifying the Ricci complaint.
Here's a guy who will whine this week that Mean Old Sotomayor didn't make New Haven discriminate in his favor. Wah,wah wah, he studied and he bought books, and did he tell you he was dyslexic? Here's a guy who is the quintessential victim, who will call Sotomayor a discriminatory judge because she wouldn't discriminate in his favor because he was "special." Sotomayor insisted, instead, on following the law, which 5 Supremes then went on to rewrite, you know, all on their own.
Frank Ricci will undoubtedly point to the New Haven case to "prove" that Sotomayor will discriminate against majority whites while favoring minorities. No matter what Mr. Ricci says, Sotomayor violated no one's rights when she agreed with her fellow judges in confirming New Haven's dismissal of the firefighter-promotion test scores. It's clear, to all but 5 activist Supreme Court Justices, that New Haven was attempting to follow Title VII's rules on disparate outcomes. No one who took the test was promoted. No one was discriminated against, including Mr. Ricci.
But I'll guaran-goddamn-tee ya'……Mr. Ricci will make a good stage prop for the GOP show this week. The show is being led on the minority side by ringmaster, Goober in Chief, and former(?) racist, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), perennial circus clowns Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jon Cornyn (R-TX)…..oh yeah, and Golly Gee and Gee Whiz Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) has brought his bag of special morality tricks.
All sides agree Sotomayor will be confirmed. But, hell…..might as well put on a little soap opera political theater so's the mushroomheads watching, you know, the CNN, will stay entertained.
I can hear the freaking chant immediately after Ricci talks on Thursday challenging Judge Sotomayor. McCain will probably blurt out, all crazy-like, "I think it's safe to say, we're all dyslexics now."
__________
The Beacon printed a very good E.J. Dionne (Washington post) column today dealing with the radical nature of the Roberts Court.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
"Meet the real…… Mr. Ricci…."
Whew, I thought you were going to talk about his daughters illegitimate kid or how his wife was having an affair with the black mailman in protest over her husbands lawsuit.
So what we are talking about here is another media diversion.
"This is what actually happened(dyslexia lawsuit)? But we the media want to stir sh*t up by insinuating it was racial bias. Just to get the people going. Beautiful. Another lie to pile on top of all the others they are trying to get us to believe."
This is why Bush and Cheney won't be put on trial. How do we, the people, know the truth? We don't. We know our opinions of whatever information we know as truth. Everything else is a twist or has another level of information.
Also all of you who are fans of big phoney liars with BS excuses, watch the Jon Stewart/Barney Frank interview from yesterday. No comment needed by me. I would never want to be interviewed by Jon Stewart. He is always prepared. It's amazing that this man (Frank) is the head of financial services.
Like someone on here always says "government is fine, as long as you keep the politics out of it". I don't have a problem with Sotomayor being on the supreme court. I did have a problem with her decision in the firefighter case after I read all of the facts. But she is qualified. I remember reading a Jefferson paper one time about lawyers job is to argue the law and judges job is to administer justice, wouldn't it be interesting if we got back to that? looking back at some of the very early supreme courts it looks like at one time we had ex-governors serving and merchants, not necessarily judges or lawyers. To me that would be great to get back to, then judges could administer justice.
Rev,
Alinsky would be so proud of you.
angry….I don't know the man. But, how do you like my Sessions picture?
Steve….."I did have a problem with her decision in the firefighter case after I read all of the facts."
I don't get it. Did you want Sotomayor to follow the law or do like the 5 Supremes did and MAKE the law? If she would have voted against her fellow judges in Ricci….then conservatives would be arguing today that that proved she legislated from the bench.
All that Republicans are doing with Sotomayor, besides embarassing themselves, is baiting the racial hatred out there in conservative circles. Dionne may be right that the Judiciary Republicans are thuggishly setting the parameters (they think) for future judges……but there's not one shred of credibility to their attacks on Sotomayor. And they know it….that's why Huckleberry Graham said yesterday she would be confirmed.
Naturally, the corporate media, ever the whores, have the Judiciary Republicans back.
In all cases I want Judges to administer Justice. In the firefighter case the company that came up with the test had a long history of writing tests that were not bias. The fact that blacks did not pass the test did not make it a bad test. The Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on race, etc… and I did not personally find that discrimination was proved. That is my opinion, I think we are all entitled to have one of those.
Rev,
I hope you are joking when you say you dont know who Saul Alinsky is. I suggest if you want to understand Obama's actions and intentions you study Alinsky. The Messia's rhetoric and game plan is right out of the books.
You are artistic Rev. Good job.
Mr Ricci can't have it both ways, but you can?
You complain that he wants it both ways, yet you oppose him on each. This means that you hypocritically want it both ways as well, just the opposite of the way he wants it. At least if you picked a position your argument could be intellectually honest.
Are you coming out against the Americans with Disabilities Act?
The picture? I suppose this is higher tech version of drawing a mustache and horns on a picture in the newspaper.
Stick to defacing pictures and don't try to analyze the Supreme Court, it is obviously beyond you. None of the Supremes Affirmed Sotomayor's ruling. That makes it 9-0 against it. You can disagree with the Majority without affirming the original error. Now, where did you leave those crayons?
bzzzp? Is bzzzp the sound of a fly?
The Supremes ruling was 5-4 in the Ricci case. I read the ruling….it's obvious you didn't.
"This means that you hypocritically want it both ways as well, just the opposite of the way he wants it. At least if you picked a position your argument could be intellectually honest."
