In the midst of pretty balanced ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast stories on the Ricci reverse discrimination case involving New Haven firefighters, who were victorious, one quibble: CBS's Wyatt Andrews framed the ruling as issued by the Supreme Court's “conservative” justices and opposed not by liberals but by “civil rights leaders,” as if the majority of justices who ruled against the racial discrimination were not advancing civil rights.
Andrews announced that “in a close 5 to 4 decision, the court's swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives,” before he set up a soundbite from a representative of the NAACP: “Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.” The NAACP's John Payton declared: “I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.”
Neither ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg nor NBC's Pete Williams applied a conservative or liberal label.
The Andrews story on the Monday, June 29 CBS Evening News, joined in progress:
WYATT ANDREWS: ...The ruling focused on New Haven's decision to throw out its 2003 promotional exam for firefighters when no blacks made the cut for promotion. The city then said no one gets promoted including the whites. In a close 5 to 4 decision, the court's swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives and wrote “this express race-based decision-making is prohibited” and even if the city was trying to protect minorities against an unfair test, Kennedy wrote, “there is no substantial basis in evidence this test was deficient.”NEW HAVEN MAYOR JOHN DESTEFANO: A new set of rules was introduced.
ANDREWS: New Haven's Mayor said he would respect the decision but complained the city was obeying 38 years of civil rights law forbidding anything that caused a disparate impact against minorities.
DESTEFANO: The city was damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
ANDREWS: Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.
JOHN PAYTON, NAACP: I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.
ANDREWS: And yet, to the white firefighters, this ruling says discrimination works both ways.
FRANK RICCI, NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTER: I think that this is just proof positive that people should be treated as individuals and not statistics.
ANDREWS: The ruling also cuts both ways for the Supreme Court's nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Opponent called today's ruling a legal rebuke of her lower court opinions that the whites had no case, but opponents say that she was on solid ground; she was following case law at the time.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
They did the right thing...
June 29, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Airforce_5_OHer ruling was clearly based on Equal Oppirtunity quotas and not on sound case law. These men were chosen by a fair test to be promoted. New Haven was wrong. Soto was wrong. The SCOTUS got it right this time.
You notice nobody . . .
June 30, 2009 - 06:28 ET by WingletDriver. . . has blamed the test? I've heard all kinds of garbage about how the SAT was unfair to minorities (apparently those making the argument think minorities can't learn English or Math). But nobody has argued that the New Haven firefighters test was faulty, which makes this clearly a case of "No Whites allowed!"
Of course, the four liberal Whites on the court support that view.
The guy who sued is
June 30, 2009 - 06:50 ET by motherbeltThe guy who sued is dyslexic. Did he complain that the test was unfair? No, he hired someone to read it to him and help him study!
Only to get slapped down because minorities didn't pass it.
How's that for "justice"???? I would sue, too!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
CATS CAN BE CALLED DOGS
June 30, 2009 - 10:24 ET by reelman46Imagine a future Supreme Court where ANY professional test is simply invalid because it discriminates against those scoring higher than some group politically favored by democrats? Civil Service, CPA, GRE, medical admit tests and many others are to be someday invalid on their face?
You score, say, 80 and another candidate another scores, say, 75 and they are placed ahead of you because you were born into a less favored political group according to democrats? Not a tie score where the discrimination could possibly be argued in very rare cases but very different scores indeed. This is lib-thought.
Do we now allow 3 strikes in baseball for some groups and 4 for others? Why not?
The fact four Justices voted for "discrimination to end discrimination" should tell you need to know.
Modern liberalism is a mental disorder. Rule nothing out.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Do we now allow 3 strikes
June 30, 2009 - 14:34 ET by Dan The Man 2Do we now allow 3 strikes in baseball for some groups and 4 for others? Why not?
We do allow one league to have desinated hitters for the pitcher and the other league does not. Is that fair? And my sons Tball the hitters were allowed 5 strikes instead of 3. Yeah I know its not the same.
I am sick and tired of the
June 29, 2009 - 19:56 ET by bigtimerI am sick and tired of the spin.
Discrimination is discrimination...no matter the race.
