Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
seymourct, I want to thank you 2000 times for showing me that link. I have been looking for it for a while and I couldn't find it. I had always thought that conservatives were blowing it out of proportion (which they always do).
Do you know where I can find information on the appeals decision regarding the New Haven firefighters?
I'm pretty sure at least some of the judges that believed in the past that believed that blacks weren't equal to whites were good judges. I'm pretty sure that that idea had nothing to do with the way they interpreted the Constitution. Were all of these judges "radical"? Now that its reversed, people are saying "its unacceptable". yea yea yea.. me too. Seriously, welcome to America..
Well since you are "pretty sure", lets go with that assumption for a minute. If so, it has EVERYTHING to do with interpreting the constitution and yes would be just as bad.
It also flys in the face of our declaration of independance.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The bottom line is this: What you are saying is "they did it so she can do it" and it's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenband
Regarding the Sotomayor quote which has been making the rounds, I think that no matter what one's political views are, it's always important to seek out the context. In that vein, the full lecture is available here for anyone who's interested.
Otherwise, this isn't the Politics forum, so a lengthy debate on these issues is inappropriate here, IMHO. I also basically agree with Acipenser, in that Internet message boards aren't well suited for discussions of politics. If everyone who argues about politics on the Net went and spent time with their loved ones instead, the world would be a better place.
I've read it many times. Nothing there changes the fact that she is letting gender, race and emotion drive decisions and that is wrong...very wrong for a Supreme Court Judge.
On the second point, I would tend to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite
I had always thought that conservatives were blowing it out of proportion (which they always do).
Didn't you call yourself a conservative at one time?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Lets not kid ourselves J. People only began to pay attention to that clause after 1960, when there was a few groups of Americans who weren't "created equal" remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
I've read it many times. Nothing there changes the fact that she is letting gender, race and emotion drive decisions and that is wrong...very wrong for a Supreme Court Judge.
Where is she using gender, race, and emotion drive decisions? Do you have facts or are you just assuming that her decision against the New Haven firefighters was a result of her Puerto Rican race? Do you have any documentation that she used her race to "drive her decisions?"
Where is she using gender, race, and emotion drive decisions? Do you have facts or are you just assuming that her decision against the New Haven firefighters was a result of her Puerto Rican race? Do you have any documentation that she used her race to "drive her decisions?"
What other possible reason could she have used? The city of New Haven went to great lengths to make sure the tests were impartial and fair. The test results weren't to some peoples likeing, so DeStefano invalidated the test. There's sending a message: work hard and study, get a good grade then get **rewed because you don't have the right skin pigmentation.
The myth of this case got a little out of hand especially in the "msm" (awful productions of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.), and veered very far into imagination world. The case was simply about if the city could redo a test they suspected that the test may be unfair in ways. What the Supreme Court said was the law that the city was trying to protect itself from didn't match the standards to nullify the test, whereas Sotomayor said the City was doing its' duty under current law. In fact, Justice Kennedy left room for other municipalities to do the same action possibly, just in this case New Haven was found to be lacking reasons to do so. I support the Court's choice, but let's look at it honestly please.
Remember, once Supreme Court Justices are sworn in many really take the aura of the position seriously and act accordingly in an independent manner. That is because Presidents usually have to nominate palatable individuals to the post, or they get laughed off stage.
JV,
Don't forget, there were many Hispanic firefighters involved in this suit. They were standing next to the white firefighters against the city, and she ruled against them. This seems to have been quite the red herring for some people that relies on people only gaining a very rudimentary understanding of the case that want to paint Sotomayor as a zealot of Race relations.
What other possible reason could she have used? The city of New Haven went to great lengths to make sure the tests were impartial and fair. The test results weren't to some peoples likeing, so DeStefano invalidated the test. There's sending a message: work hard and study, get a good grade then get **rewed because you don't have the right skin pigmentation.
[LEFT]"We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board,in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected."
[/LEFT] [LEFT]FOR THE COURT:[/LEFT]
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk [LEFT]
Basically, Sotomayor and the 2 other appeals judges did do what they felt was right by the Constitution by way of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has nothing to do with whether the judges were "racist" or "making emotional decisions". Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says an employer (the City of New Haven) has an obligation to its employees to see that each of their employees are hired in an equal fashion.
Technically, if you really look at it given the outline of Title VII, the 2nd Court of Appeals would have made an "emotional" decision if they decided on the side of the firefighters. Wouldn't you agree?
-Remember, its not a question of whether things are right or wrong, its a question of Constitutional Law. Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a part of the Constitution.[/LEFT]
The myth of this case got a little out of hand especially in the "msm" (awful productions of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.), and veered very far into imagination world. The case was simply about if the city could redo a test they suspected that the test may be unfair in ways. What the Supreme Court said was the law that the city was trying to protect itself from didn't match the standards to nullify the test, whereas Sotomayor said the City was doing its' duty under current law. In fact, Justice Kennedy left room for other municipalities to do the same action possibly, just in this case New Haven was found to be lacking reasons to do so. I support the Court's choice, but let's look at it honestly please.
Remember, once Supreme Court Justices are sworn in many really take the aura of the position seriously and act accordingly in an independent manner. That is because Presidents usually have to nominate palatable individuals to the post, or they get laughed off stage.
JV,
Don't forget, there were many Hispanic firefighters involved in this suit. They were standing next to the white firefighters against the city, and she ruled against them. This seems to have been quite the red herring for some people that relies on people only gaining a very rudimentary understanding of the case that want to paint Sotomayor as a zealot of Race relations.
TheJV,
Don't forget, there were many Hispanic firefighters involved in this suit. They were standing next to the white firefighters against the city, and she ruled against them. This seems to have been quite the red herring for some people that relies on people only gaining a very rudimentary understanding of the case that want to paint Sotomayor as a zealot of Race relations.
~Cheers
That's called collateral damage. In other words, instead of ruling against a core principle such as affirmative action, she would rather 3 Puerto Ricans go down with the white guys.
That's how smart progressive politics is played these days. Lose battles but win the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite
Where is she using gender, race, and emotion drive decisions? Do you have facts or are you just assuming that her decision against the New Haven firefighters was a result of her Puerto Rican race? Do you have any documentation that she used her race to "drive her decisions?"
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life
Her own words are the "documetation".
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Her speech is riddled with racial over and undertones. She does not look at accomplishments as just that, but judges them based on gender and color of skin and cultural background. No thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite
Remember, its not a question of whether things are right or wrong, its a question of Constitutional Law. Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a part of the Constitution.
Really? I must have missed that actually BEING part of the constitution.
But yes, you are correct it's about the law and not "emotion". The law is supposed to be blind to race, gender and culture. Unless of course you think it's okay for a muslim father to cut out his daughters tonque. I mean, any judge would surely see it's just part of his culture and acceptable even if it is against the law.
Or maybe we can forgive certain cultures for certain crimes but hold others accountable. (You know, they say them Italians are just prone to organized crime...must be in the DNA.)
Maybe we can forgive a woman vs. a man for assault because it was "that time of the month"
Justice is blind for a reason. I wish we could keep it that way. It's pretty simple.
Last edited by JViello; 06-30-2009 at 01:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
