’)President Barack Obama chose federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to become the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as “an inspiring woman” with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.
Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the “respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor.”
UPDATE: Fox Nation commenters react with obligatory racism.
Filibustering nominees? Republicans are stridently against it.
White House backgrounder on Sotomayor:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America’s leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.
An American Story
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]
A Champion of the Law
Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented — on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]
A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved “street crimes,” such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
A Corporate Litigator
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]
A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”
A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist
President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.
Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.
Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying” I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.
A Commitment to Community
Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Could Fox Nation commenters be more rabid racists than Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary committee?
I suppose Miguel Estrada would beg to differ.
In looking through this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html
It seems that every one of her decisions that’s been reviewed by the Supreme Court has been overturned, or criticized. That doesn’t sounds like somebody that should be promoted to me.
Buzz – I would consider being overturned or criticized by the reactionary Bush court a qualification, not a negative.
That doesn’t sounds like somebody that should be promoted to me.
http://abcnews.go.com/us/story?id=254647
Yes, comments on high-traffic sites can be nasty. Left and right. But, my general concern is this statement here by Sotomayor – “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That is outright bigotry by this nominee. And I’d like her to explain why being hispanic and female makes her wiser and more able to interpret the law than some white guy judge. Don’t see any way for the spin doctors to frame that statement. Saying that your race/gender better equips you to make a law decision is utter bs. What….does she think it’s genetic or something?
And is it really that hard just to nominate a competent, and *look past” race, ethnicity, gender…..etc…..you know, like we’re all supposed to in this “post-racial” society? But that’s too much to ask I guess.
Your race. Your gender. Your ethnic group. They don’t mean shit. They aren’t qualifications.
…..Unless of course, it’s a liberal appointing them. Which in that case, it’s “good racism.”
Saying that your race/gender better equips you to make a law decision is utter bs. What….does she think it’s genetic or something?
Except that isn’t what she said, is it? “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Oh please. Go f**k yourself with that excuse. You damn well know if a white guy had said the same thing, he’d be toast. And you folks on this blog would be throwing a fit. Only a bigot can excuse such an obviously stupid and racist statement such as Sotomayor’s. Being hispanic and female don’t make her a better, *or worse* judge than anyone else. To even consider that a qualification if flat-out racism itself.
More about her here too.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php
We’ve hit a new low on this blog. Our “post-racial” president and his supporters now suddenly think ethnicity and gender *are* important qualifications. This is identity politics at it’s lowest. Could he *not* find a hispanic judge that didn’t make racist statements?
To rebut Buzz— SCOTUSBlog has a rundown of Sotomayor’s Appellate
record, and of *150* decisions where she authored the statement, the SCOTUS reversed 2….TWO, and is reviewing a third, which that blog thinks likely they’ll reverse as well.
3 out of 150 is a pretty good record, IMO.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
Let’s see what else Outer Wingnuttia will pull out their collective asses to try smearing judge Sotomayor, or any other of Obama’s picks…It’ll all be false, but should prove amusing reading…..
That’s an excellent observation, Sean, and one that will need to be repeated a million times for the logic and reason impaired.
But that a traitorous right wing misogynistic racist like “yo mama”, who brags about not paying his taxes during our countries time of wars, would make the issue about gender and race is standard operating procedure for the right wing.
Start keeping track of the right winger’s pattern of racism and sexism.
I don’t believe the right wing will be able to stop themselves from further alienating Hispanics and women.
Sotomayor is competent and qualified.
Sotomayor was previously appointed by Republican President Bush 1.
Sotomayor has an 11 year track record on the Court of Appeals.
One of the more challenging things for the right wing to rebut is the claim that “Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years.”
By that measure Sotomayor is more qualified than any of the Republican Justices currently on the Supreme Court.
But instead of taking on her record, right wing extremist “yo mama’s” first comment makes it about race and gender.
Simple question for everyone: Should someone stating that one’s ability to perform a job is superior because of their race/ethnicity/gender?
Common sense says no, but I’d like to see what all of you “race conscious liberals” think when one of your own appoints a person that has made the type of statement that would normally cause you to fly off the handle.
Yo Mama,
I find it interesting that when people on the right say much worse things it is not only defended it’s denied.
Funny that.
Even if you’re appointed by Bush 41 you’re an “activist judge” these days
yo mama, Your quote is far removed from the original context. Here it is in the original context:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males.
…
Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1
Pretty clear she’s talking about conclusions with regard to race and sex discrimination cases, and not saying that Latina women make better judges in general. She also didn’t say that white males cannot make good decisions w/r/t race and gender discrimination cases, but rather that a Latina woman is more likely going to make a better decision in those cases, due to having actually experiencing discrimination.
I have absolutely no interest in making racist remarks about the current nominee. But Byron York has written a short commentary to the effect that she was not appointed as a moderate, but rather at the behest of Senator Moynihan of New York. [No, I will not link it]
Anyone who belongs to a class, group or race of people that has been discriminated against, who, as a result, believes that they are better able to judge a case of discrimination, is sadly lacking in intellectual firepower.
Victimhood does not bestow either insight or wisdom; I would expect the opposite would be true, i.e. they are liable to prejudiced and not impartial.
After right wing “yo mama’s” racist and sexist perspective, “yo mama” goes on to cite the sleazy Stuart Taylor’s attack of Judge Sotomayor.
Stuart Taylor was one of the right wingers who constantly assailed Democratic President Bill Clinton over his personal life.
And yet when it came to the criminal actions by Republican President Bush, including clear war crimes and torture crimes and illegal surveillance, Stuart Tayor couldn’t find anything wrong about it and felt it should be swept under the rug.
And now Stuart Taylor, the war crimes apologist, is cited by tax dodging “yo mama” as an authority on ? what ? an example of rancid right wing thinking?
Stuart Taylor has been attacking Sotomayor since at least December of last year.
Stuart Taylor doesn’t like Sotomayor because she’s a woman and a Hispanic and worse, Taylor’s afraid that Sotomayor might make Judicial decisions that, gasp, follow the law in cases like torture crimes and war crimes and illegal surveillance.
and an embarrassment to the National Journal.
and an embarrassment to the National Journal.
Stuart Taylor is a “psychotic creep” and an embarrassment to the National Journal.
[third try]
I, for one welcome the dissenting opinions from all downtrodden white males.
“I have absolutely no interest in making racist remarks about the current nominee.”-Thank you for your restraintLOL
Hopefully you meant to say this differently.
And here’s right winger “Frank DiSalle” making his first comment reducing Sotomayor to her “class” and her “race”.
“Frank DiSalle”, intellectual right wing dud, even prefaces his reduction of Sotomayor to her “class” and her “race” with the weirdly worded comment, “I have absolutely no interest in making racist remarks about the current nominee.”
I don’t think you are saying what you think you are saying “Frank”.
yo mama: “Simple question for everyone: Should someone stating that one’s ability to perform a job is superior because of their race/ethnicity/gender?”
Is that what she actually said? “A Hispanic woman can do this better than a white man because of her gender and race.”
No, of course not.
News reference: I was referring to her comment about the wisdom that accrues to being Hispanic and a woman …
The “weirdly worded comment” was directed at those who tried to assert that there could be no argument against her appointment unless one were a racist.
