Sonia Sotomayor:Obamas choice

[meesterperfect]

While it's asserted as a "reverse discrimination" case (never understood the notion of "reverse discrimination" as discrimination is discrimination) but as I understand it the tests results were disregarded because some in the city felt the test was a poorly written test. It was a new, not previously used test.

The one firefighter sued to have the results restored. The differences in legal opinion would seem to be on the one hand, the right of a local jurisdiction to decide their standards for testing and the singular right of this one individual to have his test score upheld. Two reasonable positions.

Well mega por fin we finally agree, sort of.
reverse discrimination?
Its reverse?
So real discrimination only comes from whites to blacks?
Riduculous right?
I agree with you, discrimination is discrimination.
But to clear it up for you, the term reverse discrimination is a phrase invented by guilty feeling white people.

But lets get real about one thing, and they even admitted it.
They shredded the tests because no blacks passed and they knew that in our sue happy society they would be sued by the blacks who failed.
They also knew that if they shredded the tests they would probably be sued by the non blacks.

But I guarantee they knew that with people like Sotomeyer in power they had a much much better chance of winning if the plaintiffs were the white guys.
And they were right.

Thats just one reason why this affirmitive action does not work.
In almost every other country in the world the citizens are just citizens and not classified in groups to promote what some feel is so necessary.

Think about this everybody.
You are black, and they tell you that you only need to get an 80 to get the promotion/position but the white guy needs a 90.
Wouldn't you be offended?
I know I would.
I mean what exactly is that saying besides "youre too stupid to compete with the whites".
To me thats true racism.

 

[Hot Mega]

But to clear it up for you, the term reverse discrimination is a phrase invented by guilty feeling white people.

I couldn't disagree more with you on the origins of the phrase. It was created by the same people who use it excessively today. Would only make common sense.

But lets get real about one thing, and they even admitted it.
They shredded the tests because no blacks passed and they knew that in our sue happy society they would be sued by the blacks who failed.
They also knew that if they shredded the tests they would probably be sued by the non blacks.

Sheesh! Shouldn't you have at least some of the facts before you post on a subject??? Many Blacks and Hispanics passed....in fact, some Blacks did higher on the oral portion of the testing than did many Whites or Hispanics. Some Whites did better on the written portion making the majority in the higher percentile tested and eligible for promotion Whites

But I guarantee they knew that with people like Sotomeyer in power they had a much much better chance of winning if the plaintiffs were the white guys.
And they were right.

Wow. It's not possible to be more clueless (no offense) on this case than you're demonstrating now. The case was initially ruled on in summary judgement at the district level. Basically what that means and what the court is saying is, EVEN IF everything the plaintiff claims is true...the plaintiff still has no cause of action (reason to sue). The 2nd circuit COA heard the case and ruled that it was largely settled by precedence and gave no opinion saved for to uphold the lower court's ruling based on that. The case was re-opened at the behest of another 2nd ckt. Judge who requested it be heard en banc meaning a full panel needs to hear and rule on the matter. It was denied. It went up to the SCOTUS where the lower decisions were overturned by a difference of 1 Justice on the narrowest of grounds saying basically before test scores in situations like this can be thrown out..there needs to be a better case for it.

Think about this everybody.
You are black, and they tell you that you only need to get an 80 to get the promotion/position but the white guy needs a 90.
Wouldn't you be offended?
I know I would.
I mean what exactly is that saying besides "youre too stupid to compete with the whites".
To me thats true racism.

This part of your post has no relevance to the subject IMO.

 

[meesterperfect]

"Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

So what exactly did I get wrong again?

 

[Hot Mega]

"Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

So what exactly did I get wrong again?

But lets get real about one thing, and they even admitted it.
They shredded the tests because no blacks passed and they knew that in our sue happy society they would be sued by the blacks who failed.
They also knew that if they shredded the tests they would probably be sued by the non blacks.

But I guarantee they knew that with people like Sotomeyer in power they had a much much better chance of winning if the plaintiffs were the white guys.
And they were right.