That's incoherent. "Picked a position?" I mean, what?
The law is to be followed. Sotomayor followed the law, 5 Supremes MADE law.
If Ricci's dyslexia qualifies for special protection under the Disabilities Act, then that law was followed in his first of many lawsuits.
Escaping you is the dissonance of a firefighter demanding special treatment for his disability while simultaneously accusing a judge of extending special treatment to non-whites.
The Disability Act AND the Civil Rights Act are both still in effect.
I get it. It makes sense that he wants what is in his best interest in both cases. There is a theme. It is good for Ricci.
On the other hand, it is illogical for you to go out on a limb and advocate for special treatment for the non-whites. And then saw off your own limb and argue against special treatment for the disabled. There is no theme here. Except that you don't like the guy.
I have not read the entire Ricci ruling, but I did read the dissent. The other 4 judges would have sent the case back to be reviewed and corrected.
I guess it was inevitable that the haters would start attacking Ricci. Y'all are like a pack of rabid dogs, Rev.
So, Ricci was discriminated against TWICE. Once in the 90's for having dyslexia and then again later when he was denied promotion because of his race. He fought back both times. He won both times. What's the problem with that again ? I thought you were AGAINST discrimination, Rev, but I see now that you aren't.
You say the Supremes MADE the law in the Ricci case ? Well, that's news to me. I thought 'All Men Are Created Equal," and "Equal Protection Under The Law" were pretty longstanding underlying tenets of our law. What really MADE law was Title VII, because the "disparate impact" nonsense removed Equal Protection and implied that all men are NOT viewed as equal. All the Roberts court did was roll back that judicial activism a smidge (they didn't even address the fundamental problem with Title VII), and not allow blatant discrimination against 19 New Haven firefighters to stand with no basis in fact. Sotomayor blew it on that ruling. In fairness, she got a lot of other cases right.
Well, there you have it. You don't accept current law. I told you that conservatives are having a difficult time standing up for, you know, obeying the law.
Now you tell me what the law was that applied to the Ricci case before going to the Supremes….and then tell me what the law is now.
And then tell me that the law wasn't changed by the Supremes ruling…..the very definition of an activist court.
The law is actually the same as it was before Ricci. Title VII still stands. It's just that blatant racism doesn't. Specific anti-racism laws have been in effect since at least the 60's (actually even earlier). They are still in effect.
You are for discrimination and I'm not. It's that simple. You look at a couple words (disparate impact) out of the law, and I look at ALL the law, as well as the intent of the law. It's that simple. There was NO discrimination against blacks in the Ricci case. There was only discrimination against the 19 firefighters. Period. You can spin all you want, but that will ALWAYS be true. You don't have a shred of evidence to the contrary. Your take on Ricci is a figment of liberal imagination.
You are mistaken. The Supremes placed new restrictions on Title VII's disparate impact rules. Those new restrictions were avoided by Sotomayor and the Appellate Court because that would have been writing new law. The five radical arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court felt completely free to write new restrictions.
That's what activist judges do.
Your take on Ricci is indefensible.
There was no discrimination AT ALL in the Ricci case. No one was discriminated against because no one was promoted.
I thought "not" being promoted could be discrimination too…
Rev, what were the new restrictions they wrote?
To be discriminated against…..someone else must be picked or chosen over you.
The Supremes said that it was the obligation of the employer to PROVE that any disparate impact to minorities in testing was discriminatory. Title VII rules on evidence of disparate impact in testing cannot simply be used as a defense for throwing out results……the disparate impact must be proven to be a result of discrimination, in order for the results to be thrown out.
In other words….in order to show legitimate disparate impact….the employer must legally present a case as to WHY the results are discriminatory.
This change places a larger burden on employers. Whether we agree or not on the Supremes' ruling…..they definitely changed the rules of Title VII.
Rev, although I disagree with your definition of discrimination, be careful there… sure sounds like picking a minority over someone else to fill a quota would count as discrimination.
If a person comes in to apply for a job, and I refuse him, because he's a minority, and then end up hiring nobody for the position, he's still been discriminated against. In essence, the "someone else" you seem to require in you definition could be "nobody"… as in "if not a person of this race, then nobody."
Also, the Supremes decision is called a precedent… and a pretty smart sounding one too… now you can't just throw something out over disparate impact, which could just be a statistical fluke, you have to present a case of WHY… sounds like a good idea.
I also believes this lessens the burden on the employer… if they go out of their way to engineer non-discriminatory tests, the don't have to not promote successful candidates for fear of Title VII. If they can't show WHY there would be any discrimination in the tests, then it stops right there.
Good comment pdt. The Supremes, as you say, set new precedent….new rules.
How it plays out is yet to be seen.
My point in this discussion has been that the very law meant to rectify the imbalance of discriminatory practices by whites primarily against blacks….has been turned upside down and will now be used to prevent discrimination against whites.
The horror…
How about it just be used to prevent discrimination.
See?…That's the whole point of Title VII. It was passed to eliminate discrimintory practices by WHITE people against blacks. Now the Supremes have turned the law on it's head a bit.
The law was written against white people? Equal protection, schmequal protection.
Umm….yeah, wasn't it white people who were doing the discriminating? Or did aliens slip in, undetected, and enslave and punish blacks for a couple hundred years?
Sorry, I thought it was against discrimination… not against a certain race. If hispanics ran a company, and discriminated against black people… that's not discrimination or that doesn't fall under Title VII?