Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor, Rules for White Firefighters over Promotions
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on June 29, 2009
US Supreme Court reverses yet another ruling by SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor
Yet another overturn for Sonia Sotomayor… how many does this now make for her rulings being reversed by the US Supreme Court? Good grief… who actually believes this woman is the best candidate for and fit to serve on the US Supreme Court? I mean, besides Pres. Obama and his minions?
Judicial Confirmation Network: NOT EVEN ONE JUSTICE APPROVED SOTOMAYOR IN RICCI CASE
“Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error.
“Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.
“What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.
“The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor.”
Related commentary:
Michelle Malkin: Racism rejected: SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor in firefighters case
Northern Thoughts And Reflections: It Just Keeps Coming; More on Sotomayor, and it isn’t good
Ann Coulter, World Net Daily: So much for wise Latinas
The Washington Times: GOP: Sotomayor approval not guaranteed
Washington Post: Ricci Decision Provides Rallying Point for Opposition
Broken Masterpieces: How Obama Treated Republican Nominees to the Supreme Court
La Shawn Barber’s Corner: Supreme Court Sides with White Firefighters – Opinion
Op-Toons: Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes
Rasmussen Reports: Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal
The Patriot’s Mind: Fact Check: Senator attempts to avoid Sotomayor’s exact quotes!
Hot Air: SCOTUS overrules Sotomayor on Ricci
Breitbart: Court rules for white firefighters over promotions
Fire Andrea Mitchell!: La Raza Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED!
Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination?
Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter
PA WaterCooler.com: Say No to Sonia!
Ed Whelan, Bench Memos on National Review Online: Sotomayor Vindicated?
Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and the politics of race
The TIW Blog: Racist, bigoted Sotomayor repudiated by SCOTUS
The Conservative Political Report: Supreme Court Rules in favor of Ricci, dumps Sotomayor
Arlenearmy’s Blog: Update to Race Discrimination Case: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Victims
Grand Rants: Supreme Court To Sotomayor: You Blew It… Again
Axis of Right: Sonia Sotomayor Overruled (again) by SCOTUS
CQ Politics: Sotomayor Spin Wars Have White House Working Overtime and Did Obama Just Use the Sotomayor Nomination To Lock in Florida?
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Repeated Bias: Sotomayor Has Made ‘Wise Latina/Better Decisions’ Remark Several Times and Friday’s Funnies: Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Judge Nomination Political Cartoons and Obama’s Infamous 2001 Interview: Criticizes US Supreme Court for Sticking to Constitution & Not Exploring Redistribution of Wealth
Caleb Posner’s Blog: Sotomayor the Latina Extremist
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown’s Blog: Sotomayor’s Selective Empathy
About the author
discretion of who will or will not be fairly treated. Ask your Elected official why is our tax money approprited to an agency that discriminates. Feel free to copy the following letter as an enclosure woth your question.
June 26, 2009
Mr. Robert I. Cusick, Director
Office of Government Ethics
1201 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Cusick:
The matter of apparent bribery and influence peddling in an Executive Branch civil rights law enforcement agency (EEOC) previously directed to your office remains unanswered. The enclosed Integrity Committee (IC) letter dated February 13, 2009, appears to be in the Executive Level Department of Justice may have been solicited by a few bad apples to let’s say do a “cover-up” for the wrongdoers that could go to jail.
The perception is a scheme between the Inspector General (IG) and IC to suggest alteration an official government document title 18 sec. 1001 is the discretion of the IG to investigate. IG does not investigate violation of Federal criminal law. EEOC is a law enforcement agency. Correct? This creates the appearance to hatch a plot between the IC and IG in league with others to prevent disclosing 28 U.S.C. 535 in IC communication. Any violation of law involving Government officers and employees is to be expeditiously directed to the Attorney General of the United States. Is that correct sir? No mention of sec. 535 in the Assistant Legal Counsel letter dated APR 28 2006. No mention of sec. 535 in correspondence to an elected official, only nothing more can be done. Looks like EEOC Director and Staff Attorney Phoenix, AZ simply lied to the officeholder. No mention of Kathy Orem ethics official Office of Legal Counsel who has communication relating to violation law involving Executive Branch employees. There has been silence by EEOC offices in California and North Carolina to disclose communications received relating to violation of title 18, including document destruction, and refusing to forward a charge of harm or injury caused to the investigative entity for filing an EEOC charge.
Executive Branch employees across the country can be seen dismantling the ethics program and debasing civil rights. Those that dice with Federal criminal law reached over to another section of government for an apparent favor to intentionally mislead the investigation of violation of law involving Government officers and employees. Discretion is not law or legal regulation but the operative word to discriminate, avoid the truth or to “cover-up.” Are the employees required to disclose anything of value received to set aside or “cover-up” civil rights abuses to the Internal Revenue Service?