Sheesh! Shouldn't you have at least some of the facts before you post on a subject??? Many Blacks and Hispanics passed....in fact, some Blacks did higher on the oral portion of the testing than did many Whites or Hispanics. Some Whites did better on the written portion making the majority in the higher percentile tested and eligible for promotion Whites

Here's where you're wrong. You originally stated, "no blacks passed". That is factually wrong. There were 15 positions available, there were many more than 15 people who took the tests. Of the people who passed (Blacks, Hispanics and Whites), the top 15 combined oral and written test scores were 14 Whites and 1 Hispanic. They made the cut for the 15 jobs based on their scores. Many Blacks and Hispanics got passing scores as well as many Whites actually failed to get passing scores (70% or higher, weighted 60% written, 40% oral). Not making some cut is not the same as not passing.

Wow. It's not possible to be more clueless (no offense) on this case than you're demonstrating now. The case was initially ruled on in summary judgement at the district level. Basically what that means and what the court is saying is, EVEN IF everything the plaintiff claims is true...the plaintiff still has no cause of action (reason to sue). The 2nd circuit COA heard the case and ruled that it was largely settled by precedence and gave no opinion saved for to uphold the lower court's ruling based on that. The case was re-opened at the behest of another 2nd ckt. Judge who requested it be heard en banc meaning a full panel needs to hear and rule on the matter. It was denied. It went up to the SCOTUS where the lower decisions were overturned by a difference of 1 Justice on the narrowest of grounds saying basically before test scores in situations like this can be thrown out..there needs to be a better case for it.

Like I say above, the plaintiff(s) was defeated in summary judgement at the district level. Summary judgement is the same as being thrown out, judged to be without merit, etc. It all means the same thing.

When someone files a case in court..the only reason for a trial is if the parties in the case dispute the facts in a circumstance where one party has been harmed. A motion for summary judgment is filed when the parties stipulate to the facts and ask the judge to rule on it without a trial. The judgment can be granted (case thrown out) or denied (court process continues).

You argue Sotomayor's ckt. would have likely ruled in favor of Blacks and Hispanics when their decisions suggests the opposite in terms of it's belief that the law is settle already in these cases....The discretion rests with the local jurisdiction and standards are already applied. If Blacks and Hispanics had sued they would had to establish the same claim as Ricci, that the were harmed by the test. Since theorectically no such evidence exists their case would have likely met the same results in the lower courts.

 

[daddysal]

I really hate this Ricci motherfucker!!

All he does is cause fuckin problems!!!

 

[meesterperfect]

I think daddysal is in lala land.
or about 12 years old.

Ok Mega , I won't beat this dead horse anymore.
You got me, I said "passed" . I should have said "not in the top 15" (their were 15 promotions available).
But the point is that the tests were tossed for that reason.

When it got to sotomeyers court they didn't actually "reject it", they just ignored it, They made no decision.
, they gave no opinion or solution.
Same stuff., same results for a time.
Second Circuit panel and per curiam opinion
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Pooler, Sack and Sotomayor, C.JJ.) heard arguments in this case of discrimination.[15] Judge Sotomayor (who was subsequently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court) vigorously questioned the attorneys in the case, and repeatedly discussed whether the city had a right to attempt to reformulate its test if it was afraid that the original test was discriminatory.[15] The three-judge panel then affirmed the district court's ruling in a summary order, without opinion, on February 15, 2008.[16]

However, after a judge of the Second Circuit requested that the court hear the case en banc, the panel withdrew its summary order and on June 9, 2008 issued instead a unanimous per curiam opinion.[17] The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion was eight sentences long. It characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy to the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]". The panel concluded by adopting the trial court's opinion in its entirety.[17]

Until it got to a higher court,where it was found to have merit.
To me its obvious that her and her court didn't take it seriously and basically brushed it under the rug.
They knew it had merit but because of their racist agenda they tried to make is disappear.
Didn't work.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think daddysal is in lala land.
or about 12 years old.

Ok Mega , I won't beat this dead horse anymore.
You got me, I said "passed" . I should have said "not in the top 15" (their were 15 promotions available).
But the point is that the tests were tossed for that reason.

