Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Will it matter?Follow

#1 Jun 29 2009 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Sotomayor Overturned in Fire Fighter Case.

If I'm following this right, the municipality of New Haven CT gave a written test to firefighters as a measure for promotion. When tests were scored, very few to zero minorities made the cut. So, New Haven, to avoid a lawsuit against discrimiation, scrapped the test. The non-minority fire-fighters, that had done well on the test, sued the town for reverse discrimination. In a high court ruling Sotomayor (and 2 other judges) ruled against the white firefighters stating there was no discrimination as no jobs promotions were given out to anyone based on this test.

Now the SCOTUS has reversed that ruling, finding the city at fault for throwing out the test with the only reason for scrapping it being 'to avoid a discrimination lawsuit'.

Will this, should this, at all affect her nomination to the SC?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Jun 29 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
No.

If you look at her judicial record, she's been overturned quite a bit by the SCOTUS. If you look a little more closely, it's always 5-4, 5-4, 5-4.

This is more of the same. Since she's replacing Stevens it's just maintaining the balance that's already in place.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jun 29 2009 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
If you look at her judicial record, she's been overturned quite a bit by the SCOTUS. If you look a little more closely, it's always 5-4, 5-4, 5-4.
Apparently below the average, though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Jun 29 2009 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
538.com wrote:
Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don't begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five.


Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5REDACTED, Posted: Jun 29 2009 at 9:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Does it matter that a potential supreme court justice is blatantly racist? I'd say so.
#6 Jun 29 2009 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yes, because that's never happened before.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7REDACTED, Posted: Jun 29 2009 at 10:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#8 Jun 29 2009 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I read about this earlier. Cheers to the judge.

You take a test, pass the test, then they scrap the test so they can promote people that weren't capable of passing said test, instead of you?

I'm sorry, if you can't pass the test you don't qualify for the job, it's that simple. If it turns out it's a bunch of white middle class men that end up passing too freakin bad, study more. If someone is more qualified than you they should get the promotion.

Edited, Jun 29th 2009 4:04pm by Yodabunny
#9 Jun 29 2009 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Does it matter that a potential supreme court justice is blatantly racist? I'd say so.


Newt Gingrich retracted his statement, so only Rush believes she's a racist now :-P
#10 Jun 29 2009 at 12:28 PM Rating: Default
Locked,

Newt is playing politics. Rush is being honest. Replace the word white with any of the commments she's made about hispanics and ask yourself if that sounds racist. Not to mention in her ruling on the recent scrotus case she didn't even look at the case. She simply saw white guys claiming racism and sided against them.

#11 Jun 29 2009 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Newt is playing politics. Rush is being honest. Replace the word white with any of the commments she's made about hispanics and ask yourself if that sounds racist. Not to mention in her ruling on the recent scrotus case she didn't even look at the case. She simply saw white guys claiming racism and sided against them.


Please link the comments you're talking about. Only one that comes to mind is when she says a female Hispanic will have a different view than a white man. I agree. I linked the relevant case to which she was referring in a previous thread; the case involved the involuntary neutering of a mentally handicapped woman (who, it turns out, was not mentally handicapped in the end... but the all white old man SCOTUS at the time still ruled against her rights). She had a very good point in that case, and it made perfect sense in context. Were you reading it like that?

Also I doubt your comments very much on "why" she ruled. Can you please provide backup that she didn't look at the case (preferably a play-by-play of how long she took to rule, and a statement). Oh right, no, you can't. I seem to recall her not having a publicly released statement for that case, but it's fuzzy in my mind.

Anyway, same as always. Back up your views please.
#12 Jun 30 2009 at 6:57 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Newt is playing politics. Rush is being honest. Replace the word white with any of the commments she's made about hispanics and ask yourself if that sounds racist. Not to mention in her ruling on the recent scrotus case she didn't even look at the case. She simply saw white guys claiming racism and sided against them.

*snorf*

Ok, you better hope I can clean the coffee out of my laptop, making me laugh like that.

And, "comments" only has 2 "m"s.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#13 Jun 30 2009 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
I read about this earlier. Cheers to the judge.

You take a test, pass the test, then they scrap the test so they can promote people that weren't capable of passing said test, instead of you?

I'm sorry, if you can't pass the test you don't qualify for the job, it's that simple. If it turns out it's a bunch of white middle class men that end up passing too freakin bad, study more. If someone is more qualified than you they should get the promotion.