Clearly those in EEOC do not share the concept of equal treatment and evade the ethical standards and obligation of public service for private gain. This looks like a few that may not be fit for public service? Your comment and proposed action sir?
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davidson
5122 Cedros Ave.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Enclosures
cc: Kathy Orem EEOC & Others
Integrity Committee
Hon. Jeff Flake
Sen. Jon Kyl
Office of Professional Responsibility
Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. John Shadegg
& Others
[...] Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor, Rules for White Firefighters over Promotions « Frugal Café Blog… [...]
MOST ETHICAL????
July 12, 2009
Mr. Robert I. Cusick, Director
Office of Government Ethics
1201 New York Ave., Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Cusick:
A matter of Executive Branch Officer and employees can be clearly seen to prevent disclosing communication of Federal criminal law is illegal and unethical. The enclosed letter to Senator Barbara Boxer dated July 8, 2009 addressing those that have a legal responsibility to comply with law and legal regulations refuse to comport with the law and legal regulations of the United States. What is legal responsibility?
As you can see those cowards at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are devious enough to work with anyone to “cover-up” for the wrongdoers, recently the Integrity Committee conjured up the operative word discretion. The matter of bribery and influence peddling in the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been directed to the Civil Rights Division and Office of Professional Responsibility for comment and proposed action. There is the added perception the DOJ may be “tainted”.
As you may be aware President Obama stated “The most ethical administration in history”. Apparently there are those in the Federal government that obviously do not share the President position. I wonder why? Silence by your office on this important issue of unethical and illegal conduct by Executive Branch Officers and employees brings on the perception to aid or abet discrimination by the Federal government. Is this the order of the day? I wonder.
You and your colleagues are paid by the taxpayers’ to ensure complete confidence and trust in government operations and programs. Equal treatment under the law is what Americans count on. Will your office be in full compliance of its obligation to the American people?
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davidson
5122 Cedros Ave.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Enclosures
cc: Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Charles E. Grassley & Others
Thanks for dropping by my blog. I have been so busy these days calling & faxing senators & congressmen. The senators in our great state of Oklahoma will vote NO on Sotomayor. That woman is a straight up racist. She made that “Latino woman” remark at least 6 times. And she expects the public to think that she was MISUNDERSTOOD.
Fabulous you popping in here! I really enjoy reading your blog.
I totally agree with you… this woman is NOT Supreme Court material.
btw, I will update my blog on tomorrow. We all need to dig in & support Ricci.
Folks, I want each and every one of you to realize that, we are living a history that can turn on a dime. Even if you think that your senator will vote to confirm Sotomayor, you must call them to tell them to vote no on the confirmation. In the name of human decency, DO SOMETHING !!!! Get out that cell phone & make that CALL !!!!!
Contact: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Majority Office Democrats
Phone: 202-224-8352
Fax: 202-228-2260
Minority Office Republican
Phone: 202-224-7840
Democrats
Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, D-Vermont
sena…@leahy.senate.gov
(202) 224-4242
Fax: (202) 224-3479
Herb Kohl D-Wisconsin
(202) 224-5653
Fax: (202) 224-9787
http://kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Dianne Feinstein D-California
(202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
Russell D. Feingold D-Wisconsin
(202) 224-5323
Fax (202) 224-2725
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html
Charles E. Schumer D-New York
(202) 224-6542
Fax: (202) 228-3027
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
Benjamin L. Cardin D-Maryland
(202) 224-4524
Fax: 202-224-1651
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Richard J. Durbin D-Illinois
(202) 224-2152
Fax: (202) 228-0400
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Sheldon Whitehouse D-Rhode Island
(202) 224-2921
Fax: (202) 228-6362
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/
Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota
(202) 224-3244
Fax: 202-228-2186
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Edward E. Kaufman D-Delaware
(202) 224-5042
Fax: (202) 228-3075
http://kaufman.senate.gov/services/contact/
Arlen Specter D-Pennsylvania
(202) 224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Al Franken D-Minnesota
(202) 224-5641
E-mail: i…@franken.senate.gov
Republicans
Jeff Sessions Ranking Member, R-Alabama
(202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMe
Orrin G. Hatch R-Utah
(202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
Charles E. Grassley R-Iowa
(202) 224-3744
Fax: (202) 224-6020
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Jon Kyl R-Arizona
(202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lindsey Graham R-South Carolina
(202) 224-5972
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham
John Cornyn R-Texas
(202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Tom Coburn R-Oklahoma
(202) 224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home