I hope this isn’t a duplicate
News Reference : My remarks referred to the Statement made by the nominee with regard to the accrual of wisdom by virtue of being Hispanic and a woman.
The “weirdly worded statement” referred to several statements made by others to the effect that there could be no valid opposition to her appointment , unless one were racist .
By complaining about an HW Bush appointee with this much judicial experience, you wingers have proven you’d have gone batshit about anybody the president chose.
Experiencing discrimination doesn’t make one more qualified or insightful. That notion is off base.
Well, last time a President tried to nominate a chick to the Supreme Court we wound up with Harriet Meiers as the nominee. Sotomayor meets the most important qualifications a woman must have before assuming an important job: Bangability and Hotitude. Everything else is just padding the ol’ resume.
Simple question for everyone: Should someone stating that one’s ability to perform a job is superior because of their race/ethnicity/gender?
No one is saying that, no matter how you try to make it look like it.
Your quote is far removed from the original context.
Silly rabbit, context only matters when we’re talking about racist asshats Limbaugh or O’Reilly.
The one-size-fits-all standard wingnut response to this news today can be summed up very easily….
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! We cannot do anything but cry like babies so that’s what we will do as she gets appointed to the SC! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Liberal activist judge, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
She’s non white, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
She has empathy WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Keep crying, bitches. That’s all you can do now, so sit back and wail away.
By complaining about an HW Bush appointee with this much judicial experience, you wingers have proven you’d have gone batshit about anybody the president chose.
Bingo. He could have nominated the corpse of Oliver Wendell Holmes or a ring-tailed lemur, the results would be the same.
Who, I say, who will speak up for the white man?
Who, I say, who will speak up for the white man?
Michael God Damned Steele, that’s who!
I sure hope its News Reference. He’s amusing when he gets himself spun up right.
yo mama: Experiencing discrimination doesn’t make one more qualified or insightful.
It doesn’t ever?
Sotomayor only said that it should “more often than not.” You say that it doesn’t at all.
Your comment is far more bigoted than Sotomayor’s.
Who, I say, will speak up for fairness and consistency? No one here it seems. I think that in a so-called “post-racial” society, it’s a little odd for our president to appoint someone that has stated that her gender and ethnicity more often times than not, will enable her to make a better decision than a white man. All I’d like is for someone to address that one issue.
Would anyone here be happy with a judge that said “due to my experiences as a white man in america, I am more often than not, able to make a better judgement than a hispanic woman.”
It’s an absurd and obviously bigoted statement, as was Sotomayor’s.
Does anyone here have the intellectual honesty to admit that that’s an inappropriate thing to say for anyone, let alone someone nominated to the Supreme Court.
Hint: making a snide remark doesn’t prove a point. It just makes you look like you are beaten and have no response.
I’ll check back. I’m curious to see how many here are as against racism as they claim to be.
“Frank DiSalle” illustrates the right wing’s intellectual firepower: all flash and noise but no substance.
“Frank’s” comment: “I have absolutely no interest in making racist remarks about the current nominee.” might have made sense if (A) the rest of his comment hadn’t been meant to reduce Sotomayer to her “race” and “group” and (B) had stopped at “I have absolutely no interest in making racist remarks”.
But “Frank’s” comment did reduce Sotomayer to her “race”.
And “Frank’s” bizarre claim of having “absolutely no interest in making racist remarks about the current nominee” is one of those Freudian slips that, even after given time to review his comment, “Frank” still fails to realize it can be read to explicitly say that HE WOULD MAKE RACIST REMARKS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NOMINEE.
LOL.
I’ll check back. I’m curious to see how many here are as against racism as they claim to be.
Why don’t you check back after you’ve read her remarks in their entirety?
And then read them again.
“Who, I say, who will speak up for the white man?”
SFC B: “I sure hope its News Reference. He’s amusing when he gets himself spun up right.”
When the Supreme Court is 6/9ths women and 6/9ths non-white (and the US population is still at least 50% white), I would consider arguing that there should be added weight to considering a white male as the nominee if a Judge stepped down.
When that happens, I assure you, you can hold me to that promise.
Considering the Conservatives as a Party are much more racist and misogynist than 20+ years ago (when O’Connor was selected to SCOTUS and Sotomayor was selected for the Federal bench), don’t be surprised that a Black President’s choice of a Latina Appellate Judge coaxes the termites out of the woodwork.
I personally plan to ignore the punditry–they have no ‘feed’ into the process, insofar as the questioning by the Committee or the actual votes themselves. What I’m interested in seeing is Sotomayor’s questioning in Committee, what gets asked, and what gets pulled up in ‘investigating’ her background, both judicial and personal (you *know* the ‘Cons will peer under every Stone, and maybe make up a few, just to have something juicy to gossip about). The Talking Heads are useless, so let’s concentrate on what comes up the Approval process….
no takers yet……
yo mama: Does anyone here have the intellectual honesty to admit that that’s an inappropriate thing to say for anyone, let alone someone nominated to the Supreme Court.
Do you have the intellectually honesty to stop ignoring the context in which her remarks were made?
I think yo mama is the screen name for Emily Litella.
Conservatives are people who think ‘Latina’ is a category at their favorite porno site.
yo mama
Here is your answer
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-wrongly-claim-sotomayor-said-latinas-are-better-than-white-men/
It might help in the future if you asked a question that was actually grounded in reality. I know thats not the forte of wingnuts however so we will keep trying to help you out with that.
News Reference: You are a dolt and an unfunny one as well.
{Frank still fails to realize it can be read to explicitly say that HE WOULD MAKE RACIST REMARKS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NOMINEE}
a) It “explicitly” says no such thing;
and
b) It says that I didn’t go look up the nominee’s name and type that instead.
and
c) That, no, I was not prepared for any possible interpreation of my remarks by a race – obsessed liberal
Finally, have any of you heard about Didden v. Port Chester ?
I’m sorry, after Bush V Gore and the magic ‘never mention this again’ command from the SC, Republicans don’t get to act like they take judicial integrity seriously.
actions have consequences. I’m not sure why republicans expect to never be judged by their pasts.
Elections have consequences.
And did somebody actually link to a piece written by Byron York, a racist douche who argued that Obama wouldn’t be as popular if black Americans, who we all know don’t really count, didn’t vote for him?
Finally, have any of you heard about Didden v. Port Chester ?
The Supreme Court refused to review that one, didn’t they?
Soullite – if they can forget the past (when convenient), why oh why can’t WE?
And don’t forget, she was appointed by a notoriously moderate RINO who fumbled St Ronald’s glorious legacy of balanced budgets and electoral majority, handing our great country over to – shudder – that man from Arkansas.
yo mama: I think that in a so-called “post-racial” society,…
That’s a strawman akin to the “everyone on the left acknowledges Obama is “The One” ” nonsense. Claim everyone says weren’t now a post racial society (although they don’t) and then nit pick at any comment as having racial overtones.
Would anyone here be happy with a judge that said “due to my experiences as a white man in america, I am more often than not, able to make a better judgement than a hispanic woman.”
Once again (starting to close in on News Ref’s “repeated a million times’ for it to sink in) that isn’t what she said.