When it got to sotomeyers court they didn't actually "reject it", they just ignored it, They made no decision.
, they gave no opinion or solution.
Same stuff., same results for a time.
Second Circuit panel and per curiam opinion
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Pooler, Sack and Sotomayor, C.JJ.) heard arguments in this case of discrimination.[15] Judge Sotomayor (who was subsequently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court) vigorously questioned the attorneys in the case, and repeatedly discussed whether the city had a right to attempt to reformulate its test if it was afraid that the original test was discriminatory.[15] The three-judge panel then affirmed the district court's ruling in a summary order, without opinion, on February 15, 2008.[16]

However, after a judge of the Second Circuit requested that the court hear the case en banc, the panel withdrew its summary order and on June 9, 2008 issued instead a unanimous per curiam opinion.[17] The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion was eight sentences long. It characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy to the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]". The panel concluded by adopting the trial court's opinion in its entirety.[17]

Until it got to a higher court,where it was found to have merit.
To me its obvious that her and her court didn't take it seriously and basically brushed it under the rug.
They knew it had merit but because of their racist agenda they tried to make is disappear.
Didn't work.

You still don't understand certain critical aspects of this which separate the pure law in the case from the political hyperbole. I can only assign what I believe to be your agenda in failing to see what's spelled out here. Or that you quite understandably don't understand the intricacies of the legal process.

Ricci won a ruling by a difference of 1 Justice on the simple terms that New Haven didn't make a good enough case for disregarding the test results. Nowhere did the court cite or find discrimination (reverse or otherwise) nor racism.

I would again point out to you every Justice on the bench has has rulings overturned.

The only reason the case went to the SCOTUS IN THE FIRST PLACE was because a Judge on 2nd ckt requested an en banc review of the case...in a 7-6 decision (7 Clinton appointees, 5 GWB appointees and 1 GHWB appointee) it was rule the case would not be reheard by the 2nd ckt. paving the way for the SCOTUS to review it. Now you might want to make politics out of that but it was a Clinton appointee (and Puerto Rican oddly enough), Jose' Cabranes who made the en banc request. He joined 5 others...which must mean a GWB appointee or GHWB appointee side with Sotomayor.

So once you climb down off of your racist conspiracy theories you might actually realize what happened with this case and what didn't happen.:2 cents:

 

[daddysal]

I'm not in La La land!!

I'm a pissed off Firefighter who believes this faggot is jus causin problems!!
He only became a Firefighter because he sued and they GAVE him the position!!

He was also fired from another Dept.!!
Now this little piece of shit is causin all this cuz the city is trying to include more minorities in thier upper ranks!!

Thats what really gets me, he was on the steps after they overturned Sotomayor's ruling saying "If you work hard anything can happen"!
Fuck him, he did work hard to earn his Badge, he had to sue for it!!

 

[titsrock]

I've read some dumb stuff on this board, but this is the dumbest post I've ever read.

I'm sure it seems dumb to you. Sadly, it's all true. Even the Clinton line. Sigh. If you have an attention span, maybe you'll be able to make it through this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVs5L9QKayk&feature=related It may leave you in tears, blubbering, and muttering..."But, but, but, how did all that happen?":weeping:

 

[meesterperfect]

Haha, At least Al Franken is asking important questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiwI_S2qpc

 

[Baill Inneraora]

I'm sure it seems dumb to you. Sadly, it's all true. Even the Clinton line. Sigh. If you have an attention span, maybe you'll be able to make it through this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVs5L9QKayk&feature=related It may leave you in tears, blubbering, and muttering..."But, but, but, how did all that happen?":weeping:

Great find, I'd rep you if I could.

 

[Jagger69]

Great find, I'd rep you if I could.

To wax Limbaugh-esque here....

"Dittos"

:thumbsup:

 

[Hot Mega]

Judiciary Committee OKs Sotomayor for high court

WASHINGTON – Pushing toward a historic Supreme Court confirmation vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic justice, over nearly solid Republican opposition.

