by Gerard Coulombe

Created on: July 05, 2009   Last Updated: July 11, 2009

In law, the only question that matters in adjudicating a case is the narrow question before the court. The Connecticut Post's question of the week is about the correctness of the Supreme Court's ruling, its decision, in the New Haven Firefighters' Case. A 5-4 decision came down on the side of those firefighters who brought the original suit against the City of New Haven which had thrown out the test results because it believed that based on outcome, there was a strong likelihood that black firefighters having fared less well on the test, were likely to file suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The test in question was one required to establish a qualifying ranking list of firelighters eligible for promotion within the New Haven fire department.

Consequently, the question asked of American Citizens, not of one class or another, but of all who are citizens, is whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court is fair in this case. One can easily and reasonably argue for either side without acknowledging prejudicial animus.

Moving on the question then, the Connecticut Post asks whether the ruling was correct. Justice Kennedy's argument for the majority opinion is that the City of New Haven only assumed that black firefighters would bring suit against the City, arguing that the test was biased in favor of white firefighters and therefore speculative and ipso facto without foundation.

In other words, New Haven had no challenge to the test from black firefighters and therefore acted prematurely and unnecessarily. Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion stressed that, in view of the paucity of black fireman in the officer ranks generally due to discrimination, there was ample reason for the City of New Haven to anticipate a suit and to therefore act proactively and throw out the test.

There ought to be little argument that the Supreme Court and its justices work within a politically striven climate of contending political forces and views. Every time the opportunity is given, the President in office to appoint his candidate to the Court, the debate is large and contentious from one side and then the other over the qualifications of the candidate. This contention is not new to recent history.

Nowadays, the qualifiers of sex and race given that the majority of the court has been white and male promises all kinds of future debates, only lessened slightly by the tenures of Justices Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor. It is not even likely that an appointee

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>