That is exactly what she said. And if a white man said the same about his race/gender making him “more often than not,” able to make a better decision than a hispanic woman, the left would be going batshit.
It’s not that complicated.
That is exactly what she said.
You keep saying that. It’s still not true. You’re misrepresenting what she said.
………still nothing……
folks, I took her words ver batim…..come on now…..is anyone going to tell me why this kind of bigotry is acceptable……
tick….tock…..
Lovin’ it. Wing-nuts are going to go all in against a respected, highly competent judge, and no self-respecting hispanic will ever vote for the GOP again.
Great pick on her merits. Great political pick as well.
If a white man said that his experiences as a white male enabled him to make better decisions about gender and race discrimination, you bet the left would be going batshit.
You know, at least Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.”
yo mama: That is exactly what .. a white man said … making him “more … able to make a better decision than a hispanic woman … going batshit.
It’s … complicated.
folks, I took yo mama’s words ver batim…..come on now…..is anyone going to tell me why this kind of bigotry is acceptable……
(Whattadya mean I left key parts out?)
Yeah, she’s qualified…..if ignorance and bigotry are qualifications.
So lemme get this straight…..you’re all ok with this type of mentality – that “race/ethnicity/gender” are qualifications that make a person “more capable” than annother…..
Surely, Sean, rather than saying “that’s not what she said” over and over again, you can perhaps enlighten us with how you think yo mama’s take isn’t correct?
Haplo…..I’ve been waiting for 2 hours for someone……..anyone…….to explain this. I have yet to receive an answer. This leads me to believe that many on this blog don’t really don’t have a problem with bigotry or racist attitudes as they always claim, so long as against the “right people.”
Their is no excuse for such as statement like the one Sotomayor made. None. That alone reflects on her character and show she isn’t worthy of the scotus.
She graduated from Yale and edited the law review there. Her peers have consistently said she’s an exceptionally smart person and a good judge.
The fact that she grew up poor, and that she’s female and hispanic? Just a bonus, really.
And for a bigot like yo mama to call someone else a racist? Delicious.
rather than saying “that’s not what she said” over and over again, you can perhaps enlighten us with how you think yo mama’s take isn’t correct?
Already done, hap’. Read the thread above. yo mama insists on misrepresenting and de-contexting the quote that has him feigning outrage. We can explain it all again, but just like the big plastic clown punching bag he is, yo mama will bounce right back to his previous position no matter how often he’s hit with the facts.
Anyone who belongs to a class, group or race of people that has been discriminated against, who, as a result, believes that they are better able to judge a case of discrimination, is sadly lacking in intellectual firepower.
Victimhood does not bestow either insight or wisdom;
Really? Because the current Supreme Court is doing a good job faking it.
Yo, I would also recommend that you read the post as well, as it explains how different experience can help paint a more accurate picture of cases.
In the thread on Oliver’s post about The Race Beat, Jay tea wrote this:
That the concept of “separate but equal” was not viewed as ludicrous on its face by the majority of the court at the time was more than likely heavily influenced by their being white men.
They simply had no way of comprehending the reality of what “separate but equal” meant in the context of the everyday lives of African Americans. So when they decided to narrowly interpret the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection under the law” as applying only to legal and political spheres, rather than the social/cultural sphere, they had no comprehension, to borrow Obama’s words, “of how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” In other words, they entirely lacked a sense of empathy for the lives they were about to condemn to another 70 plus years of racial inequality.
One justice, however, Justice John Marshall Harlan did dissent, recognizing in the majority opinion a reasoning as damnable as that behind the Dred Scott decision. Harlan is a great example of how one need not be the victim of injustice to recognize it when they see it.
But he was also the lone dissenter on the court.
There is no question that the majority of justices failed to comprehend the full impact of their decision in the lives of blacks because they could not see past their own experience of privilege as white men in America in 1896. Separate but equal meant equal to them and they had no way of understand it any differently, not just because they were the beneficiaries of white privilege, but because they could not even recognize that privilege for the race and gender based thing it was.
Even today it can be difficult for white guys, such as myself, to see how race and gender influence our understanding of the world because so much of American and Western culture itself has been dominated and shaped by the opinions of white men.
It’s like fish swimming in the ocean. They don’t recognize that they’re wet until you drop them on dry land.
All Sotomayor id was acknowledge the reality that race and gender influence the way all of us see the world, no matter what race or gender we are. She then went on to suggest that this awareness was born of her experiences as a hispanic woman and that it made her
she hopes she would be able to make better decisions in discrimination/civil rights cases than a white guy, because she is more inclined to understand how race and gender impact our understanding of the world.
She did not say that she would let consciousness of her race and gender be her only guide or even any kind of guide at all.
What she was that she was in a better position to understand how race and gender might impact her decisions and that she HOPED this knowledge and experience would make her capable of clearer decisions when it came to discrimination and civil rights cases.
If only the majority of justices in Plessy v Ferguson were aware of how race and gender had shaped their world views and their experience of that world, they too might have made better decisions and we’d all be a hell of a lot further along than we are now.
America’s changing, yo mama. Stop gasping and start adapting.
Zython, please… “different experience can help paint a more accurate picture of cases”?
I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would only need one judge.
The question I raised was different (*sigh* must I explain simple English to you again and again? Haven’t you learned anything in all these years?).
The question I raised was does victimhood supply one with wisdom or insight? My answer was “probably not”. And, also, does victimhood tend to lead one towards objectivity and impartiality, to which I would answer, “Definitely not”.
I thank you for not calling me a racist.
end italics
The question I raised was does victimhood supply one with wisdom or insight? My answer was “probably not”. And, also, does victimhood tend to lead one towards objectivity and impartiality, to which I would answer, “Definitely not”.
Frank, you’re confused.
The experience of injustice does not in and of itself grant one wisdom in the nature of the injustice or how to overcome. Just as it does not automatically render one constitutionally incapable of victimizing others.
But, the experience of injustice first hand has lead to the expression and spread of great wisdom indeed. To deny this, is to deny probably one of the most remarkable traits of the human animal.
I would venture to say that the experience of great suffering and injustice has lead to some of the profoundly wise works in history. Like, say, the bible.
“yo mama”: “if ignorance and bigotry are qualifications”…
…you’d be the Supreme Court nominee?
He lacks the hotitude and bangability.
The question I raised was different (*sigh* must I explain simple English to you again and again? Haven’t you learned anything in all these years?).
The question I raised was does victimhood supply one with wisdom or insight? My answer was “probably not”. And, also, does victimhood tend to lead one towards objectivity and impartiality, to which I would answer, “Definitely not”.
I thank you for not calling me a racist.
So what you’re saying is that you DIDN’T read the post in my link? OK.
But to answer it here, my question is this. Who said anything about “victimhood”? The first person to say that here was you. We’re saying that that the female experience is difference from the male experience and the Latino experience is different from the White experience. To argue otherwise is stupid at best, bigoted at worst, and arrogant in between, making for an asshole sandwich.
Also, I’m trying not to call you a racist, but bringing up the whole “victimhood” thing unprovoked isn’t making it any easier for me.
Wow, I think fafaroo just quoted me semi-favorably.
Of course, this is all a diversion from a real exploration of Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy:
“Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m – you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – its interpretation, its application.”
