SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor

[Len44]

So now comes word that the Republicans want to "hold up" the actual confirmation vote until next week. Why, one might ask? Well, it appears that it is simply because their collective noses are out of joint and they just want to **** some folks off -- i.e., Politics!!!

What a bunch of a$$hats!!!

BTW, re: Politics: Did you all see Jim DeMint's comment?

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, then it will be his Waterloo -- it will break him."

Yeah -- never mind what is best for the American people, best for our Country. This about as petty as politics can get. Shame on Jim Demint and his ilk.

 

[mcmd]

This about as petty as politics can get.

Yeah-- no other political party is ever guilty of "petty politics" or a$$hattery. :ROFL:
Really, I don't get the apoplexy... she's the next Supreme Court Justice. She's the best the current administration could find. And as a Catholic (Latina) female who no longer needs to cater to political a$$hattery, she just may help "unsettle" "settled" law and surprise us all, since she will quickly surmise that the Supreme Court is a much better place than the appeals court to "make policy".

 

[Rich]

she just may help "unsettle" "settled" law and surprise us all, since she will quickly surmise that the Supreme Court is a much better place than the appeals court to "make policy".

Eventually, maybe. But remember, she will still be in the minority on the Court for the foreseeable future. Right now, it is the conservatives on the Court that are making up policy and unsettling "settled" law, just like they did in the Firefighter case where they eviscerated the clear intent of Title VII, ignoring clear precedent as they did so.

 

[Kevin]

Out of curiosity. Who on this forum would be willing to give up their own job to someone who either didn't score as high or pass the same tests as you did, or otherwise isn't as skilled or as knowledgeable in your trade? Any takers?

 

[mcmd]

Kevin,

I appreciate the thought behind your post, but I think a different question is needed to elicit the proper response. Let me try to rephrase:

"Who on this forum would be willing to give up their Summits/Statements/CLX's to someone who either didn't buy them as you did, or otherwise didn't sacrifice something of value such as time, money or affection to acquire them? Any takers?"

That being said, I still am not sure that your idea contains the requisite empathy necessary in today's world. I have not yet gotten a response as to whether the current progressive calls for "economic justice" include guaranteed CLX (25th Anniversary Edition) ownership rights.... 'cause if it does, I might just have to jump on board!

 

[Rich]

Out of curiosity. Who on this forum would be willing to give up their own job to someone who either didn't score as high or pass the same tests as you did, or otherwise isn't as skilled or as knowledgeable in your trade? Any takers?

Kevin, your question assumes many things which have nothing to do with the facts of the case. For instance, it assumes that a written test alone can accurately assess leadership ability and physical skills in a firefighter management role. It also assumes that the firefighters who sued somehow had a "right" to these promotions.

 

[Kevin]

Kevin, your question assumes many things which have nothing to do with the facts of the case. For instance, it assumes that a written test alone can accurately assess leadership ability and physical skills in a firefighter management role. It also assumes that the firefighters who sued somehow had a "right" to these promotions.

hmm...., now that statement seems to be just a tad bit racist. You seem to be suggesting that blacks might not have the necessary intellect to study and perform well on a written exam, but they could have shown their stuff had an obstacle course been included. No one has a "right" to their job. Everyone should have a "right" to equal oppurtunity, but not an equal outcome.

I think my question has everything to do with the case. Frank Ricci spent his time (even giving up a second job so he would have time to study), money, sweat and tears to pass the exam for the promotion. He was denied his promotion not because of his outcome on the exam, but because of the outcome of others (and not all of those who failed were black). You're saying it's ok to have him to give up on his promotion. I'm asking if you would be so willing to give up on your job status, to give a chance to others, as you seem to be so willing to have these men do?

 

[Rich]

Everyone should have a "right" to equal oppurtunity, but not an equal outcome.

Minorities have not had equal opportunities or equal outcomes since this nation's inception. That was the entire purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights act, to correct those imbalances.

The questions you should be asking are: Why, in a city with a 40% black population and 20% Hispanic population (60% minority population total) are the Senior Officer ranks of the firefighters represented by only 9% black and 9% hispanic (18% total)? When nearly half of the 77 candidates for lieutenant were black or hispanic, why were none of them eligible for promotion following the city's test? Why, after so many years of discrimination against minorities in this country, do people (like yourself, apparently) still think these kinds of entrenched racial disparities are alright?

 

[repman]

"Sports is a very race-sterotypical field. If all races are equal in all abilities, it sure doesn't show up in sports. Blacks do well, Asians poorly in the most "athletic" sports requiring size, except Pacific Islanders are over-represented in football, and the Japanese are starting to provide the US with very good pitchers. Blacks are 21 times their population in NBA basketball, and 14 times in NFL football, and 1.5 times in Major League baseball compared to whites, where most Asians are nearly nonexistent "

does this mean we should have quotas so that more whites and asians get positions on professional football and basketball teams?

This seems like an imbalance to me I think we need to correct it and give Whites, Asians, and Hispanic players positions on these teams even if they are not as good at the position as their black counterparts>

Better yet maybe we should have a handicap system for the White Asian and Hispanic players so they have a chance.

I however prefer to watch the best players a team can field regardless of race.

I think that we perpetuate the race problems in this country when we allow reverse discrimination

We have the Black entertainment awards how would it go over if we had the white entertainment awards?

I say let everyone be judged equally by the same standards and let the best people regardless of race, religion or sex get the position

We have a Black president in this country if thats not equality what is?

I am not a skilled debater like some of the people on this forum its just my two cents

 

[Kevin]

Minorities have not had equal opportunities or equal outcomes since this nation's inception. That was the entire purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights act, to correct those imbalances.

The questions you should be asking are: Why, in a city with a 40% black population and 20% Hispanic population (60% minority population total) are the Senior Officer ranks of the firefighters represented by only 9% black and 9% hispanic (18% total)? When nearly half of the 77 candidates for lieutenant were black or hispanic, why were none of them eligible for promotion following the city's test? Why, after so many years of discrimination against minorities in this country, do people (like yourself, apparently) still think these kinds of entrenched racial disparities are alright?

Why should I be asking questions, for which I already know the answers? You're throwing out numbers and statistics. I judge people on their own individual merits. Did the blacks (as well as the whites and hispanics) that failed, put in as much study time as their passing white counterparts? From what I read in an interview which one of the hispanics, that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't lump people into ethnic groups as you just did, that is what the Klu Klux Klan, Black Panthers and other racist groups do. Only when we quit doing that will we ever be a truly race neutral society.

So I answered your question. Why won't you answer mine. Would you be willing to give up your own job to help make up for these "entrenched racial disparities"? Then again, I already know the answer to that one as well.

 

[Rich]

So I answered your question. Why won't you answer mine. Would you be willing to give up your own job to help make up for these "entrenched racial disparities"? Then again, I already know the answer to that one as well.

I believe my obvious support for Title VII and basic Civil Rights Laws answers your question. If I felt like you did, I wouldn't support these laws. What it comes down to isn't whether the Court made the "right" decision by these firefighters, but whether the Court followed the clear intent of the law (as conservatives constantly harp that courts are supposed to do). In this case, it is clear to any student of law that the Court went to great strides to sidestep the requirements of Title VII as laid down by Congress. The conservatives on the Court made up law and ignored precedent in order to weaken the Civil Rights laws, plain and simple.

I understand that someone who disagrees with these laws would applaud that decision, but it is pretty disingenuous for conservatives to then accuse Sotomayor of being a judge that will let her personal beliefs affect her decisions on the Court. That is exactly what the conservatives did in this case, and what they do all the time in numerous cases.