Court Rules For White Firefighters Over Promotions - Sotomayor Overturned AGAIN!

This is a followup to my posting "Rewarding Failure," 5/27/09 - MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer, today reported the following:

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities."

The sad part is, that Sotomayor appears to be the best Supreme Court nominee that Obama could come up with! Does he not know anybody with the correct talents for the jobs to which he desires them to be appointed?

Sotomayor successfully retains her title as the "most overturned Federal Appeals Court judge" in the country. Perhaps she should go back to law school... for a refresher course.

Here's what the left side of the SCOTUS had to say - "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." But, justice actually triumphed over emotion and the improper and abusive application of law.

The majority opinion, rendered by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, declared "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."

Those who put forth the legitimate effort in time, on-the-job experience, and study necessary to further their careers have been vindicated by the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, it never should have come to this point. Justice should be served at all levels of the court system - not just at the highest level. Justice is never served by punishing those who are successful!

I supposed that in some perverse parallel universe I could be wrong about the way I see this issue...

AIG Receives $173 BILLION Bailout, Pays $165 MILLION in Executive Bonusues

But the government is unclear what, if anything, they can do to cut the bonuses since the contracts seem legally binding. Contracts? Was there a contract with the people of the United States that said "We will bail you out if you fail?" No, there was not! The standard, but unwritten contract that exists between the people, or the government, and any "for profit" business, is: "If you fail, you go under. Tough noogies! You didn't share your profits with us, dont expect us to share your losses."

Can anybody tell me of one time in history when financial failure was rewarded with public money? The difference between today's bailout of numerous organizations, and the Chrysler bailout of 1980, is that the Chrysler bailout of 1980 was a government loan which, under Lee Iacocca's leadership, was repaid in 1983.

Is this current bailout a loan? I have yet to hear the word "loan" used in any sentence containing the word "bailout" thusfar. Let's assume it is a loan ... has anybody ever seen a lender that doesn't set the conditions of the loan being made? Is our government so incompetent, that with the legal minds of the entire Department Of Justice at their disposal, they failed to set those conditions? Conditions such as: "No company funded vacations or retreats for so long as the loan is in force and carries an outstanding balance."; "No expenditures for transportation beyond the cost of a business class seat, on a regularly scheduled commercial airline flight to the destination, or beyond the cost of an economy rental car while at the destination."; "Per diem will be reimbursed at the prevailing military rate of $70 for lodging and $39 for meals and incidentals and accommodations at the destination city will not exceed those rated as 3-star."; "Any and all contractual references to bonuses, scheduled pay increases, and severance pay (Golden Parachutes) are, effective this date, null and void, and without continuing effect."; "Effective immediately and throughout the active life of this loan agreement, the salaries of the CEO and CFO are to be no more than 1% of the net profit shown by the company. Other executive salaries are not to exceed $75,000 per annum, and all union employees will take an immediate 25% cut in pay. Non-union employees will be paid no more than 90% of the new union wage for similar jobs and years of service.", and so on! Where does it say that recipients of a public bailout must be allowed to continue amassing business, operating, and labor expenses as usual? That's what got them into financial distress in the first place! Where is it written that once they receive bailout funds, they can spend them in any manner they desire? It is only "written" when reasonable conditions are unwritten! Our government, by failing to specify conditions for use of the bailout money, thereby failed to protect our investment in the future of these - now (technically) "publicly owned" - corporate entities.

When did it become incumbent upon the taxpayers to reward corporate mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility?

I must have not seen that memo ... did you?