Forget a legislature, forget an executive, we have JUDGES to make our policy for us!
J.
Oliver asked:
Who, I say, who will speak up for the white man?
Certainly not a Justice Sotomayor. If you need a character reference on this one, just ask Frank Ricci or 14 of his fellow New Haven, CT firefighters, who all passed a test for a promotion — and then were told that the city couldn’t promote any more white (or, in one case) Hispanic firefighters and their test results were shitcanned while a new test (one that, presumably, “other” ethnic groups) could score better at was developed.
Judge Sotomayor had zero empathy for them — Americans who played by the rules, worked their asses off in seeking to improve their lot and better serve their community, and then were told that it was all irrelevant — their skin was the wrong color, so tough shit.
I guess “empathy” has its limits…
J.
Fafaroo. Sorry. I disagree. Sotomayor is just another person that is part of the identity politics wing of the left. Her statement implies that a person *is* their gender, ethnicity, race, etc, and that only a person of the same category can understand them, empathize, and come up with a sane rational decision involving a case. She defines people by their appearance. It’s flat out bigoted. And This job isn’t about having empathy for hispanics, or anyone else. It’s about interpreting the law. Plain and simple. This is why some of her statements trouble me. It seems that she, like so many others on the left, are ethnic bean counters, less concerned with the individual qualities and more concerned with *the superficial appearance of the individual* and/or racial/ethnic makeup of a court. Her biggest mistake was using the words “more often than not,” instead of “as good as anyone else,” which would have been fine. And the notion that experiencing bigotry (which frankly, we don’t know whether she did or not) makes one a better judge is an unprovable claim, and is conjecture. Honest and fair-minded people make good judges. Not people that treat people differently because of their appearance. You are right fafaroo, America is changing. But I will not just willingly accept reverse racists and ethnic bean counters such as Obama and Sotomayor. If preference based on race/ethnicity is wrong for one, then it is wrong for all. The difference between the right and left is that the right actually believes this, the left really doesn’t. Identity politics is to the left what religious folks are to the right. Identity politics is to the left what you claim religion is to the right. Both are the lowest common denominator. It’s pretty sad. Both parties I mean.
Faf, just ask yourself this – if Sam Alito was quoted saying the same exact words Sotomayor did, only about his own race/gender, what do you think would have happened?
He would not be a supreme court judge. I don’t understand how some can not only excuse, but defend such a statement from one person, but not from another.
It blows my mind. This is one of the reasons I honestly think many white male liberals have a guilt complex and are self-loathing. Why else would a white guy defend Sotomayor, who basically said she makes a better judge than any white dude because shes’s hispanic, and has recently ruled against white firefighters turned down a promotion becuase of *their race.*
Sigh. Identity politics will destroy this country. And faf, the game will just eat you last.
“But, the experience of injustice first hand has lead to the expression and spread of great wisdom indeed.”
Led one to — yes .
Endowed one with — no.
Zython, stop looking for an argument where there is none.
I read the link — as if it were required (!) — lemme see if I have it right, now : “White men just don’t get it”. Is that it?
What a novel notion!
Perhaps you have heard the lament “What can we learn from a bunch of dead old white guys?” It predates your birth.
It was wrongheaded then, and it is now.
It’s not that white males can never get it. It’s that they often don’t. Those dead old white guys, as wise as they were, made some boneheaded decisions related to racial and gender discrimination too.
Led one to — yes. Endowed one with — no.
Than what’s your fucking point, Frank? Who said it “endowed” anyone with anything?
Wow, I think fafaroo just quoted me semi-favorably … Forget a legislature, forget an executive, we have JUDGES to make our policy for us!
Jay Tea, Sotomayor is advocating the kind of judicial philosophy that would have lead to a better decision in Plessy v Ferguson.
You are advocating the philosophy which led to “separate but equal.”
That’s why I was not quoting you semi-favorably. Whatever you understand about the Plessy decision is part and parcel of the alternate reality you and most conservatives have constructed for yourselves.
Simple as that.
Her statement implies that a person *is* their gender, ethnicity, race, etc, and that only a person of the same category can understand them, empathize, and come up with a sane rational decision involving a case. She defines people by their appearance.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, this is not what she said. This is not what she meant. You are getting enraged over something that no one said.
Sotomayor concluded here speech:
She is making an argument that while objectively on the bench is a great aspiration, it is not always possible because no person can ever fully step out of themselves to judge the world beyond the experiences that have shaped them.
If objectivity is impossible, then, the best alternative is to be as aware as possible of those experiences that are influencing your opinions and how they are doing so. Then determining whether that influence is appropriate in any given case.
That is an entirely reasonable position.
Haplo: Surely, Sean, rather than saying “that’s not what she said” over and over again, you can perhaps enlighten us with how you think yo mama’s take isn’t correct?
Did that. So did limulus at greater length.
“I’m better than a white man because I’m a hispanic woman”, which yo mama keeps claiming is the whole of what she said, simply is not. She said that, because she is a Hispanic woman, she’s had different experiences than a white man and would therefore because of those experiences which the while male would not have had would be able to reach a better conclusion. And as limulus pointed out, she was specifically talking about cases involving race and sex discrimination.
meant to bold that as
…she’s had different experiences than a white man and would therefore because of those experiences which the while male would not have had would be able to reach a better conclusion. And as limulus pointed out, she was specifically talking about cases involving race and sex discrimination.
sean d martin said : “she’s had different experiences than a white man and would therefore because of those experiences which the while male would not have had would be able to reach a better conclusion. And as limulus pointed out, she was specifically talking about cases involving race and sex discrimination.”
Then why ever appoint a white guy. Why don’t we just go get 9 handicapped lesbian native americans. they should be the best decision makers around, based on that criteria.
Look, I’m not saying the woman *isn’t* qualified. She’s been around the block. She’ll be easily confirmed. But for god’s sake, I think we can all do without the ethnic bean counting bullshit and the insinuation that someone’s race or gender makes them better equipped to be a good judge. On it’s face, it’s just a stupid statement. Quit defending it.
yo mama: She defines people by their appearance. It’s flat out bigoted. And This job isn’t about having empathy for hispanics, or anyone else. It’s about interpreting the law. Plain and simple.
She makes a considered statement that has some dimensions to it, and you cherry pick it to just keep mis-representing it as a flat out, simplistic “She defines people by their appearance” bumper sticker statement.
If you have objections that’s fine. (For myself I’m concerned about what I hear regarding her decision on firefighters, but since I don’t know the details and have only heard about if from folks who clearly have an anti-Obama bias, I’m holding off having an opinion one way or the other until I actually know enough to do so.) But base them on all of what she actually said and not on the plain and simple inaccurate interpretation you seem to want just because it supports the view you already want to have.
Then why ever appoint a white guy. Why don’t we just go get 9 handicapped lesbian native americans. they should be the best decision makers around, based on that criteria.
Yo mama, Sotomayor’s argument is that it’s important to have diversity of experience and opinion on the bench. It is not that white men on their own cannot make good decisions about discrimination or civil rights cases. It is that diversity of experience leads to better opinions, as does recognizing how race and gender influence our judgements:
yo mama: Faf, just ask yourself this – if Sam Alito was quoted saying the same exact words Sotomayor did, only about his own race/gender, what do you think would have happened?