Get over it you on the left...all of you.
It is high time this BS was fought...more need to do so.
Enough is enough!
Everyone who applied had same opportunity, you either made it, or you didn't.
Too bad crying like babies and pointing fingers doesn't work anymore...get off of your rears and study, apply yourself and quit blaming everything on the white race.
Oh, and shut the heck up already.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Ditto all you said. I
June 29, 2009 - 20:05 ET by GregEDitto all you said.
I hope and pray that 2010 Congressional elections bring a house cleaning to equal or surpass 1994. If we think liberals are feeling their oats right now, we've seen nothing yet, if there are no changes in the makeup of Congress in 2010. They'll read that as an open door to end America as we know it once and for all via tyrannical steps. (well, I mean moreso than they are currently doing!)
The NAACP's John Payton
June 29, 2009 - 19:59 ET by GregEThe NAACP's John Payton declared: “I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.”
It hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace, if one doesn't practice discrimination in the workplace?
I swear logic and common sense has exited America in a big way in recent years. I get really tired of hearing it given a free pass all over the place. Free pass because those being addressed also don't have any logic or common sense to gauge the statement correctly. His response makes zero sense and is nothing more than wanting to continually promote a racially divided America. People like him claim to want equality for all and no discrimination, yet are the first to push for discrimination to under the guise of achieving equality for all.
Yup, Greg, the statement
June 29, 2009 - 21:43 ET by MikeBYup, Greg, the statement made my head spin, too. As I understand the NAALCP fool's statement, if blacks are not discriminated for, and whites, hispanics, and asians are not discriminated against, then it prevents a discrimination free workplace? Say what? Is Mr. Payton stating that blacks are incapable of competing with whites, hispanics and asians? If so, why can't they compete? Since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 and the forced bussing since the 1960s, black kids have gone to the same schools and had the same teachers as the other groups. Is it the position of the NAALCP that blacks are inherently inferior to the other groups? Is that why discrimination is necessary for a discrimination free workplace?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
The NAACP's John Payton
June 30, 2009 - 09:27 ET by Dan The Man 2The NAACP's John Payton declared: “I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.”
Yes it is ironic these people cant see the fact that they are discriminating by color. MLK would not make it in todays world and he would be labeled an Uncle Tom, especially since he is a Republican.
Andrews announced that
June 29, 2009 - 20:42 ET by GregEAndrews announced that “in a close 5 to 4 decision, the court's swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives"
This should say Anthony Kennedy sided with the Constitution as did the other 4 Constitutional constructionists.
Check out this NAACP nonsense....
http://www.naacp.org...
Politics
June 29, 2009 - 20:56 ET by Red JeepWhy a 5-4 decision in this or any other case
before the Supreme Court unless politics is involved? What can be so
“gray” about the laws?
I have a theory
June 30, 2009 - 09:55 ET by doug1950I believe the four who agreed with the lower court were simply providing some cover and validated her poor decision. It would have given the GOP a valid excuse on a silver platter regarding her fitness to serve on the High court. In one sense it just shows the blatant politics of the four liberal judges. They just completely ignored the Constitution, existing case laws and voted with their politics in full view. It also shows just how dangerously close we are to losing this nation to the Socialists / Communist agenda.
CORRECT: Conservatives are AGAINST discrimination
June 29, 2009 - 20:42 ET by needleAndrews announced that “in a close 5 to 4 decision, the court's swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives,”
Thank you, Wyatt, for finally pointing out, albeit slightly indirectly, that Conservatives are AGAINST discrimination, and by inference that Liberals are FOR discrimination… in how competence should be assessed for promotion of firefighters, in the college acceptance standards for certain minorities (lower for blacks, and higher for Orientals), in what qualifies as Presidential timber in the case our affirmative action President verses, say, a white female governor, etc.
My bet is that is NOT the message that Wyatt intended to send, but in spite of himself that pretty well summarizes what he inadvertently said.
The big news here is that there are four Supreme Court Justices who disgracefully voted against this decision.
- Relying upon the MSM for your information is like relying upon an embezzler to manage your portfolio.
