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.
I think that this case that came to light from the Clinton library might be the case that blows Kagan right out of confirmation. I could be wrong but her part in the case won't do her any good. This case involves what many call reverse discrimination and she seemed to favor that kind of behavior.
Big surprise coming from that thing.I hope we do not allow them 33% of the SC. Big mistake if we do.
Who is "them"? And what is "that thing"?
Anti-Semitism is be behind your posts. And the mask of it's just "criticism of Israel" in your dozens and dozens of hate-filled posts on that subject is very easy is to see through.
Anti-Semitism is be behind your posts. And the mask of it's just "criticism of Israel" in your dozens and dozens of hate-filled posts on that subject is very easy is to see through.
You're a disgusting bigot.
Now, do you think that Kagan will overcome the questions that will surely come from the right in the Senate consideration of her? Whoops, I didn't notice that you didn't read the article so you would know about it.
I think that this case that came to light from the Clinton library might be the case that blows Kagan right out of confirmation. I could be wrong but her part in the case won't do her any good. This case involves what many call reverse discrimination and she seemed to favor that kind of behavior.
CNSNews.com - Kagan Supported Policy of Reverse Discrimination, Clinton Documents Revealed (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=67554 - broken link)
Thanks for posting this.I knew there was a reason for Obama picking Kagan,It seems that Obama is trying to force more of His PC reverse discriminating crap.(Remember Sotomayor's ruling against White Firemen) His White Mother and Grandparents would have been proud of this Race Pandering Politician.Just a little over 2 more years with this JOKE in office.Yes this makes a lot of sense solve racial injustices of the past by continuing them in the future and harming the innocent that had no part in past injustices.
I think that this case that came to light from the Clinton library might be the case that blows Kagan right out of confirmation. I could be wrong but her part in the case won't do her any good. This case involves what many call reverse discrimination and she seemed to favor that kind of behavior.
CNSNews.com - Kagan Supported Policy of Reverse Discrimination, Clinton Documents Revealed (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=67554 - broken link)
The progressives think this is what should be, make some young white kid pay for the transgresses of the past, even if he or his ancestors had nothing to do with whatever these past injustices were.
I think that this case that came to light from the Clinton library might be the case that blows Kagan right out of confirmation. I could be wrong but her part in the case won't do her any good. This case involves what many call reverse discrimination and she seemed to favor that kind of behavior.
CNSNews.com - Kagan Supported Policy of Reverse Discrimination, Clinton Documents Revealed (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=67554 - broken link)
She didn't have much of a part in the case, ROB. She provided the Clinton administration with an opinion on the issues in the case. The Clinton administration decided to support the white school teacher in the case, and the Supreme Court didn't get to weigh in because the case was settled.
I understand the complaint of reverse discrimination in this case, but as a legal matter I think that there would have to be proof of a pattern of discrimination on the part of the school board. In this case, it was a singular incident, where the school board had to let go of one teacher, and between two similarly qualified teachers, they chose to discharge the non-minority teacher. One incident doesn't establish a pattern of behavior.
The lower courts sided with the discharged teacher because the school could not supply any reason besides race of why they discharged her.
Kagan's position was that if the law allowed race to be a weighted consideration in hiring practices, that the law must also allow race to be a weighted consideration in firing practices. The problem with that, which was very cogently pointed out by legal experts, is that in the case of hiring, the victim was essentially hidden from view. In the case of firing, the victim is painfully clear. I think Kagan's position was that the law was the law. Whether it was good law or bad law, the law doesn't change because in one case we know who's being hurt, and in other cases we don't know. The law is the law. Kagan wasn't arguing from a moral viewpoint on the merits of this law, she was expressing an opinion from an intellectual viewpoint on the viability of the law, and how that law could best be defended.
She didn't have much of a part in the case, ROB. She provided the Clinton administration with an opinion on the issues in the case. The Clinton administration decided to support the white school teacher in the case, and the Supreme Court didn't get to weigh in because the case was settled.
I understand the complaint of reverse discrimination in this case, but as a legal matter I think that there would have to be proof of a pattern of discrimination on the part of the school board. In this case, it was a singular incident, where the school board had to let go of one teacher, and between two similarly qualified teachers, they chose to discharge the non-minority teacher. One incident doesn't establish a pattern of behavior.
The lower courts sided with the discharged teacher because the school could not supply any reason besides race of why they discharged her.
Kagan's position was that if the law allowed race to be a weighted consideration in hiring practices, that the law must also allow race to be a weighted consideration in firing practices. The problem with that, which was very cogently pointed out by legal experts, is that in the case of hiring, the victim was essentially hidden from view. In the case of firing, the victim is painfully clear. I think Kagan's position was that the law was the law. Whether it was good law or bad law, the law doesn't change because in one case we know who's being hurt, and in other cases we don't know. The law is the law. Kagan wasn't arguing from a moral viewpoint on the merits of this law, she was expressing an opinion from an intellectual viewpoint on the viability of the law, and how that law could best be defended.
Clinton hadn't asked about the definition of is yet then had he?
Did you hear about the way Cass Sunstein told people the other day that the definition of voluntary is so important concerning whether the new administration determination of whether the FCC can take over the internet after the SC said it couldn't? Just asking because definition is often used by many.
Clinton hadn't asked about the definition of is yet then had he?
Did you hear about the way Cass Sunstein told people the other day that the definition of voluntary is so important concerning whether the new administration determination of whether the FCC can take over the internet after the SC said it couldn't? Just asking because definition is often used by many.
In legal terms, definitions are very important. And it's important to recognize that the definition of a term legally can be different than the common-usage definition. I believe that when Sunstein is talking about the definition of voluntary, that the reference is to the legal definition, and obviously that is important in the context that Sunstein is referring to.
I think in terms of Kagan and the Clinton Administration, that it wouldn't have been Clinton asking for anything. This was a lower court case with legs. The Department of Justice would have been negligent if they hadn't been assessing the merits of each side of the case, and preparing a position on the case. Clinton had a profound respect for the wall between the Department of Justice and the rest of his administration. In order for the Department of Justice to retain its credibility and to remain effective, it's important for the DOJ to maintain its independence from partisan politics. Clinton did virtually nothing to affect the day-to-day running of the department. So he wouldn't have asked for analyses on cases until they became an issue for his administration. At some point, the administration did make a decision, to favor the discharged teacher, which put pressure on the school board to settle the case with her, and therefore keep the case from being decided by the Supreme Court.
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.
