Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor

[bush_cheney2004]

Land of the free home of the brave.

...and racist judges?

[benny]

...and racist judges?

Try harder to make her a racist.

[punked]

...and racist judges?

Keep it up please ohhhh please keep it up.

[bush_cheney2004]

Try harder to make her a racist.

She has done this herself....good job!

[benny]

She has done this herself....good job!

Wishful thinking!

[bush_cheney2004]

Wishful thinking!

Yes...she wishes she didn't say that on camera.

[punked]

She has done this herself....good job!

By fallowing the law to a T. I hate judges who fallow the law.

[bush_cheney2004]

By fallowing the law to a T. I hate judges who fallow the law.

Yes...her ruling is now "fallow".

[benny]

Yes...she wishes she didn't say that on camera.

She probably knows, like me, that those watching are eager to find non-white racists.

[bush_cheney2004]

She probably knows, like me, that those watching are eager to find non-white racists.

Easy to find in China.

[punked]

You aren't addressing the fact the Supreme court said she was right but it was time the rules were changed.

[benny]

Easy to find in China.

Here more relevant findings:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14173

[Shady]

This Supreme Court decision was a 5-4 ruling. One cannot get a more divided court than this.

Nice try. The final decision may have been 5-4. But all 9 Justices agree the case was handled improperly by Sotomayor.

[August1991]

Not so dumb....the trail can be traced all the way back to the affirmative action struggles of the 1970's (e.g. Bakke vs. Regents) wherein quota systems were declared unconstitutional but preferential discrimination was sanctioned to reduce past injustices.

Exactly. This decision is based on the US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act and the post-Civil War US 14th Amendment on equality.

Here's the key section of the 14th Amendement:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Doesn't matter.....the popular political dynamic is that Sotomayor is perceived as being reversed, the same affliction that haunted Judge Alito.

Sout was reversed too. It's a no change.

She represents the uneven (pivotal) number.

Wrong, Benny.

---

The Hispanic angle is interesting and it shows, IMHO, Obama's political savvy. Clinton triangulated. Obama is a Mulroney middleman/operator: he brings two sides together. In another ideal life, Obama will be born as a Quebec lawyer.

Will Obama's Hispanic deal hold? If it does, then Obama will have created a coalition as politically useful as Roosevelt's or Reagan's.

----

This US Supreme Court decision.

If I understand properly, New Haven hired a private company to conduct the promotion test with the express purpose to make it "fair":

The city paid $100,000 to I/O Solutions, a testing company from Illinois, which observed and interviewed New Haven firefighters — two-thirds of whom were white — to see which parts of their jobs were relevant and important.

I/O Solutions then created a 100-question test and a detailed study guide. The city offered firefighters a three-month study period. During those three months, Frank Ricci, who's dyslexic, paid $1,000 for the study materials to be read on tape because he learns better by listening. Greg Boivin resigned from part-time jobs to devote more time to studying. Ban Vargas took leave from his part-time job to study. Christopher Parker studied in the hospital while waiting for his wife to give birth.

New Haven Advocate

The US Supreme Court (5-4) upheld this process saying that it met requirements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. (Ginsberg in the minority 4 argued that this hiring process doesn't matter since Black people are victims and deserve special treatment.)

-----

In Canada, until we created these human rights commissions (which are an indirect product of the 1964 US civil rights legislation), we have dealt with these contentious issues in a completely different way. In Canada, since 1763 and arguably before, we explicitly recognize minority rights and we created a federal system around this explicit recognition. Canada's various constitutions openly refer to Catholics and the French language. (In the US, such recognition would be anathema.)

I have no simple answer to which solution is better but clearly, each society must find its own way. Then again, the US suffered a terrible civil war because of its history. We Canadians have never fought one another (except in words).

Edited June 30, 2009 by August1991

[punked]

Nice try. The final decision may have been 5-4. But all 9 Justices agree the case was handled improperly by Sotomayor.

K Rush, accept they all agreed her ruling under the old rules was correct.

[benny]

Wrong, Benny.

Tell me!?

