Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Scotus Overturns Sotomayor  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

The US Supreme Court today overturned Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven, CT Firefighters promotion case.

Judge Sotomayor was one of a 3 judge panel on the 2nd Circuit if the US Court of Appeals, in New York City, who ruled against white firefighters anti-discrimination suit against New Haven, CT. The case was called Ricci v. DeStefano.

Some people have also referred to this case as a landmark reverse discrimination case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html

Judge Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter. Judge Sotomayor still must be confirmed as a US Supreme Court Justice by the US Senate.

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

I can only imagine what the decision would have been with a crazy liberal like Sotomayor on the bench.

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2748 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

It was a 5-4 decision.

This wasn't a judicial smackdown of Judge Sotomayor. While certainly interesting to see the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of a nominee, I certainly don't believe it discredits the qualifications or abilities of Ms. Sotomayor as a potential Supreme Court Justice.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17365 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

I haven't read the minority opinion other than the snippets in articles, but it seems to support the idea that racism isn't about the process but the outcome. How can anyone ensure the outcome in any scenario is proportionally racially balanced to avoid lawsuit?  

[Edited 2009-06-29 14:32:42]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

How many of the justices on the Supreme Court have had their rulings overturned? Just curious if it is not that unusual.

Also I realize that it was not Sotomayor's "ruling" per se but rather a ruling by the 3 judge panel of the court of appeals.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1775 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 1):
I can only imagine what the decision would have been with a crazy liberal like Sotomayor on the bench.

Hmm...let's think about this one. What do you think would happen?

It's not very incomprehensible, really. Sotomayor is being nominated to replace Justice Souter. Souter dissented from the majority in this case. Presumably, Sotamayor would have done the same.

I agree with the opinion of the majority in this case, but your comments are nothing but unwarranted scare tactics and exaggeration trying to create a 'liberal fear' or something like that.

So really, you can online imagine what the decision would have been? The exact same. It doesn't get any clearer than that.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1768 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
How many of the justices on the Supreme Court have had their rulings overturned? Just curious if it is not that unusual.

All of them had rulings overturned when they were federal appeals court justices.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 5):
Hmm...let's think about this one. What do you think would happen?

It's not very incomprehensible, really. Sotomayor is being nominated to replace Justice Souter. Souter dissented from the majority in this case. Presumably, Sotamayor would have done the same.

I agree with the opinion of the majority in this case, but your comments are nothing but unwarranted scare tactics and exaggeration trying to create a 'liberal fear' or something like that.

So really, you can online imagine what the decision would have been? The exact same. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I meant that sarcastically, which I'm not good at expressing while typing. I know the result would have been exactly the same.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1759 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 6):
I meant that sarcastically, which I'm not good at expressing while typing. I know the result would have been exactly the same.

Oh, understood. Sorry for being a bit harsh there.


Smileys can help with the sarcasm thing.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24886 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

I'm glad the fire fighters prevailed. I think its rather disgusting to hold back the best candidates for a position especially one like this which truly has life and death implications because of ones race.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1748 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 3):
but it seems to support the idea that racism isn't about the process but the outcome

Which is the excuse these courts have been using to deny opportunities to white males for at least 20 years now. Not only is white male a strike against you when test scores and other measures are equal, but it's used against you when your performance is BETTER, because the outcome of "letting" you have what you earned would be a racist outcome.

I've experienced this a few times in my life, and it sucks. Mostly in college admissions and then recruiting after college, but also in things like writing fellowships and internships where it is made quite clear that white males will NOT get a spot (and looking at their history, never have). I knew the outcome in school because I knew the people being chosen ahead of me and how I compared to them on all levels. With the fellowships, they put the winners' pictures online. Not a white male among them for years. The question is: while it might make sense to let a 60 year old racist know what it's like to have the tables turned, how exactly is it fair to do that to a 18 year old kid who did nothing wrong, or a fireman who just wants a better life for him and his family?

All it does is engender a bitterness that didn't exist before the discriminatory act...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1735 times:



Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 7):

Oh, understood. Sorry for being a bit harsh there.


Smileys can help with the sarcasm thing.

No problem, I should have made it more obvious, I'll go with the smileys next time  yes 


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1735 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 1):
I can only imagine what the decision would have been with a crazy liberal like Sotomayor on the bench.

