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.
If you have a problem with the study, I'd recommend contacting California State University.
No, I'll address it here since you posted it.
First it isn't an "eight year" study but rather a study based upon data over an eight year period.
Second, the study is tragically flawed and it could be argued that the finding support racial bias for white judges just as easily as it can support an argument of racial bias by African American judges. The data in the study shows the white judges rule against all plaintiffs regardless of race in discrimination cases while African American judges rule in favor of all plaintiffs in such case.
Third, because the study only measures the aggregate vote of Federal appeals court judges, and not on a case by case basis, the study can make no determination of the merits of the actual case before the court. This is important because federal appeals are handled by a panel of judges and it would be far more illustrative if the votes of the panel were examined.
Fourth, there is no show of causality. Simply regressing votes and then ascribing the decision of the African American judges to "race cues" is simply unsupported in the data.
Firth, there is no published information regarding presidential appointment, in short, the data published doesn't establish judges who were appointed under conservative presidents or liberal presidents which could have more of a profound effect on their decision making, see Clarence Thomas vs Thurgood Marshall both African American Justices who have demonstratively approached discrimination cases from totally opposite sides of the question.
In short it is an exceptionally flawed study based purely on the methodology.
First it isn't an "eight year" study but rather a study based upon data over an eight year period.
Second, the study is tragically flawed and it could be argued that the finding support racial bias for white judges just as easily as it can support an argument of racial bias by African American judges. The data in the study shows the white judges rule against all plaintiffs regardless of race in discrimination cases while African American judges rule in favor of all plaintiffs in such case.
Third, because the study only measures the aggregate vote of Federal appeals court judges, and not on a case by case basis, the study can make no determination of the merits of the actual case before the court. This is important because federal appeals are handled by a panel of judges and it would be far more illustrative if the votes of the panel were examined.
Fourth, there is no show of causality. Simply regressing votes and then ascribing the decision of the African American judges to "race cues" is simply unsupported in the data.
Firth, there is no published information regarding presidential appointment, in short, the data published doesn't establish judges who were appointed under conservative presidents or liberal presidents which could have more of a profound effect on their decision making, see Clarence Thomas vs Thurgood Marshall both African American Justices who have demonstratively approached discrimination cases from totally opposite sides of the question.
In short it is an exceptionally flawed study based purely on the methodology.
I don't think anyone should be terribly surprised at these findings. I think what's more amazing is that California State University was able to overcome any sort of politically correct opposition it may have encountered to actually study this.
(As an aside, I have sometimes referred to Loyalty To The Raceâ„¢ right here on this forum to describe the propensity of black American's to defend Barack Obama at every turn, and it seems there is actually some credence to my assertion.)
Is that why so many blacks end up in prison when compared to whites that commit the same crime?
This Conservative perspective is about as absurd as the idea that a person can jump higher if he pushes a button on his sneakers to pump air into its soles.
Does the study suggest that black judges should get in "compliance" and pattern their judging after the so-called "judging" that has America at 5 percent of the worlds population but 25 percent of the worlds incarcerated???
So the post seems to suggest that black judges should conform to the savage and barbaric conduct of white judges. If someone doesn't think this country looks like a nation of barbarians for its incarceration rates and brutal sentences (at least among what are commonly believed to be "1st world" nations) then someone is living in a world of delusional detachment.
AeroGuyDC's response is quite simply the same as it was in my original response: If the poster has a problem with the merits of the study, then he/she should contact CSU and explain why they are stupid and he/she is brilliant.
I don't often put much faith in liberal Californian's, but without further vetting of the methodology with my own two eyes (don't care that much about this issue to waste my time on it), then I'd put my bet on the researchers over that of a random poster on City-Data.com.
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.
This is absurd
