Sotomayor Backers Prepare to Oppo Firefighter
Is there no depth to which liberal ideologues will not stoop? It seems that some of Sonia Sotomayor’s more devoted advocates are preparing to aim a campaign of “scrutiny” at Frank Ricci, the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter who sued the city for promoting less-qualified minority firefighters at the expense of whites.
If they perform the same sort of murderous character assassination on Ricci as they’ve done in the past to Robert Bork and more recently to Joe the Plumber, and Sarah Palin, the dyslexic fireman won’t have a chance.
I understand that the left is ga-ga over the “wise Latina” whose life experience transcends the mere constitutional definition of law. I get that. However, politics is not a blood sport and Frank Ricci is not a competitor if it were. Liberals simply need to back off and let the process work itself through, without unnecessarily flaying another victim alive in the pursuit of their activist agenda.
Understand that Ricci’s recent victory in the U.S. Supreme Court must have left a bad taste in liberals’ mouths, refuting part of the premise behind Affirmative Action – that less-qualified minorities should be given employment and educational preferences – as it did.
Justice Kennedy, the current swing vote, had this to say about the fundamental issue of the case:
“Once . . . employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Indeed, employers and universities must both be allowed to set their own standards and, having done so, enforce them without regard to skin color. Anything less is un-American and unconstitutional, as is the intentional targeting of innocent citizens as part of political warfare.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Is there no depth to which liberal ideologues will not stoop? It seems that some of Sonia Sotomayor’s more devoted advocates are preparing to aim a campaign of “scrutiny” at Frank Ricci, the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter who sued the city for promoting less-qualified minority firefighters at the expense of whites.
wSlightly off topic but appropriate to the white firefighter case….
When it comes to racial preferences, it’s not always the whites who are the wronged party.
Recently The University of California changed it’s admission policy for all 9 of it’s campuses.
Flooded by Asian students who tend to score higher on test scores and school grades, the US regants decided to downplay the importance of tests and grades in their admission policy
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/48683642.html
“I like to call it affirmative action for whites,” said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. “I think it’s extremely unfair to Asian-Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other.”
The new policy would eliminate the requirement that applicants take two SAT subject tests and reduce the number of students guaranteed admission based on grades and test scores alone. It takes effect for the freshman class of fall 2012.
It’s a dramatic departure from the almost universal reliance on grades and tests scores in college placement.
What in the heck do they have to gain from scrutinizing one sole guy in a complicated situation where “their” favorite person (Sotomayor) has already taken a manageable and largely forgotten hit? A power trip? Can’t they handle ambiguities and contradictions?
This is not only wrong and a bit compulsive, it will also lay the groundwork of an exaggerating fear-mongering campaign by some people who will claim this is proof that the leftofascists are taking over or something and will soon start lynching people.
Worry about the insubstantial whining about Sotomayor instead of trying to discredit a person who happened to be vindicated by a higher authority, and now probably wants to be left alone.