Since Judge Sotomayor will replace Justice Souter, who's ruling have mostly been liberal, she will not change the current balance of the court

Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
How many of the justices on the Supreme Court have had their rulings overturned?

None.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 5):
It's not very incomprehensible, really. Sotomayor is being nominated to replace Justice Souter. Souter dissented from the majority in this case. Presumably, Sotamayor would have done the same.

Actually, she would have had to recuse herself from hearing, and deciding on this case, as it was a review of a decision she already made. Chief Justice Roberts recussed himself from a case he heard while a judge at the Washington Circuit Court shortly after he was confirmed as the Chief Justice.

If she did not do that volunteerly, the Chief Justice (Roberts) of the SCOTUS must remove her from hearing the case when it comes before the SCOTUS. Justices cannot hear cases they ruled on while at a lower court.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1727 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
None.

You might want to look into that, since it's untrue. I would provide some links for you but I'm already running late for work.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Chief Justice Roberts recussed himself from a case he heard while a judge at the Washington Circuit Court shortly after he was confirmed as the Chief Justice.

He did, and his ruling was overturned 5-3(assuming you're talking about Hamdan v. Rumsfeld)


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1719 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 2):
It was a 5-4 decision.

This wasn't a judicial smackdown of Judge Sotomayor.

5-4 is just that but a reading of the dissent by Justice Ginsburg will show that event the dissenting Justices thought the appeals court did a pretty poor job of adjudicating in this instance.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 6):
All of them had rulings overturned when they were federal appeals court justices.

How many of them have been accused of not looking at the Consitutionality of the law? That was one of the critisicms of Judge Sotomayor in this case.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Since Judge Sotomayor will replace Justice Souter, who's ruling have mostly been liberal, she will not change the current balance of the court

Absolutely and it doesn't matter what her judicial record has been, she's going to be confirmed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
How many of the justices on the Supreme Court have had their rulings overturned?

None.

 rotfl   rotfl  I thought the same thing. It should read "how many of the Justices that were appelate court judges had their rulings as appelate court judges overturned?" Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned by any court.


User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1713 times:

Curious. How does this:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
How many of the justices on the Supreme Court have had their rulings overturned?

None.

reconcile with this:

Quoting Max550 (Reply 6):

All of them had rulings overturned when they were federal appeals court justices.

I am of course referring to any decisions made prior to their appointment to the SC, which rulings of course can't be overturned. Also whyhave they been overturned (or which rulings have been challenged but ultimately supported by a higher court)?

Thanks,
Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineTsaord From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1682 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
I'm glad the fire fighters prevailed. I think its rather disgusting to hold back the best candidates for a position especially one like this which truly has life and death implications because of ones race.

I have been keeping an eye on this case and I am pleased with the outcome, and I'm African American. I don't want a job handed to me I didn't qualify for. However there is still discrimination in the work place everyday.


A lot of the Supreme courts rulings have been pretty close. 5-4. I wonder why that is.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

The interesting thing about the case is that New Haven was pretty much bound to get sued whatever they did. Throw out the test, and they get sued by the white firefighters for reverse discrimination. Keep the test, and they get sued by the black firefighters under the disparate impact clause.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 3):
I haven't read the minority opinion other than the snippets in articles, but it seems to support the idea that racism isn't about the process but the outcome. How can anyone ensure the outcome in any scenario is proportionally racially balanced to avoid lawsuit?

The idea is that a seemingly racist outcome - such as no blacks passing the exam - can reveal hidden or inadvertant racism in the process that led to that outcome.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1660 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
I think its rather disgusting to hold back the best candidates for a position

They didn't hold back the best candidates, they held back the candidates that scored best on the test. Those two things are not necessarily the same.

While many on here are lauding this opinion (likely because they like the result, and not the reasoning) I can't yet share this jubilation. There are some real problems with this result. The City of New Haven punted the test because they feared it was discriminatory. Let's forget about whether the test (which none of us have seen) was or wasn't discriminatory for a second, and assume that it was. This opinion actually stands in the way of a municipality that wants to get rid of results that were actually discriminatory. That's scary, isn't it?

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 15):
However there is still discrimination in the work place everyday.

And now it will be harder to eradicate it when it is found.