Turning things around can be a fairly good way of revealing a double standard. A man does X to a woman and it’s seen one way, a woman does exactly same X to a man and it’s seen another way. And I’d agree that if Alito had said “I’m better than a Hispanic woman because I’m a white man” then, yes it would not go over well.
But, two things:
1) Sotomayor didn’t say “I’m better than a white man because I’m a Hispanic woman.” (see earlier comments)
B) Fact is white men have not been discriminated against in the US as most other groups have. White men, as a group, have been at the top of the heap since before the US was founded. So to say something akin to “I’m being oppressed” is different when coming from white males.
Uh, yo mama? The horse is dead. Stop hitting it.
if Sam Alito was quoted saying the same exact words Sotomayor did, only about his own race/gender, what do you think would have happened?
Oops:
OK, then.
Shorter Yo Mama: I didn’t read Zython’s link.
I read the link — as if it were required (!) — lemme see if I have it right, now : “White men just don’t get it”. Is that it?
What a novel notion!
First off, I didn’t make that argument, the current Supreme Court went out of their way to state that. I’m just pointing it out. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Secondly, like I said earlier:
To argue otherwise is stupid at best, bigoted at worst, and arrogant in between, making for an asshole sandwich.
Take your pick, Frankie.
Perhaps we underestimate the experiences right wingers “yo mama”, “Jay Tea”, and “Frank DiSalle” have had as Latina women.
Pray tell us, gentlemen, from what did you derive your particular experiences as Latina women?
Blogger roundup on Sotomayor:
“Blue Texan”: “Republicans: Gender, Ethnicity and Empathy Shouldn’t Matter for Judges, Unless They’re Conservatives.”
Glenn Greenwald: “Justice Sam Alito on empathy and judging.”
Daphne Eviatar: “Sotomayor’s ‘Controversial’ Comments Backed Up By Academic Research.”
Dahlia Lithwick: “The Rational Hysterics: Republicans won’t beat Sonia Sotomayor by attacking her as too darn human.”
Sam Stein: “”Where Policy Is Made”: Sotomayor’s Court Comment Explained.”
Greg Sargent: “Conservatives (Wrongly) Claim Sotomayor Said Latinas Are Better Than White Men.”
Brian Beutler: “White House Armed With Talking Points For Sotomayor Fight–Evoke Her ‘Empathy’.”
“Maha”: “The Soft Expectations of Low Bigotry.”
Mike Madden: “Republicans: Attack this woman at your peril: The White House prepares for a fight aides think they can win over Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination.”
Steve Benen: “‘REVERSE’ RACISM.”
And who amongst the progressive pack here would like to defend the actions of ouf fair lady regarding the fireman case. Her latina wisdom regarding discrimination put a strange twist on that case. Just another example of punishing meritocracy when minorities can’t compete on the strength of thier own abilities.
Hush, AO! Don’t bring up a real issue, you’re interrupting the assemblage of a vast army of straw men!
Besides, if those firefighters had a real grievance, their union would have fixed it for them, so OBVIOUSLY they’re completely making it up…
J.
And who amongst the progressive pack here would like to defend the actions of ouf fair lady regarding the fireman case.
I haven’t yet read and reviewed the case as it was presented by both parties. How was it presented? Thanks in advance!
Just another example of punishing meritocracy…
George Bush, Jr.
‘And who amongst the progressive pack here would like to defend the actions of ouf fair lady regarding the fireman case.’
‘I haven’t yet read and reviewed the case as it was presented by both parties. How was it presented? Thanks in advance!’
Slate has an interesting summary:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
Not crazy about her ruling that school administrators can punish students for calling them douchebags on LiveJournal. And her justification, involving the importance of teaching children to respect authority, seems rather to miss the point of free speech.
She certainly seems well-qualified, but I have reservations.
Slate has an interesting summary:
That’s fabulous, but I’m interested in legal scholar Amused Observer’s original thoughts on the subject.
AO: And who amongst the progressive pack here would like to defend the actions of ouf fair lady regarding the fireman case. Her latina wisdom regarding discrimination put a strange twist on that case.
http://documents.nytimes.com/selected-cases-of-judge-sonia-sotomayor#p=9
The four other judges who agreed to affirm the decision of the lower court presumably weren’t all latina women.
Just another example of punishing meritocracy when minorities can’t compete on the strength of thier own abilities.
No one particular group was “punished.” The city decided to throw out the results of the tests — and thus not promote anyone — because the disparity in the results indicated that the test was not race neutral. The city felt they were obligated to do so by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the majority of the court agreed that the city’s action was within the law.
limulus, the time to analyze whether or not a test is biased is when it is created, accepted, or considered — NOT after the fact. Apparently no one had any problems with the test in question until the results were in.
The results are certainly grounds for questioning the test, but are proof of nothing. And those who studied their asses off for the test did so with the promise that those who passed would be rewarded.
The ruling Sotomayor signed off on here declared that, simply based on the results of the test (15 passed — 14 white, 1 Hispanic), there must have been some racist element in the testing. And that argument is based purely on the results, not anything within the test itself that anyone has pointed to and said “that question is biased.”
According to Sotomayor, the firefighters don’t even have the right to have their case heard in court — it was dismissed without comment.
J.
Jay Tea: the time to analyze whether or not a test is biased is when it is created, accepted, or considered — NOT after the fact. Apparently no one had any problems with the test in question until the results were in.
Yes, it’s important to do it before the test is issued, but they also have to look at the results after the fact, because a test can still be unintentionally biased. The law requires them to do both.
The results are certainly grounds for questioning the test, but are proof of nothing. And those who studied their asses off for the test did so with the promise that those who passed would be rewarded.
And that sucks, but so what? I thought interpreting the law had nothing to do with empathy.
The ruling Sotomayor signed off on here declared that, simply based on the results of the test (15 passed — 14 white, 1 Hispanic), there must have been some racist element in the testing.
Actually, the ruling had nothing to do with that. It had to do with whether throwing out the results of the test could be classified as discrimination. It can’t, because for it to have been discrimination, one group would have to benefit.
According to Sotomayor, the firefighters don’t even have the right to have their case heard in court — it was dismissed without comment.
No, very much to the contrary. The firefighters had their case heard in the District court. If an appeals court agrees with a lower court’s ruling on the same grounds, it can just affirm it without comment.
The ruling Sotomayor signed off on here declared that, simply based on the results of the test (15 passed — 14 white, 1 Hispanic), there must have been some racist element in the testing. And that argument is based purely on the results, not anything within the test itself that anyone has pointed to and said “that question is biased.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The city of New Haven believed that if it did not dismiss the test, it would have been subject to lawsuits from minority fire fighters based on its reading of the language in Title VII. So it dismissed the test and a group of white firefighters sued.
The court’s ruling simply declared that the city of New Haven was acting within the law when it threw out the test results in an effort to comply with Title VII. The court based this ruling on the language of Title VII and previous court precedent.
In other words, Jay Tea, it would have required a good deal of judicial activism for the court to have a reached a different conclusion because it would have had to declare that the problem was not with the test or the city but with Title VII.
Amused 0: And who amongst the progressive pack here would like to defend the actions of ouf fair lady regarding the fireman case.
ed: I haven’t yet read and reviewed the case as it was presented by both parties. How was it presented?
