Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:10 PM
 
8,518 posts, read 15,594,775 times
Reputation: 7711

Advertisements

For decades, we've had to listen to right-wingers complain about "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling. I'm shocked that the right-wing hasn't decried the 5 justices for acting as activist judges. We see now that "activist judge" is just code for "judge who doesn't vote along conservative lines". If that weren't bad enough, the new talking point by Rush and Hannity is that the 5-4 decision was actually 9-0. Funny how these people can't do basic math. Then again, this is the party that believes in running up deficits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:13 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,312,472 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
For decades, we've had to listen to right-wingers complain about "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling. I'm shocked that the right-wing hasn't decried the 5 justices for acting as activist judges. We see now that "activist judge" is just code for "judge who doesn't vote along conservative lines". If that weren't bad enough, the new talking point by Rush and Hannity is that the 5-4 decision was actually 9-0. Funny how these people can't do basic math. Then again, this is the party that believes in running up deficits.
Good post.

Love your user name...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,794,115 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling.
Some would argue that it was the circuit court that was legislating from the bench. When the circuit ruled for the city, the main impetus was the potential for a lawsuit from the black firefighters who failed the test - that was not sufficient cause to scrap the test and discriminate against those who had passed. This was a slam dunk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:18 PM
 
10 posts, read 12,503 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
For decades, we've had to listen to right-wingers complain about "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling. I'm shocked that the right-wing hasn't decried the 5 justices for acting as activist judges. We see now that "activist judge" is just code for "judge who doesn't vote along conservative lines". If that weren't bad enough, the new talking point by Rush and Hannity is that the 5-4 decision was actually 9-0. Funny how these people can't do basic math. Then again, this is the party that believes in running up deficits.
it was pretty obvious that the "4" had made up their minds before hearing the case. It's pretty bizarre when people like Ginsburg can be predicted prior solely based on her ideology alone.

The firemen were discriminated against, and it's a disgrace that 4 people on the court put ideology over facts and truth. What kind of court do they think they belong to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:24 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,034,478 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
For decades, we've had to listen to right-wingers complain about "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling. I'm shocked that the right-wing hasn't decried the 5 justices for acting as activist judges. We see now that "activist judge" is just code for "judge who doesn't vote along conservative lines". If that weren't bad enough, the new talking point by Rush and Hannity is that the 5-4 decision was actually 9-0. Funny how these people can't do basic math. Then again, this is the party that believes in running up deficits.
What's "activist" about tearing down a ruling that allows clear discrimination? The Civil Rights Act is not intended only for people of color, in case you haven't noticed.

This is nothing but a paltry attempt at instigating a right-wing vs. left wing argument. I didn't realize color of skin had an ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:33 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,726,924 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Some would argue that it was the circuit court that was legislating from the bench. When the circuit ruled for the city, the main impetus was the potential for a lawsuit from the black firefighters who failed the test - that was not sufficient cause to scrap the test and discriminate against those who had passed. This was a slam dunk
The circuit court rested its ruling squarely on past precedent. The SCOTUS ruling dismissed legal precedent and set an entirely new standard. That would be the essence of legislating from the bench.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:35 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,034,478 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The circuit court rested its ruling squarely on past precedent. The SCOTUS ruling dismissed legal precedent and set an entirely new standard. That would be the essence of legislating from the bench.
.....or interpreting the law, perhaps?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:36 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,317,871 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
For decades, we've had to listen to right-wingers complain about "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. But the The Supreme Court did just that when they overturned Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighter's case. Now, employers and lawmakers will have to reevaluate how they can go about hiring based on this single ruling. I'm shocked that the right-wing hasn't decried the 5 justices for acting as activist judges. We see now that "activist judge" is just code for "judge who doesn't vote along conservative lines". If that weren't bad enough, the new talking point by Rush and Hannity is that the 5-4 decision was actually 9-0. Funny how these people can't do basic math. Then again, this is the party that believes in running up deficits.
There's a huge difference between legislating from the bench and upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Those are what the Supreme Court does and was founded to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:37 PM
 
716 posts, read 1,116,526 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The circuit court rested its ruling squarely on past precedent. The SCOTUS ruling dismissed legal precedent and set an entirely new standard. That would be the essence of legislating from the bench.

You seem like you have a pretty good grasp on the legal system. Do you think all precedent should be followed? I tent to think in my non-expert opinion that if the precedent is flawed than the SC is bound to overturn it. I'm not challenging you, just asking for your viewpoint since you seem pretty familiar with this stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 12:39 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,726,924 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
.....or interpreting the law, perhaps?
When they say in the decision that they are imposing a new, higher standard, how do you read this as interpretation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top