Quoting DXing (Reply 13):
How many of them have been accused of not looking at the Consitutionality of the law? That was one of the critisicms of Judge Sotomayor in this case.

The case was decided on statutory grounds, not constitutional.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1662 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 1):
I can only imagine what the decision would have been with a crazy liberal like Sotomayor on the bench.

Sotomayor is a moderate. The left wing has nearly as many concerns about her as the right wing. She is moderately pro-business, not a slam dunk on abortion rights, and there are other issues on which we just do not know how she would rule. If you think she is a crazy liberal, you must be somewhere to the right of Pat Buchanan and one of the same people who thinks Bill Clinton was a crazy liberal. But, as was said about Clinton and could be said about Sotomayor: "[N]o one but a fool or a Republican ever took h[er] for a liberal."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The US Supreme Court today overturned Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven, CT Firefighters promotion case.

Oh dear lord no! We can't have her appointed now!!! An appellate justice who joined in, but did not author, an opinion at the Court of Appeals level that was overturned by the Supreme Court is obviously not qualified to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After all, it is not like we appointed Scalia after an opinion written by Robert Bork in which Scalia joined was not only struck down by the Supreme Court but caused a huge public uproar.

Judges are overturned. It happens when they write their own opinions. Sotomayor was not the author, she joined the opinion of a panel that issued a unanimous decision, basing their decision on Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. The issue then went to the Supreme Court, who clarified the law in this regard. Wow! Our system worked and continues to work, even though we allow judges who have had decisions overturned make decisions on the Supreme Court. Who would have ever guessed?

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Sotomayer was one of a panel of 3 Circuit Court judges who decided this case when it was before them. I believe the weak decision was in large part as they didn't want to decide it with it's underlying race issues and they knew it would go to the SCOTUS any way they decided.

The much deeper issue of Affirmative Action or 'diversity policies' is the still limited economic opportunites and access to good qualtity basic education for Blacks for generations. I would assume the test was strictly on experiences a firefighting officer could have to face, so to me the poor qualtiy of basic education may be limiting the Black firefighters trying to qualify.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1623 times:



Quoting Tsaord (Reply 15):
I have been keeping an eye on this case and I am pleased with the outcome, and I'm African American. I don't want a job handed to me I didn't qualify for. However there is still discrimination in the work place everyday.

Absolutely no doubt there. I see it around (and it's not just white on X group, either). I see men discriminate against women, women do the same to men when they get into positions of authority, etc.

In hiring, I am all for, when all else is equal or roughly equivalent, looking at race as a deciding factor if your company or organization historically has had a bad record on race that you'd like to correct. In that situation, nothing is being "given" to anyone. It's a valid situation to help "right wrongs of the past" because nobody is harmed by the act.

But as you point out, this is not one of those situations. This is a situation of throwing out a standard in order to promote one group over another, and is no different than companies who do the same to discriminate against minorities or women, taking the less qualified white candidate. That kind of thing shouldn't be allowed in any form, and the fact that Sotomayor thinks it should is what many of us can't get behind.

It's similar to relaxing the strength and stamina tests for fire fighters, life guards, etc. in order to allow more women into the profession, which has been done in various places around the USA. But I would imagine, using her "latino woman experience" that she claims is more valuable, she'd be behind that, too. Can't put words in her mouth, but it's a hunch...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Everybody gets rulings overturned. That's not that big of a deal. It just so happens that one of her rulings happens to get overturned right as she is being nominated. More coincidence than anything else.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The US Supreme Court today overturned Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven, CT Firefighters promotion case.

Judge Sotomayor was one of a 3 judge panel on the 2nd Circuit if the US Court of Appeals, in New York City, who ruled against white firefighters anti-discrimination suit against New Haven, CT. The case was called Ricci v. DeStefano.

Some people have also referred to this case as a landmark reverse discrimination case

I am stunned that the courts allowed it to go this far. This case, IMHO, was pretty much a slam dunk case for the firefighters.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 16):
The interesting thing about the case is that New Haven was pretty much bound to get sued whatever they did. Throw out the test, and they get sued by the white firefighters for reverse discrimination. Keep the test, and they get sued by the black firefighters under the disparate impact clause.