Interesting way the world works
June 29, 2009 - 21:07 ET by Joe CamelI am Irish/German/American Indian. Never owned slaves, none in my family owned slaves. Always paid our way, not on welfare, never taken money from the government. I have however due to my "white", "male", "non-military" features, been turned down for seven different positions with organizations due to the above. They were however very open and honest about it, though they would not admit it as they told me. Their hands were tied when it came to hiring "a qualified" individual, and were stuck with others. My thoughts, if this is really a blind eyed society when it comes to these matters, then let me have the same rights as everyone else. Won't happen, but one could "Have a dream"..
Joe, I'm praying you
June 29, 2009 - 21:15 ET by Radical1979Joe,
I'm praying you aren't a doctor/nurse/police officer/firefighter, etc. Of course I think this may be part of the reason some American business's fail. They can't hire who they want to hire, they hire who they have to hire.
Is there no shame?
June 29, 2009 - 21:34 ET by OneCleverCookieIt's apparent that a color blind society is not the goal of the current group of "civil rights" activist now, more like racial preferences.
"Affirmitive Action" is
June 29, 2009 - 21:38 ET by R D Helm"Affirmitive Action" is nothing less than government-enforced racism.
So-called "Civil Rights" leaders are nothing less than racists themselves, as they claim to want a "color blind" America, yet work 24/7 to make damn sure we never get there.
Job security, dontch'a know.
-Dave
Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain
Liberals never fail to amaze me!
June 29, 2009 - 21:50 ET by Retired GeekLiberals applaud Barack Obama's choice for the Supreme Court - Sotomayor - why?
Because her experiences were forged in the crucible of her gender and race.
Liberals then posit that her experiences will bring 'Empathy' and 'Understanding to her decisions.
Clarence Thomas had his experiences forged in the crucible of race and Affirmative Action, Liberals then posit the notion that his opposition to Affirmative Action, is because he is an 'Uncle Tom' and a sell out to his race.
It seems experiences are only valid, if they conform to the Liberal dogma.
I agree. I am one of the
June 29, 2009 - 21:58 ET by Radical1979I agree. I am one of the many people frightened by the president wanting the Supreme Court to make it's rulings on the basis of empathy. I guess if you aren't a Latina she won't rule in your favor regardless of your case.
Of course Obama's been breaking the law for quite awhile. Just look at how the secured bond holders and Chrysler were put in the back of the line in bankruptcy court, the whole bailout package, etc.
I just don't get it
June 29, 2009 - 21:59 ET by sciphijournalWhen did "civil rights" become a term used to describe bigots and racists out for special privledges for themselves and their cohorts ?
It seems just about everybody these days who carps about "civil rights" is a bigot of some sort bent on bringing everybody down to their level.
sj... Right you are...and
June 29, 2009 - 22:03 ET by bigtimersj...
Right you are...and this tactic is getting far past tiring with the left...I know we in the real world have had it...it would do well for the majority of the 'R's to see that too and grow a spine...instead of bowing to this bull.
Enough already.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
"I have a dream"
June 30, 2009 - 09:15 ET by Jonah JohansenI have a dream that someday corporations, government agencies and the media will work just as hard to prevent discrimination against whites, Christians and males as they do other groups.
jessieH
June 30, 2009 - 09:49 ET by jessieHjessieH The NAACP discriminates & is a racist org. Same for the " black panthers". Can you imagine the hell I would go through if I started a group called the " white cougars"?
Already been done
June 30, 2009 - 09:57 ET by doug1950I think Demmi Moore is their leader
What Happened to AA?
June 30, 2009 - 10:27 ET by slickwillie2001This case demonstrates how corrosive Affirmative Action has become. In its original form as born in the 1970's, AA meant that when you evaluate candidates, and all else equal, you select the minority candidates for admission, hire, promotion, graduation, salary, etc. How many people even know that?
It has since grown to mean 'reverse racism' and quotas, forms of soft racism that the liberals approve of. How did AA morph into something so divisive and corrupt?
Discrimination against
June 30, 2009 - 10:33 ET by mattmDiscrimination against white males is pro civil rights.
They amended the constitution (secretly): "No State shall ...deny to any person (except whitey) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws - ."