Today the U.S. Supreme Court sided with white firefighters in a workplace discrimination lawsuit. The case is at the center of affirmative action and the role race should play in job advancement.

The court ruled that the city of  New Haven, Connecticut, was wrong to trash a promotions exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters had a chance to be made lieutenants or captains based on the tests results.

The city said that it had acted and threw out the test to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

“The Supreme Court was being asked to decide whether there was a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere in which an African-American occupies the White House.”

At issue was whether or not the city intentionally discriminated against white fire fighters — in violation of both federal law and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

All of the judges didn’t see eye to eye though.

“In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

“Relying so heavily on pencil-and-paper exams to select firefighters is a dubious practice,” Ginsburg said, calling the majority ruling “troubling.”

“Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today’s decision does to that objective is untold,” she said.

Click links to check out articles about the Supreme Court Ruling for White Firefighters and the High Court Backing White Fire Fighters.

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Today the Supreme Court handed down a defeat to tobacco companies that were counting on this ruling in their favor to quell lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of “light” cigarettes.

“In a 5-4 split won by the court’s liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “light” and “low tar” brands.”

The decision was a surprise due to the recent anti-consumer rulings that have limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. The tobacco companies are arguing that these lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

“Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices. The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine, where the case originated, and across the country.

People suing the cigarette makers still must prove that the use of ‘light’ and ‘lowered tar’ actually violate the state anti-fraud laws, but those lawsuits may go forward, Stevens said.”

Check out the original article here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Banning the use of the words “illegal alien” and “illegals” in court was the Arizona Supreme Court chief justice, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch, thus, stirring up some drama! According to The National Law Journal, it all began last week when Judicial Watch put a letter up online from the Arizona Hispanic Bar Association with 18 “inflammatory” words. The letter went on to ask courts to not allow them. Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor thanked the bar for its letter asking judges to “refrain from using certain derogatory terms.”

With 18 terms listed, Judicial Watch said their usage has now officially been “banned” from the courtroom. However, the court is saying it just isn’t so. Denying a ban, Judicial Watch countered with a public online post claiming that it had been threatened with legal action by the court, calling their actions “slanderous.”

“There has been no banning of any language from the Arizona court system,” said Gerchick. “All we did was distribute the [Hispanic Bar's] letter to the court community.

“I called to tell them that the story was inaccurate and the court did not ban any words. I did not tell them it was slanderous. Technically, it would be libel, because it was written, so I would not have said slanderous.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

The presidential race is on and as we get closer to voting for our next president, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is pushing for everyone and I mean EVERYONE to vote, saying that it will directly impact the “future of the court.”

Palm cards are being handed out by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as well, warning “if public schools in your community decide to adopt an integrated educational program, it may be considered unconstitutional. That’s the power of the Supreme Court.”

On the flip side, Bush’s boys in the Supreme Court, John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. are pictured on campaign buttons stating, “The Kind of Change I Believe In,” or “Thanks W!”

Back and forth the arguments fly between Liberals and Conservatives regarding the Court. Worried that McCain will name conservatives to fill the majority of the seats, democrats want to hold onto some power. However, some say that Obama may not shift the Court very much by keeping the “liberal-moderates” in check with where it is today.

In the end, fear is a dominating factor as we are all anxiously awaiting the next presidential nomination. Times have been tough and we all hope for change.

Popularity: 9% [?]

As mentioned in Child Rape: Not Death Sentence Worthy in Louisiana, a law prohibiting the death penalty in Louisiana, which came about after a horrific rape case emerged, grabbed the world’s attention. And now, Louisiana prosecutors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the decision.

After the June 25 ruling, politicians in Louisiana and other states criticized the decision and even Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama stated that they disagreed with the outcome, which is so good to hear.

The decision ultimately means that in the state of Louisiana, execution is “too severe” a punishment for raping children. This ruling struck down laws in Louisiana and five other states, sparing the only people in the U.S. (which is a disgrace in itself) sentenced to death for raping a five-year-old and eight-year-old girl.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”

Obviously, Kennedy has never been a severely abused child, otherwise, he would have a better understanding of the devastation and lifelong pain child rape has on a little boy or girl.

“The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave,” Alito wrote. “It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty.”

Popularity: 6% [?]

While I haven’t been the biggest cheerleader for President George W. Bush these past eight years, my feelings regarding Bush’s controversial military trial system at Guantanamo Bay are mixed. As of right now, there are two-hundred and seventy foreign terrorist suspects being held in a prison without bail for six years before trial and this had the ACLU fuming. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11, faced a judge, insisting that he refuses representation and chooses to be a martyr and get sentenced to death, the ACLU tried to step in and offer him support. Refusing it, they still ranted and raved about how this form of detainment was unconstitutional.

Is it scary that our United States government conducts this type of underground jail in another country? Yes. However, did I feel passionately about backing the ACLU regarding the protection of terrorists? Hell no. Yet the Supreme Court did, ruling that Guantanamo detainees will have the right to be heard in civilian courts on the American mainland.

Although the 5-4 ruling did not order the military tribunal process to shut its doors, the U.S. Supreme Court has just begun a change-in-the-making. So, what now?

Both Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, and his Republican opponent, John McCain, said that they already plan to close down Guantanamo Bay. However, where, oh, where should we put our terrorists who killed thousands of Americans?

Although five alleged plotters of September 11 in total appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week with hopeful prosecutors pushing for a trial to begin on September 15, now it looks as if the first trial will not be focused on what the terrorists did to our country but what America and our President are doing to them. To them!

Now, there are always those circumstances where an individual could get captured and imprisoned under suspicion without proof, thus, turning out to be innocent. In fact, 775 prisoners were once held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and 420 were eventually released without being charged. No, that isn’t good. However, terrorists who confess to the mass murder on September 11 like Mohammed make it real hard to feel OK with fighting for his rights.

The Supreme Court declared the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which is “To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes,” unconstitutional because it denies the right of habeas corpus, an ability to seek relief from a court for unlawful detention of themselves or another person.

“We’ll abide by the court’s decision but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it,’” Bush said at a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. “It’s a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented.’

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force in extraordinary times.”

Popularity: 9% [?]