That's what others have said. What I didn't realize, though, and I don't think many others realize, is that this wasn't just a straightforward test on paper.
It was 60% oral and 40% written. New Haven actually hired an independent firm to come up with a "colorblind test," and for the oral portion, brought in a team of 30 managerial level firemen, 2/3 of which were minorities.

Based on these facts and coupled with having lived in New Haven for four years, albeit as a student, it leads me to think that DeStefano was trying to appeal to his black constituents. New Haven still has some palpable racial tension, and blacks make up a significant portion of the urban community. I can't say for sure why the test results were thrown out, but I can confidently say that the City's stated belief that the test may have been slanted to favor certain racial groups was certainly not the real reason.

New Haven is a one horse, Democratic machine town, and DeStefano is as bad as they get. City officials routinely engage in doublespeak, which is why I wouldn't be all that shocked if this was another case of it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
And now it will be harder to eradicate it when it is found

Disagree. This was a case of discrimination, plain and simple. This ruling acknowledges that minorities aren't the only ones that are discriminated against in the workplace.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

I oppose Sotomayor for any number of reasons, but I don't see a 5-4 of SCOTUS as a major issue in her nomination. And it should not be--after all, its hardly an overwhelming majority, and the point of the appeals process is to allow for such reversals. All it does is reiterate the ideological divide associated with the issue. This is not news. Had Obama already appointed another judge to the SC, the decision would likely have been different.

It certainly shows that Sotomayor is a left-leaning judge--but it doesn't show incontrovertible evidence of judicial incompetence that some make it out to be.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17365 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1599 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
And now it will be harder to eradicate it when it is found.

How so? The minority view would support that everything that isn't racially proportional is a sign of racism.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1581 times:



Quoting Us330 (Reply 21):
Disagree. This was a case of discrimination, plain and simple.

Against whom? Did you see the test? If you haven't, you might not know whom was being discriminated against.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 23):
How so? The minority view would support that everything that isn't racially proportional is a sign of racism.

I'm not sure I agree with the dissenting opinion. But proportional results wasn't the issue in the case. The ruling is problematic because it says thinking you have a bad, discriminatory test isn't good enough. But you could throw the test out for other reasons.

