Friday, July 31, 2009

James Crowe, II, Supreme Court Justice

Note: The will be a sudden change in tone as I discovere more while writing this piece. ~ No1KState

Folks, it's worse, much worse, than I had expected. I'm sort of embarrassed cause I should've ranted about this a month ago! I've had this article in my "read ASAP" file since it came out, but am only just now reading it all the way through. Cause the money quote comes on page 4.

Now, if you remember, last month, June 2009, before Michael Jackson died, we were all engulfed the the Ricci case, where a white firefighter sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination.

Also, remember all the white, male racial victimization played out during the Sotomayor hearings based on just 2 comments that I can think of, and only one which pertained to race, the comment about the "wise Latina woman"? I mean seriously. Were white men, who were members of one of the most powerful bodies in the world, really whining about anti-white and anti-white male bias? Yeah. See, they had their cake and ate it, too. Now, about that other cake that is yours . . . technically. . .

So anyway, get this:
Justice Antonin Scalia said at oral argument that he didn't believe New Haven would have canceled the test results if they'd yielded no white promotions.
Are you shocked? Stunned? Do you follow?

You know my biggest problem with that comment? Besides the fact that it's not true. It represents what so many white people fear from black anti-racist activists. They think we wanna turn the table against them. We don't, and the suggestion that we do is a not just a bit insulting and not just tad racist in and of itself. Do we wanna fire all the white power-brokers and replace them with people of color?

I'm sorry. That's not a good question, or rather, it wouldn't have resulted in a good answer. So let me say this. We don't want to rule the world. We'd just like to have fair and just say in our own. Is that too much to ask?

In light of Scalia's comment, could it not be the case that the Court did just what Sessions and Grahams feared it would? Except, to the benefit of white men (and two Latinos) and the disadvantage of men of color? And didn't Sessions, Grahams, and Pat-B all carry on as though the decision, handed down by four white men and man who wishes he were white, were some sort of vindication for white males?

And not is Scalia's comment disturbing, but he and Thomas joined Scalito - oh! I mean, Alito in this concurrence:

What Justice Alito sees in New Haven's actions, is not the good faith effort of a City with a history of discrimination in firefighter hiring to address a stark and alarming racial disparity in exam results. Instead Alito is certain that there's something of a racial conspiracy afoot - a conspiracy by black community leaders to discriminate against whites. . . . In fact, Justice Alito devotes pages and pages of his decision to examining the actions of Rev. Boise Kimber, who Alito describes as "a politically powerful New Haven pastor," including Kimber's "loud, minutes-long outburst" at a Civil Service Board meeting, Rev. Kimber's "adamant oppos[ition to the] certification of the test results" and his attempts to "exert political pressure" on the Board. All of this sounds like garden-variety aggressive rough and tumble of city politics, but to Alito it's evidence of racial quid pro quo.
Again, isn't Alito playing the very identity politics Hatch and Grassley claimed to fear . . . when the other "team" plays it, I guess.

And for that matter, seeing "that Congress amended Title VII in 1991 to enunciate the disparate impact standard explicitly," didn't the conservatives on the Court engage in . . . judicial activism?

:scary and voice music here:

And what's more is that they reviewed the facts of the case, role generally reserved for the appellate court. On top of that, and what resolves for me the racism on the court is that, "Justice Ginsburg in dissent says she believes that New Haven could have satisfied the new standard Justice Kennedy set forth, but [the majority] didn't give them a chance."

According to the experts I read, chances are employers, public and private, will still be able to practices for hiring and promoting that don't result in disparate impact.

Tell me again someone, preferably not someone I already know is racist, how is that not racist? Or, in the least, a prime example of white power and privilege, and the protection of white supremacy? How is that not racism at its finest? James Crowe, II, Esquire.

Share This Article

Bookmark and Share

But Don't Jack My Genuis