Deseret News | Reader comments: A loaded court decision

Reader comments
In our opinion: Editorial: A loaded court decision

Roland Kayser | 12:14 a.m. July 3, 2009

I approve of the Supreme Court's overturning of the decision, but it would have been improper for the appeals court to do so. The Supreme Court may ignore precedent when it chooses to do so, lower courts should not.

Missed the mark. | 12:20 a.m. July 3, 2009

you can look up the questions for this test, and some of them were exactly like SAT questions, such as "which of the following is spelled correctly" Why in the world does a firefighter need to know how to spell, why is that being used as a determining factor in promotion?

There is a difference in how races best understand questions affected by the writing style. In my High School psychology class we were given a math test that was written for black students, and had a much harder time solving the word problems because of lack of comprehension of many of the terms.

I don't believe in racial discrimination, I do however believe in a difference between the culture, and socio-economic status that most of that population lives in.

I guess the real question is why is an SAT style test being used to assess promotions for a fire department? There are certainly other skills that are more important to the quality of a firefighter.

To Missed the mark | 6:24 a.m. July 3, 2009

I believe the promotions would have placed more responsibility on those being promoted than fighting fires. Maybe that is the reason they were expected to be able to spell correctly. You denigrate all firefighters when you question whether they need to be able to spell, add, or even read. I don't know, but I suspect, the new responsibilities would have involved some administrative and personel duties where spelling and other skills were needed.

Comments continue below

ECR | 6:27 a.m. July 3, 2009

DN said "Or perhaps she simply believes in race-based quotas." Therein lies your misunderstanding of what the lower court's decision was all about. They were simply upholding the right of the city to follow legislated law that required a racial mix in their management ranks. An "activist judge" would have said "I don't care what the law says you have to live by these results." The lower court said there was no good result but they did what they were supposed to do - follow the legislated law. What the 5 members of the Supreme Court did this week was to turn "activist" and overturn previously legislated requirements.

Tests | 7:43 a.m. July 3, 2009

What else is revealed by test taking? The individual's dedication to excellence. The dyslexic man showed that characteristic and I am sure many others who took the test did also. They studied, they were disciplined, they excelled. That's why you have a test, you want the best.

I suppose the new egalitarians think that the higher positions should be filled by a rotation so everyone gets their turn or perhaps by a communal vote. I want the man who dedicates himself to excellence to be running the fire department, not some token dumbing down of the institution to meet some utopian model.

@Roland Kayser | 12:14 a.m | 8:19 a.m. July 3, 2009

Exactly right.

Joe Moe | 9:06 a.m. July 3, 2009

If I interpret Roland Kayser and ECR correctly, the gist of their argument is this: the courts generally are not supposed to determine if a law is a "good" law or not. They are supposed to judge cases based on law created by legislation. The only exception is when a law is found to be unconstitutional (but even that point was in debate in the early years of the republic).

As a nation we need to stop looking to courts to determine if every little law and ordinance is right or wrong, good or bad. We elect legislators to do that. Courts are principally there to apply justice based on the laws written.

Agki@Joe Moe | 9:23 a.m. July 3, 2009

"As a nation we need to stop looking to courts to determine if every little law and ordinance is right or wrong, good or bad. We elect legislators to do that. Courts are principally there to apply justice based on the laws written."

WRONG!! The duty of the courts is much more complicated than that. Legislators do what they or their purchasers want them to do whether it is right or wrong. We MUST look at "every little law and ordinance and make sure it is within the bounds of the US Constitution. If we don't each little municipality could do what whoever controls it wants and that is Un-American in the extreme.

Steve | 9:56 a.m. July 3, 2009

The time has long passed when monorities in blue collar jobs could legitimately claim that they were discriminated in any manner. The playing field should be fair for all applicants: no one of any race should be given a preference, including a female Hispanic who understands life better than a White male.

Mike | 11:10 a.m. July 3, 2009

Race should never be a factor in determining who gets promoted. Neither should sex. Just the best man or woman should win, if they worked harder to pass the test than the others. It doesn't matter what they are. They have the same opportunity as any to pass the test and score high.

NS | 11:25 a.m. July 3, 2009

NEWS FLASH:

UTAH.

Female Hispanic BAD.

RE-PUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE GOOD.

Decisions, decisions... | 12:31 p.m. July 3, 2009

Perhaps the Des News Editorial Board should have taken the time to read the decision....

Joe Moe | 1:47 p.m. July 3, 2009

@Agki 9:23

Legislators are SUPPOSED to do "what they or their purchasers want them to do." The people, by way of elected representatives, should indeed strive to create good law. The courts are not intended, well qualified, nor situated to revisit every law and determine if it is good or not (except if such a law is unconstitutional or in violation of a higher state or national law).

In short, courts and judges are intended to apply the law in specific cases, nothing more nor less. If a law is bad, the people need to take it up through the law-writing and law-revising process: the legislature.

And might I emphasize: if the people and their elected representatives create and maintain bad law, it is our own fault; the buck stops here. It is part of democracy. Give the power to the people, and we sink or swim on our own merits. If you want a few wise people in a few rooms (be they courts or otherwise) to determine the right and wrong of everything, you have the wrong type of government here in the USA. You need something like Iran.

@Joe Moe | 3:00 p.m. July 3, 2009

"courts and judges are intended to apply the law in specific cases, nothing more nor less. If a law is bad, the people need to take it up through the law-writing and law-revising process: the legislature."

No, Joe. The courts have the responsibility to end the application of unconstitutional laws IMMEDIATELY upon the discovery that they are unconstitutional. If a law is unconstitutional, to wait until the legislatures get around to rewriting it (which they may not do) is to continue executive actions that are themselves unconstitutional.

"if the people and their elected representatives create and maintain bad law, it is our own fault;"

No, it isn't! We have the checks and balances of the courts built into the system by the founders! It's what they are supposed to do.

"the buck stops here. It is part of democracy. Give the power to the people,"

No, not all of it. The people MUST be restricted or the tyranny of the majority could easily result. The Constitution tells the people and the government what they can and cannot do.

Joe Moe | 3:22 p.m. July 3, 2009

@3:00

We seem to keep getting hung up on the point of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. But we are in total agreement there! Every law should pass constitutional muster, and courts are the ones (and the only ones) empowered to do so directly.

But back to the more sticky point: not every law that is constitutional is a good law, or even ethical. But it is not the courts' responsibility to judge that. If the people (via representatives) establish a law, whether it's stupid or not, the courts ought to have no say so long as it is constitutional.

In that light, it is possible that Sotomayor and her fellows on the appeals court did rightly, in that they did not try to overturn state law, and they followed legal precedent. The Supreme Court is not nearly so bound by precedent. Speaking of which, lower courts are not so caught up in determining constitutionality as is the Supreme Court; the lower courts mostly just follow precedence, following the Supreme Court's lead. That is their function.

The Deuce | 8:26 p.m. July 3, 2009

For those that think a firefighter does not need to be able to read correctly. Try running into a burning building and mistake a chemical warning sign for an exit because you can't read. These type of situations are life threatening and you don't think a fire fighter needs to be able to read? I would like to put your sorry butt in that situation and see what you think. We are way past the days of trying to make sure all ethnic groups are represented. I want the best person regardless of sex, race, sexual preference, etc.... I want to see qualifications and capabilities not a quota.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.