Think about this: if New Haven wanted to toss the results because they thought the test results suggested that it discriminated against people born in January, they could do it, no problem. Even though there's no history of discriminating by month. In fact, the idea itself is laughable. But *there* has been a long history of discrimination against certain groups, especially in the fire departments in the northeast. And "standardized" testing is often the culprit. (Does a standardized test tell how good a squad leader someone is? Do you think military promotions are done by standardized tests?) This ruling says that if the city actually suspects real discrimination led to disparate results, there's nothing that can be done.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
25 NIKV69 : Exactly, her decision was assinine and total nonsense. Glad someone stepped up and overturned it. This woman is a loon.
26 D L X : Quick NIK, tell me what her decision said.
27 Texan : First of all, it is not a decision, it is an opinion. They are called judicial opinions. Secont, whose decision? She did not author it, she joined it
28 Us330 : Discrimination against whites is still discrimination, and New Haven's actions did just that.
29 Pellegrine : Great for the firefighters, but... This case only proves that the United States is still a very racially screwed up country and there has been no solu
30 D L X : I don't think you understood what I was saying. Did you see the test? It is possible that the test itself was discriminatory against minorities. This
31 Baroque : Ever thought of visiting Aus Max? I don't think you would need to splatter the smilies so much. You write some of the best pastiche and irony around
32 Tsaord : OMG I want to curse lol. How is a test discriminatory against anyone? Was there something the whites and that one latino knew that that African Ameri
33 Par13del : Well if someone woke up today and looked around you would never know that for decades the education system was denied to certains races, that technic
34 Baroque : So true. The sprints in the Limpics show this time and time again. But look out, Kenyans are good at long distance, and you would have to watch out f
35 D L X : It was an issue at trial that some of the questions had nothing to do with firefighting. Does that help you any?
36 MaverickM11 : If they followed all the rules and had the magic number of minority sensitive questions and did everything they're supposed to, the only thing that w
37 PNQIAD : I don't think even the Chief Justice can force a justice to recuse him/her self. Also - as far as I am aware - recusal is almost always voluntary on
38 KC135TopBoom : I agree with you here, Yellowstone. This was a loose-loose for New haven thee way they administered the firefighter promotion testing. Probibly the m
39 D L X : The DEFINITELY thought the latter, without a doubt. You are correct. But what if they did think they had a bad test? Failing everyone in a certain gr
40 DXing : Agreed, but did not one of the Second Appeals Court's own Judges as well as the majority opinion of the SC as well as the dissenting opinion question
41 Tsaord : I take back something I said. Whites out pace African Americans/Blacks in just about everything *except* basketball and track lol. Then there is an is
42 Post contains links PPVRA : Here's the dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZD.html Largely non-sense. The test was fair and neutral, but she dissented based on
43 D L X : Okay, so here's the procedural posture of the case: 1) 264 Fed.Appx. 106 (2d Cir. 2008) - this February 2008 unpublished per curiam opinion (meaning,
44 NIKV69 : That the white firefighters should not get promotions because all blacks scored terrible on the test. Their rights were violated and the overturning
45 KC135TopBoom : Well, that's Justice Ginsberg for you, again trying to strattle both sides of the Constitutional fence. How can she write such a decision, without kn
46 D L X : Proof that you did not read the opinion at all. And it's only one paragraph long, so you could have read it. But no, you'd rather assume what it said
47 KC135TopBoom : I have been looking for the test questions since this decision came out yesterday. A few news media sites said the city has not released the test, an
48 DXing : Agreed except it seems that both Judge Cabranes as well as the majority and the minority all found the 3 page ruling a little short on explanation wh
49 Post contains links D L X : They can think that. Doesn't mean they're right. There is a HUGE divide on the court about how much a judge should write about a certain topic. Some
50 Post contains links and images NIKV69 : Well congrats, here haven't used this one in awhile but you have earned it buddy. Oh BTW, consider your judge overturned. Mission accomplished.
51 D L X : A simple "you're right, I hadn't read it and didn't know what it said" will suffice.
52 Post contains links NIKV69 : I do not need to read the entire thing to understand what she was trying to accomplish. In fact I have read a lot of her rulings and listened to thin
53 LTBEWR : One news article I recall reading today (sorry, can't recall the source), noted that most of the paid fire departments in the state of Conn. use actua
54 Us330 : No, I haven't. I thought that it was an established fact in the case that the test wasn't inherently discriminatory. Of course they are. You might be
55 D L X : This will be my last comment on this subtopic: I'm not trying to vilify you! I'm just correctly pointing out that your statement and your explanation
56 D L X : I think that's *sort of* correct, and sort of incorrect. It was not *intentionally* discriminatory. As the majority opinion framed it, the question t
57 KC135TopBoom : Which is why many believe there was unintentional discrimination in the test. That could mean the test questions were not vetted properly.
58 NIKV69 : Why thank you officer, in fact I won't waste it. There is a reason her ruling was overturned and it's simple to see. Even for someone who refuses to
59 D L X : Assuming for a second that it was her ruling (which neither you nor I can prove), please point out the racial prejudice in the following paragraph: Q
60 KC135TopBoom : That's exactly what I mean, even though (apparently) enough white firefighters scored high enough to take all available promotions, the city, which w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Broadcast Indecency: A Scotus Ruling posted Tue Apr 28 2009 09:31:19 by RedFlyer
DNC To Revist Scotus Bush V. Gore Decision posted Wed Feb 13 2008 10:52:42 by Pope
Update: Scotus Rules On Scott V Harris posted Mon Apr 30 2007 23:15:07 by MDorBust
Partial Birth Abortion Case Back At The Scotus posted Wed Feb 22 2006 05:33:47 by Texdravid
Who Will Be The Next Scotus Justice To Step Down? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 23:02:42 by StevenUhl777
SCOTUS: Tomato Is A Vegetable posted Sat Dec 17 2005 03:12:02 by ACAfan
Bus With Evacuees Overturns Killing At Least One posted Sat Sep 3 2005 00:29:42 by TedTAce
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71
Roberts Confirmed As 17th Chief Justice Of Scotus posted Thu Sep 29 2005 17:49:13 by EA CO AS
Federal Judge Overturns "Do Not Call List" posted Thu Sep 25 2003 00:50:59 by ConcordeBoy