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.
She made a flippant and uninformed decision based on political correctness because it was the easiest thing to do. Her betters saw fit to toss her decision out. Nobody ever said she was a Clarence Darrow or even a Judge Wapner, she's just a mediocre judicial appointee who fits the profile of somebody they want as a Supreme Court Justice.
I wonder if she made any special inquiries about the race or gender of the emergency medical personnel who helped her when she tripped and fell down?
Typical witty reply of a liberal. Can't argue facts presented so resort to name calling. Especially, don't comment on the topic...it is to uncomfortable for you.
She made a flippant and uninformed decision based on political correctness because it was the easiest thing to do. Her betters saw fit to toss her decision out. Nobody ever said she was a Clarence Darrow or even a Judge Wapner, she's just a mediocre judicial appointee who fits the profile of somebody they want as a Supreme Court Justice.
I wonder if she made any special inquiries about the race or gender of the emergency medical personnel who helped her when she tripped and fell down?
Her decision, along with the other two judges on the panel, was neither flippant nor uninformed. Nor was it based on political correctness, but rather it was based on legal precedent. Because that's what the District Court is supposed to do, no matter how easy or how difficult.
Her decision, along with the other two judges on the panel, was neither flippant nor uninformed. Nor was it based on political correctness, but rather it was based on legal precedent. Because that's what the District Court is supposed to do, no matter how easy or how difficult.
" legal precedent"-----?
You mean many times before, being overly precautious was acceptable for city govt to discriminate?
You mean many times before, being overly precautious was acceptable for city govt to discriminate?
Whether the legal precedent was wrong or not, is not the issue. The lower courts, including the 2nd district, ruled according to established legal precedent. The same legal precedents that guide and inform the EEOC guidelines with regard to Title VII.
Whatever your feeling for this judicial nominee, it is not logical on one hand to say you fear that she may "legislate from the bench", and on the other hand criticize her for following the letter of the law in deciding a case. If she had ignored precedent, she would have been "legislating from the bench." The damned if she does, damned if she doesn't approach is inherently illogical.
She made a flippant and uninformed decision based on political correctness because it was the easiest thing to do. Her betters saw fit to toss her decision out.
The 2nd Circuit panel vote was 3-0 to uphold the prior District court ruling which had in turn upheld the Circuit's prior precedent. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court imposed an entirely new standard. If PC enters into this case, it does so via Kennedy et al.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
Nobody ever said she was a Clarence Darrow or even a Judge Wapner, she's just a mediocre judicial appointee who fits the profile of somebody they want as a Supreme Court Justice.
Actually, many people have cited her scholarship and experience, so much so that when Justice Souter announced his intention to retire, hers was among the very first names that people with a perspective on the law brought up as a potential nominee.
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.