Edited July 1, 2009 by benny

[benny]

In Canada, until we created these human rights commissions (which are an indirect product of the 1964 US civil rights legislation), we have dealt with these contentious issues in a completely different way. In Canada, since 1763 and arguably before, we explicitly recognize minority rights and we created a federal system around this explicit recognition. Canada's various constitutions openly refer to Catholics and the French language. (In the US, such recognition would be anathema.)

I have no simple answer to which solution is better but clearly, each society must find its own way. Then again, the US suffered a terrible civil war because of its history. We Canadians have never fought one another (except in words).

Will Kymlicka is I think the most respected Canadian specialist on these matters. After reading him, I have come to the conclusion that it is preferable to speak of collective rights more than minority rights.

http://post.queensu.ca/~kymlicka/

Edited July 1, 2009 by benny

[WIP]

I don't know how Ginsburg can look at the evidence and then spout leftwing nonsense that doesn't exist anymore. A guy with a major learning disability passed the test and beat all the blacks who took the test!

That wouldn't be the same guy who hired the private tutor to help him with that test by any chance?

What does that tell you?

First, why don't you answer your own question? You leave it hanging out the test results imply blacks are mentally inferior to whites, so why don't you have the balls and come right out and say it?

It won't change the outcome, but for people who can see objectively, yet another bad decision by Obama. I had read previously that 65% of Sotomayor's decisions had been overturned but I can't find much in the way of details on this.

Ever hear of Google, Yahoo, or any other search engines where you can find an answer if you apply the right terms?

From Newsweek Factcheck:

Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?

A: Three of her opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Further down, where they try to find Rush's sources of information:

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court." We'll update this item if we receive a response.

Ha! Hell will freeze over before they Rush Limbaugh can think of an excuse for statistics that he just pulled out of his ass. There are reasons why Limbaugh never engages in debates, never does interviews with journalists who will hit him with tough questions, and even rarely has guests on his radio show -- Limbaugh can only appear to be smart as long as he is the smartest guy in the room -- and that leaves him in a studio all by himself taking a few, carefully screened calls from idiot fans who've been waiting on the phone for hours. Most of the liberal media watch groups ignore most of his drivel, until he tells a real whopper like the one above.

As for this New Haven firefighters case: Judge Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel that voted unanimously against the claim that the test scores alone, should be the sole criteria for determining who and who should not get promoted at the department. The reason why race statistics are cited as evidence of inside bias is because numbers that show a disproportionate lack of minorities in police, fire and other government departments, is a likely indicator that the managers inside are favouring their own! And they may not necessarily be trying to screen out blacks and hispanics -- it was also noted that there are a disproportionate number of white 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation police and firemen across New England and N.Y. and New Jersey. Nepotism reigns in government departments, and what the Supreme Court ruling is trying to do, is to turn all of the hiring authority back to managers who are playing favourites with who they choose to hire and promote in their departments.

[benny]

Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?

A: Three of her opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court[/color].

Further down, where they try to find Rush's sources of information:

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court." We'll update this item if we receive a response.

Ha! Hell will freeze over before they Rush Limbaugh can think of an excuse for statistics that he just pulled out of his ass. There are reasons why Limbaugh never engages in debates, never does interviews with journalists who will hit him with tough questions, and even rarely has guests on his radio show -- Limbaugh can only appear to be smart as long as he is the smartest guy in the room -- and that leaves him in a studio all by himself taking a few, carefully screened calls from idiot fans who've been waiting on the phone for hours. Most of the liberal media watch groups ignore most of his drivel, until he tells a real whopper like the one above.

The whole idea of appointing Sotomayor is to improve the efficiency at the Supreme Court. Since the appointment of Clarence Thomas on this Court, it has lost a lot of credibility.

[sharkman]

That wouldn't be the same guy who hired the private tutor to help him with that test by any chance?

First, why don't you answer your own question? You leave it hanging out the test results imply blacks are mentally inferior to whites, so why don't you have the balls and come right out and say it?