Yep. That's what the Supreme Court said. Sotomayor got it wrong, but she's no more racist than anyone else. To be fair to her and the other 2 judges on the panel, it really was a close case.

The Supreme Court decision comes down to an evaluation of just how fragile the city's position was if it should promote based on the test and find itself sued by minorities claiming disparate-impact discrimination (prohibited by Title VII).

The district court and 2nd Circuit panel basically said there was no right answer because the city was potentially violating the law whichever way it went.

The Supreme Court decided the decision to throw out the test results was the wrong decision because there was not a "strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability" if it promoted based on the test. This "strong basis" test has not been applied to Title VII cases before. The Supreme Court imported it from prior Equal Protection cases.

In other words, "fear of litigation" is not enough. Justification for throwing out the test required a "strong basis in evidence to believe it be subject to liability" (in other words ... lose the litigation it fears).

The dissenting opinion concluded that the city had sufficient concern, and in good faith, that it might be in violation of Title VII if it promoted based on the tests.

What's more interesting for Court watchers is the alignment of the justices. You can tell from who provided various concurring and dissenting opinions ...

Predictably, Justice Kennedy was the compromise position or "swing vote." Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito signed concurrences which came down more strongly in favor of the white and hispanic petitioners. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented. The holding really is a compromise that was acceptable to Kennedy where the stronger positions on either side were not.

Quote:
that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results. In other words, there is no evidence — let alone the required strong basis in evidence — that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.


Here's the actual Scotus opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Edited, Jun 30th 2009 11:13am by Ahkuraj
#14REDACTED, Posted: Jun 30 2009 at 7:20 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#15 Jun 30 2009 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

For once I wish you would do your own research. I guess ignoring the issue is the liberal way.


Quote:
The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. 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."



http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/


So... Sotomayor didn't give a personal statement. And I tend not to give much credence to a site that cannot use the phrase "unusually short." How is it unusual? What is the normal length? How does this make her a racist if there's nothing to back it up.

I guess making broad statements and then trying to back them up with flimsy Slate sources is the Varrus way.
#16 Jun 30 2009 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
virus wrote:
For once I wish you would do your own research.


Smiley: laugh Smiley: laugh Smiley: laugh
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17REDACTED, Posted: Jun 30 2009 at 7:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ahkura,
#18 Jun 30 2009 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Varus wrote:
“All nine justices were critical of the trial court opinion that Judge Sotomayor endorsed,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee.


You're quoting a Republican Senator who was editorializing for the purposes of discrediting Sotomayor?

Read her actual dissent. (Do your own research, as you put it.) Nowhere does she "criticize" the District Court opinion. Just the opposite.

Quote:
This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “a significant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.”


If you can point me text in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion criticizing the District Court, I'll happily agree with you and Senator Cornyn. I don't want Sotomayor on the Supreme Court any more than you do, and I tend to agree with the "strong basis" test. But that test didn't apply to Title VII cases before this Scotus decision. Her decision was a reasonable one given the state of the law at the time.

Edited, Jun 30th 2009 11:56am by Ahkuraj
#19REDACTED, Posted: Jun 30 2009 at 10:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ginsburg wrote,
#20 Jun 30 2009 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Is this not a criticism?
Not a particularly meaningful one. Do you suspect that Ginsberg thinks Sotomayor is unqualified?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21REDACTED, Posted: Jun 30 2009 at 10:50 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#22 Jun 30 2009 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
She's a Puerto Rican American, dumbass.

You should do some research of your own.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#23 Jun 30 2009 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
291 posts
Quote:
The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Courtis indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.


Yes, it is a mild criticism ... in a footnote ... a criticism which the 5 justices in the majority did not agree with. It is intentionally misleading for the Senator to focus on this as some kind of criticism of Sotomayor.
#24 Jun 30 2009 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Yes. Of course she can't come right out and say it because well Sotomayor is a mexcian woman.
Of course. Fascinating.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jun 30 2009 at 11:40 AM Rating: Default
Ok puerto rican woman. No way in h*ll Vader is going to blatantly criticize another woman judge.
#26 Jun 30 2009 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Ok puerto rican woman. No way in h*ll Vader is going to blatantly criticize another woman judge.
Do go on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 337 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (337)