I’m with ed. I haven’t seen any details of the case other than the “OMG, she so totally just made a decision to support her Hispanic brethren” argument pushed here by folks who clearly had made up their minds as being opposed to her even before she was nominated.
Care to actually provide a rebuttal to the side you disagree with? I’m not opposed to saying she made a bad decision in this case, but I really think it’s important to actually consider both sides before forming an opinion. So, Amused 0 and JT, let’s see what you’ve actually got other than “OMG!”
Perhaps we underestimate the experiences right wingers “yo mama”, “Jay Tea”, and “Frank DiSalle” have had as Latina women.
I could say something, but I am going to refrain.
And those who studied their asses off for the test did so with the promise that those who passed would be rewarded.
So you take it again, so what?
So you take it again, so what?
That seems rather dismissive of the effort put in. “Yeah, so you worked hard. Big deal. Stop being a cry baby. Just do it all over again.”
That seems rather dismissive of the effort put in.
And that sucks for them but the question in this case was not about the effort they put into studying for the test, but rather, the effort that the city put in to ensuring that test was a fair tool for determining who got a promotion or not, in the first place.
AND once the city became aware that its own efforts in that regard might have fallen short of the law’s requirements, whether it acted lawfully in correcting its mistake by throwing out the test.
Jay Tea is arguing that the court should have waived the law’s requirements because the city failed to follow them correctly before administering the test.
Does that sound even remotely reasonable to you?
Fafaroo said:
The city of New Haven believed that if it did not dismiss the test, it would have been subject to lawsuits from minority fire fighters based on its reading of the language in Title VII. So it dismissed the test and a group of white firefighters sued.
So, let’s see: it’s OK to screw over the white and Hispanic firefighters, because they’re not likely to sue, because the non-white, non-Hispanic are more likely to sue.
Well, how well did that work out? The got sued anyway.
Sound strategy there. They don’t even have a principle to stand on.
J.
it’s OK to screw over the white and Hispanic firefighters, because they’re not likely to sue, because the non-white, non-Hispanic are more likely to sue.
Jay Tea, you still have no idea what you’re talking about.
The city’s decision was not based on who was more likely to sue, or who it felt it could safely piss off.
It was based on whether or not the city felt it had broken the law by administering a flawed test in the face of better alternatives.
The city believed that it had broken the law and, as a corrective measure, dismissed the test.
It’s really, really, really simple.
As I noted above, what you’re suggesting is that the court should have overturned the law, as written, based on “empahty” for the firefighters who sued.
How you reconcile that with your opposition to “judicial activism” is simply beyond me.
Sound strategy there. They don’t even have a principle to stand on.
And yeah, dude, it was a sound strategy. Once the city foudn that they might be in violation of the law they faced the following choice:
Make no correction in defiance of the law and get sued.
Correct their actions in accordance with the law and get sued.
If you knew you might be headed to court either way, which strategy do you think would give you the greatest likelihood of winning your case?
Once again, Jay Tea, you’re comments here reveal a couple of things:
1) You don’t know the first thing about this case beyond how its been distorted by the right wing noise machine.
2) You don’t think before you type.
That seems rather dismissive of the effort put in. “Yeah, so you worked hard. Big deal. Stop being a cry baby. Just do it all over again.”
If you know your shit, it shouldn’t be a big deal.
fafaroo: <i.And that sucks for them but the question in this case was not about the effort they put into studying for the test, but rather, the effort that the city put in to ensuring that test was a fair tool
Yeah, I get that. Just trying to show some empathy to the firefighters who did work hard to no avail.
If you know your shit, it shouldn’t be a big deal.
That’s pretty cold, man.
fafaroo, you mentioned the law they were worried they might have broken. Let’s take a look at that law:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.
Source: http://www.elinfonet.com/titleVIIsum.php
The city clearly did NOT deliberately discriminate. That would be flagrantly obvious. Their concern here is that they might have inadvertently violated the law by using a test that, in some way, was biased.
So, in response to that concern, they grossly overreacted. Based on a single data point — the results of the test — they acted like cowards and took what they saw as the safest course. They did not suspend the results of the test until it could be reviewed for bias. They didn’t look into the origins of the test to see how it was crafted. They didn’t even wait for one person to accuse the test of being biased.
I’m not saying the test is unbiased. I’m saying that it might be, it might not — it needs to be looked at. You and the city of New Haven are saying that, just because of the results, it MUST be biased and SHOULD BE thrown out — without offering a single bit of proof from the test itself that it’s bad.
Bullshit.
You were right when you said it was fear that motivated the city. Now you’re backing away from that, but it’s true — they thought they would be less likely to be sued by tossing the test than in actually using it.
And they were wrong.
J.
The Ricci case was crafted to nullify Civil Rights legislation.
The right wingers here are muddying their strategic aim with tactical half-truths that are irrelevant to their actual aim.
(I’ll concede that some of the right wingers here are just suckers “dittoing” what right wing con artists are voicing.)
Ultimately, discussing the tactical issues fails to recognize the strategic aims.
The strategic aim of Civil Rights legislation is to minimize the impacts that have historically excluded minorities from being represented.
The strategic aim of those against Civil Rights legislation is to eliminate Civil Rights legislation because it includes minorities that they want to continue to exclude from being represented.
The Ricci case was specifically designed to directly attack Civil Rights legislation.
It’s the kind of legal chicanery that is popular amongst the right wing activist Judges currently on the Supreme Court.
Right wing Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and dittohead Thomas, start with an activist objective and then warp law to fit their predetermined outcomes.
In the Ricci case, the warped misuse of Civil Rights legislation (that was specifically intended to protect historically excluded minorities) to protect the historically included majority is a particularly twisted misuse of the law.
Oh, crap, “Newsy’s” on to us.
Yup, we arranged for the city of New Haven to administer a biased test without realizing it. Then, just to make sure, we rigged the results to make sure that only whites “passed.” (For a bit of cover, we also made sure a Hispanic also passed — but NO OTHER MINORITIES.) And then we arranged for the city of New Haven to set aside those results and promote nobody.
It was a perfect plan, and it would have worked, if it wasn’t for that meddling “Newsy” and his dog and that trippy van…
J.
You and the city of New Haven are saying that, just because of the results, it MUST be biased and SHOULD BE thrown out — without offering a single bit of proof from the test itself that it’s bad.
Jay Tea, for the love of fucking god, could you please, please, please actually research something before you start drooling all over your keyboard?
The city did not throw out the test based solely on the results without looking into the origins of the test.
They saw the results of the test and thought, “Uh oh. We may have a problem” and then brought in the company that designed the test as well as a representative from another test company and an experienced fire fighter to evaluate the test.
They also examined the language of Title VII.
They put it all together and realized that they had screwed up and had used a test that could potentially open them up to lawsuits under Title VII.
So nothing, absolutely nothing you have written about this case, is actually true. Nothing.
You are the stupidest person on the planet Jay Tea. And because all this information is so readily and easily available to you, as it is to me, it can only be assumed that have chosen to remain so.
Jay Tea: <i.It was a perfect plan, and it would have worked, if it wasn’t for that meddling “Newsy” and his dog and that trippy van…
LOL
Fafaroo hits the nail on the head. Sadly for all the wrong reasons.
“Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.””The fact that whites were disproportionately represented among the top scorers on the test is not surprising. Whites and some Asian American groups, on average, score higher than African Americans, Latinos and other Asian American groups on fill-in-the-bubble tests. Researchers have offered a host of reasons to explain racial gaps in test scores, including disparities in financial, educational and cultural resources, as well as psychological phenomena.”
Despite decades of trying no one can come up with an objective test that insures equal outcomes regarding intelligence. Thus discriminatatory legislation has been crafted that curbs the ability for intelligence to be used as a criteria for hiring or admissions.
Does anyone here think that the test would have been thrown out if a particularly bright group of black firefighters had competed with a rather dim group of whites? Same test, same questions, different outcomes based on the intelligence levels of the participants.
To predict the ability to lead or supervise firefighters is going to be rather hard to quantify. After all there are many quite intelligent people who are not successful at leadership. However to throw intelligence out the window is ridiculous. We want people in positions of responsibility to be both intelligent and good leaders.
It’s a shame we are in the position of eroding meritocracy because some groups of people are under represented on the upper left side of the bell curve.
Amused, like Jay Tea, once again ignores the basic facts of the case to construct elaborate liberal conspiracies to keep the white man down.
Once again, the test was scrapped because it was determined that the test was not a good tool for evaluating the qualifications for the specific jobs.
In fact:
And:
In the end, the tests produced a racial disparity in the results but that is not why they were thrown out. They were thrown out because the city later discovered that the test they administered was not relevant to testing the skills required for the job AND they had been advised previously about better, more relevant tests.
It had nothing to do with a desire to promote “less intelligent” people simple because of their race.
So here I am, having to repeat everything I’ve already said because yet another right wing moron is too lazy to look up the basic facts of the case or too willfully stupid to understand those facts once they’ve been presented with them.
It’s astonishing, really. Jay Tea chides News Reference for constructing an elaborate conspiracy from whole cloth.
And yet, how is his or Amused Observers position on this case any different? Their arguments are wholly unfounded in the facts and support a false claim that there is a conscious conspiracy afoot to “erode meritocracy” at the expense of white people.
She can’t even pass the muster for rules for potential jurors. Why are these elitists getting away with what the common person can’t. After her “better than a white male” comment she should have been fired, not e3livated. But, this is what liberals are all about. LIE and tell you it is the truth.
Fafaroo,
I crafted no conspiracy theory. I believe that what you may consider a conspiracy is the question posed as to whether the test would have been thrown out if the black firefighters indeed could have passed muster.
If I understand your position correctly it is that even if black firefighters had passed the test with scores high enough to compete that the city would have thrown out the tests because;
“They were thrown out because the city later discovered that the test they administered was not relevant to testing the skills required for the job AND they had been advised previously about better, more relevant tests.”
Is that your position sir?
AO, you’re doing exactly what conservatives accuse judicial “activists” of doing: start with the desired outcome and work backwards.
Ricci, et al, brought suit claiming the city had acted contrary to the law. The district court said the city acted legally and the decision was upheld on appeal.
The social benefits or detriments brought about by affirmative action are not at issue. What matters here is whether the district court and the appeals court made a poor decision based on law.
Opinion?
“fafaroo”: “So here I am, having to repeat everything I’ve already said because yet another right wing moron is too lazy to look up the basic facts of the case or too willfully stupid to understand those facts once they’ve been presented with them.”
The right wing’s goal is to lie louder and longer and then they win.
The truth spoken loudly and clearly and repeatedly disrupts the right wing’s aims.
Sotomayor followed the law.
As “Quaker in a Basement” points out, to do otherwise, as the right winger’s wish, is Judicial activism, by right winger’s ’standards’: It starts out with the desired outcome and works backwards.
Right wingers are trying to use the courts to nullify law and are angry that a Judge followed the law instead of making law.
It’s Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
Opinion?
I think I have 3 posts here. The first asks for comment on a case that will be decided by the Supreme Court involving discrimination by a judge who uses language that most certainly does no justice to the concept illustrated by the lady with the blindfold holding the scales.
The second post agrees with Fafaroo’s comments regarding
the current model that will go to any length to explain away undesirable outcomes, basically throwing away the baby along with the bathwater.
In the third post I clarify to Fafaroo that I have crafted no conspiracy theory and repeat his position to insure that I am understanding his written words correctly.
So what is it exactly, you want an opinion on?
My desired outcome would be for a city government to be smart enough to have a fire chief smart enough to give a test for promotion and promote the top 10 guys ( or whatever number is relevant)and be done with it. To be more like the military, and make the test as hard as possible, take the top guys and have little stigma attached to the fellas who failed. Something like Better luck next time fellas.
In this instance in the best case scenario we have a government that can’t craft a test well enough to pass muster and in the worst case throws out a test because blacks couldn’t score well enough to compete and the city wanted to try again with a test suffiently less challenging to give them an outcome they could live with.
What is your heart’s desire regarding this thorny topic?
Obviously my last post is directed to Quaker
Right winger “Amused Observer” has been serially dishonest.
Instead of accurately discuss one of Sotomayor’s cases, as “fafaroo” does over and at length and even again for good measure, “Amused Observer” smugly sticks to their deceitful right wing talking points.
I commend “fafaroo” for their patience and diligence in trying to have an honest discussion with dishonest right winger “Amused Observer.”
For my part, I’ll simply say that “Amused Observer” is not just a liar but a sleazy liar.
To “Amused Observer” I give the Italian salute.
Maybe he’ll understand that Supreme Court Justice’s “language”.
Is that your position sir?
Amused, this:
is not my “position.” That is, rather, an accurate accounting of the facts of the case.
So you understand the difference, this is actually what could be called a “position”:
This is a “position” you hold in relation to the Ricci decision, even though it is totally counter to the actual facts of the case.
I have described the facts of the case.
You have stated a position, not on the facts of the case, but on some bizarre idea of what you think happened.
I don’t know how many times it has to be repeated, but let me try putting it in bold for you:
NEW HAVEN DID NOT SCRAP ITS PROMOTION LIST SIMPLY BECAUSE WHITES HAD HIGHER SCORES ON THE TEST THAN MINORITIES.
They scrapped the test because, on looking into it, they found that the test did not measure the skills required for the jobs in question.
Their aim was not to find a “suffiently less challenging” test. Their aim was to find a suffiently MORE APPLICABLE test to the task at hand.
In other words, Amused, you outraged about something that didn’t actually happen.
You are outraged about information that someone somewhere manufactured, that is, totally made up, for the sole purpose of getting you outraged, not for making you more informed of the truth.
And you don’t care. You’re going to cling to your outrage, instead of trying to understand the truth.
Nice.
Fafaroo,
I’m not outraged. This type of thing happens all too often to maintain a status of outrage.
You feel that the facts of the case indicate that the regardless of the outcome they would have thrown the test out. That is what I understand you to be saying.
We have a disagreement there. It is my perception that the test would not have been thrown out if the outcome had differed.
News Ref,
You must not have got the memo. It is standard to throw in the word racist whenever you are making slanderous comments with no basis in reality. Please try to do better and conform to liberal policy.