I'm really puzzled as to why you go back to page 1 of this thread to single out the only post I made and ignore 40-something other posts, I must be doing something right, heheheh. At any rate, I'm not going to answer 'the question' when you call me a racist and a eunuch, I'm like, really hurt. But if a white guy can hire a tutor to help him pass a test, then so can a black one.

Ever hear of Google, Yahoo, or any other search engines where you can find an answer if you apply the right terms?

From Newsweek Factcheck:

Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?

A: Three of her opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Tell you what, sport. Why don't you use google to do some research on the percentage of cases that have been overturned. I found it, can you? You're off base with that leftwing nonsense about 1.3%.

Further down, where they try to find Rush's sources of information:

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court." We'll update this item if we receive a response.

It's good to see you reading Rush, keep at it and you may learn something about the MSM.

Ha! Hell will freeze over before they Rush Limbaugh can think of an excuse for statistics that he just pulled out of his ass. There are reasons why Limbaugh never engages in debates, never does interviews with journalists who will hit him with tough questions, and even rarely has guests on his radio show -- Limbaugh can only appear to be smart as long as he is the smartest guy in the room -- and that leaves him in a studio all by himself taking a few, carefully screened calls from idiot fans who've been waiting on the phone for hours. Most of the liberal media watch groups ignore most of his drivel, until he tells a real whopper like the one above.

Accurate numbers on Sotomayor have been reported even in some limited areas of the MSM, have you found anything with google yet?

As for this New Haven firefighters case: Judge Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel that voted unanimously against the claim that the test scores alone, should be the sole criteria for determining who and who should not get promoted at the department. The reason why race statistics are cited as evidence of inside bias is because numbers that show a disproportionate lack of minorities in police, fire and other government departments, is a likely indicator that the managers inside are favouring their own! And they may not necessarily be trying to screen out blacks and hispanics -- it was also noted that there are a disproportionate number of white 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation police and firemen across New England and N.Y. and New Jersey. Nepotism reigns in government departments, and what the Supreme Court ruling is trying to do, is to turn all of the hiring authority back to managers who are playing favourites with who they choose to hire and promote in their departments.

More leftwing nonsense. Look, they hired an independent organization to formulate the course and test according to the duties of the job. If some people fail, they need to study harder next time, or overcome their learning disabilities as the dyslexic did. A simple review of the marks each applicant had in high school would probably convince even you, wip, that poor students usually fail tests.

At any rate, the US supreme court got it right, and you got it wrong.

Edited July 1, 2009 by sharkman

[Shady]

accept they all agreed her ruling under the old rules was correct.

And they agreed the case was handled inappropriately. That is fact.

But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect.

Slate

That would be Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee. And it's nice that Ms. Sotomayor didn't want to legislate from the bench. But one still has to follow proper procedure, and those involved in the case still deserved an opinion/answer as to why they were rejected. She should have handled it professionally, instead of like amateur-hour. The Supreme Court of the United States ins't a place for such amateurs.

[punked]

And they agreed the case was handled inappropriately. That is fact.

But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect.

Slate

That would be Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee. And it's nice that Ms. Sotomayor didn't want to legislate from the bench. But one still has to follow proper procedure, and those involved in the case still deserved an opinion/answer as to why they were rejected. She should have handled it professionally, instead of like amateur-hour. The Supreme Court of the United States ins't a place for such amateurs.

They agreed she was right in her ruling that is a fact.

[Shady]

They agreed she was right in her ruling that is a fact.

You're mixing two seperate issues.

Anyways, looks like public opinion is shifting...

Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal

A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.

Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.

Link

[punked]

You're mixing two seperate issues.

Anyways, looks like public opinion is shifting...

Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal

A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.

Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.

Link

Doesn't matter becuase Hispanics or the swing vote think she should confirmed by 90%. You wont get enough republicans behind it although the attacks from the fringe will kill the Hispanic vote. This is lose lose for you guys.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't matter becuase Hispanics or the swing vote think she should confirmed by 90%. You wont get enough republicans behind it although the attacks from the fringe will kill the Hispanic vote. This is lose lose for you guys.

Didn't seem to hurt the Democrats as much when they derailed the nomination of one Miguel Estrada.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...e-46407227.html