The panel's 13-6 vote for Sotomayor masked deep political divisions within GOP ranks about confirming President Barack Obama's first high court nominee. Just one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, joined Democrats to support her, although four others have said they'll vote for Sotomayor when her nomination comes before the full Senate next week — and that number is expected to grow.

"I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did. I gladly give her my vote, because I think she meets the qualifications test," Graham said. Obama's choice to nominate the first-ever Latina to the highest court is "a big deal," he added, declaring that, "America has changed for the better with her selection."

(continued in link)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_senate

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Well Said Senator Franken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_drX9UcSvo

 

[Hot Mega]

Well Said Senator Franken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_drX9UcSvo

Quite impressive Sen. Franken.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Well Said Senator Franken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_drX9UcSvo

Al will make great addition to the senate.He really laid out well why it was so important to have a democrate win the white house and hopefully get to nominate a few supreme court justices.The current right leaning court has trampled many rights as he discussed.

Here is a clip of republican senator Graham ,the only republican to vote for Sotomayor in the commitee.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwbgbTEjlE

As even Graham admits she has no record (and her record is long) of not being an impartial, reasonable, in the main stream judge.All the republicans who oppose her have is some comment she made once about a latina women making better decisions then a white man.They choose to focus on that rather then a very long career.I think its clear no one Obama nominates will be acceptable to them.They think they ought to get more Clarence Thomases or another Alitf course Obama is not going to nominate favorites of the right type candidates like them.Elections have consequences.Obama actually nominated someone fairly moderate (record wise) IMO.I think we knew exactly what we were getting with nominations like Thomas and Alito and have not been surprised by their court decisions.Unlike some other judges who were more of a question mark which I think is what Sotomayor is.I hope she doesn't have any big surprises in store and disappoint us and pushes the court to the center more.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

I have always thought, as Right Wingers go, Senator Graham genuinely means well and is an honest person. I disagree with him 99.99999% of the time, but he is a patriot.

 

[Friday on my mind]

No. 3 Republican to back Sotomayor for high court

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090730/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_alexander

WASHINGTON – The Senate's No. 3 Republican announced Thursday he'd break with the rest of his party's leaders to support Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who's in line to become the first Hispanic justice.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said he was voting for President Barack Obama's nominee despite his differences with her, particularly on gun rights.

"Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve," Alexander said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Alexander, a conservative, is only the sixth Republican to publicly line up with majority Democrats to back Sotomayor, a native of Bronx, N.Y. and a federal appellate court judge. She's virtually guaranteed to be confirmed in a vote next week, and is expected to join the Supreme Court in time for an earlier-than-usual meeting in September to hear a campaign finance case.

The others Republicans supporting her include fellow conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and moderate Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana, Mel Martinez of Florida, and Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

The impending vote on Sotomayor has confronted the GOP with a political dilemma. Many senators are torn between their desire to please a conservative based that opposes Obama's nominee and a fear that doing so could alienate Hispanic voters, a fast-growing part of the electorate."


Some republicans apparently get it.While she may not be who they would have nominated she is as Alexander says "well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve".

And they realize opposing her would just add to the perception they are anti hispanic.Yeah they need their base but they can't win elections with just those voters.

 

[Legzman]

Basically what it all boils down to is this. Now that Obama is in office. Those of us who are white are now officially fucked! One way or another. This and that issue with the black professor at Harvard, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to racial bullshit that is brought about because we have a man as president who can't figure out if he's white or black since he's a fuckin mix breed. And plays to his black side more than anything else...

yea, yea bring on the negative rep :thefinger

 

[Hot Mega]

Basically what it all boils down to is this. Now that Obama is in office. Those of us who are white are now officially fucked! One way or another. This and that issue with the black professor at Harvard, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to racial bullshit that is brought about because we have a man as president who can't figure out if he's white or black since he's a fuckin mix breed. And plays to his black side more than anything else...

yea, yea bring on the negative rep :thefinger

Most of his cabinet and staff members are white, the overwhelming majority of congressmen and women are white, the USSOC is overwhelmingly white. So here comes the victim card because of all things, you think Obama identifies with his "black side"? Does that mean blacks and others would be "fucked" if he identified with his white side?

Unreal.