Thank you.
I’m not outraged. This type of thing happens all too often to maintain a status of outrage … It is my perception that the test would not have been thrown out if the outcome had differed.
So you’re not outraged over this thing that you perceive might have happened but didn’t actually happen at all, because, of course, this kind of thing that didn’t really actually happen, happens all the time.
Check.
LOL fafaroo,
I think you dodged the bullet. Since I trust you were not actually there when the decision was made by the principles involved. I again ask my basic question to clarify my understanding of your post.
“You feel that the facts of the case indicate that the regardless of the outcome they would have thrown the test out. That is what I understand you to be saying.”
“You feel that the facts of the case indicate that the regardless of the outcome they would have thrown the test out. That is what I understand you to be saying.”
Amsued, according to the facts of the case, the sharp racial divide that appeared in the results is what prompted a review of the test.
During the review of the test, the city realized, and the company which created the test, along with other experts, verified, that the test itself was not adequately designed to test all the right skills and so determine the best possible candidates for the job.
With this knowledge, the city realized that it would not have a legal leg to stand on based on previous court decisions around Title VII, and so they threw out the results in order to comply with the law. The important point here is that compliance wiht Title VII was NOT predicated on the racial mix of those with the highest scores on the test.
If there was no racial disparity in the results of the test, and the city still had discovered, in review, that the test was not adequately designed to gauge the qualifications of people for the open jobs, the city would have probably done the exact same thing because compliance with Title VII was not predicated on the racial make up of the test results.
It was based on the adequacy of the test for determining the best possible candidates for the job.
This is really not that hard, Amused.
I think you dodged the bullet.
Amused, I need to also add that if your scenario did actually happen and the highest test scorers were all black, and only blacks got promoted based on the test results, the whites who sued the city in Ricci could have still sued the city only in your scenario, THEY WOULD HAVE WON, because the city would have been in violation of Title VII because the test it used was not adequate for judging the qualifications of the candidates for the jobs.
In your scenario, the white firefighters could have brought the same suit and they would have won.
This is what you don’t get.
““You feel that the facts of the case indicate that the regardless of the outcome they would have thrown the test out. That is what I understand you to be saying.”
Shorter Fafaroo, yes.
“Amused Observer”, as I am an independent with a conservative streak, I’ve never been one to “conform to liberal policy.”
But if you insist that you are racist I will defer to your judgement in this particular instance.
And if you insist that calling you “serially dishonest” and a “sleazy liar” is slanderous I’ll concede that it’s possible that you are neither and are instead just much farther to the left of the bell curve than I’d initially thought.
“fafaroo” has very patiently tried to explain to you the facts of the Ricci case over and over and at length and even again and again for good measure, and yet you still smugly stick to your duplicitous right wing talking points.
My apologies if you aren’t being a serially dishonest and sleazy liar.
It’s certainly possible that you are much dumber than I had recognized.
Nonetheless, don’t you think it’s more courteous to assume you are just being dishonest instead of assuming that you are too stupid to understand “fafaroo’s” straightforward explanations?
Or are you too simple to understand that, as well?
News,
Requesting clarification and trying to state anothers opinion or idea back to them for confirmation is niether dishonest, sleazy, or stupid.
You appear to be an obstinate perpetually annoyed person who would be rather irritating to be around for any length of time. In a tavern you’re probably the guy who stations himself where you have to go to pick up a drink. Then you argue and opinionate with almost an entire bar full of people all night, getting louder and louder and not have to move around too much.
Shorter Fafaroo, yes.
Uh, no. That is not what I said.
I misunderstood your post? Oh no, I see, looking back I see you wrote “according to the facts of the case, the sharp racial divide that appeared in the results is what prompted a review of the test.” Got it. I apologize for overlooking that segment of your post.
Another stab at your point. The racial divide in the results was evidence in a study done after the test that the test didn’t adequately test firefighting ability, but tested something else that the blacks had difficulty with.
Ms. Sotomayor was not charged with determining the validity of the test. She was charged with the job of determining whether the city of New Haven violated the law by throwing the results out.
The racial divide in the results was evidence in a study done after the test that the test didn’t adequately test firefighting ability, but tested something else that the blacks had difficulty with.
Well, if anyone needed any more evidence that you’re a racist fuck, I’d have to say that this was pretty much it.
Dude, chill out. These are your quotes and your facts unless I misread you again.
1. “Amsued, according to the facts of the case, the sharp racial divide that appeared in the results is what prompted a review of the test. ”
2.”During the review of the test, the city realized, and the company which created the test, along with other experts, verified, that the test itself was not adequately designed to test all the right skills and so determine the best possible candidates for the job.”
3.”NEW HAVEN DID NOT SCRAP ITS PROMOTION LIST SIMPLY BECAUSE WHITES HAD HIGHER SCORES ON THE TEST THAN MINORITIES.
They scrapped the test because, on looking into it, they found that the test did not measure the skills required for the jobs in question. ”
4. “Their aim was not to find a “suffiently less challenging” test. Their aim was to find a suffiently MORE APPLICABLE test to the task at hand.”
You claim that the racial divide in the test is what prompted the review. That no blacks passing the test prompted a review.
You claimed that the test inadequately measured skills for leadership ability in regards to fighting fires. And further that a new test was devised to more adequately measure the needed skills since the old test that the blacks could not pass measured something other than leadership skills needed to fight fires.
So what the hell are you saying? That the test measured something else than the needed skills to manage a firefighting team. So if it didn’t measure that it measured something else.
So when I agree with your facts and use your quotes to show the facts I’m agreeing with that makes me a racist.
Obviously they tested something on the first test. Whatever it was, it was too difficult for the blacks because they all failed.
So where do you come off calling me a racist fuck. Those were all your points not mine.
Congrats, “Amused Observer”, you’ve even convinced “fafaroo”, who has shown you the patience of a saint, that you are a just another right wing racist.
As for me, “Amused Observer” you’ve definitively convinced me that you are a sleazy liar.
“fafaroo”, in the other thread “Amused Observer” is now duplicitously trying to defend the indefensibly dishonorable “Swift boaters”.
Right winger “Amused Observer” is just trolling with lies to see who bites.
Nonetheless, “fafaroo”, it’s commendable that you’ve taken the time to address each of “Amused Observer’s” serial lies.
Ultimately, though, “Amused Observer” is demanding that the Court take an activist right wing perspective and rule against the clearly worded Civil Rights Law.
Right winger “Amused Observer” aim is to dismantle Civil Rights Law through right wing Judicial activism.
It’s clear that even if they were smart enough to know what they were doing they are too racist and dishonest to care.
LOL News,
Why not contain your spew to the threads they pertain to.
If you have a problem with a quotation or fact respond to that directly don’t go off on an erratic rampage.
“Ultimately, though, “Amused Observer” is demanding that the Court take an activist right wing perspective and rule against the clearly worded Civil Rights Law.
Right winger “Amused Observer” aim is to dismantle Civil Rights Law through right wing Judicial activism.”
I assume you are refering to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. It is quite a stretch to claim I advocate a return to slavery or an elimination of the rights of blacks to vote. I am a strong supporter of the 14th amendment.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
So just what was your point again News?
“Amused Observer”, do you lie as a hobby or for a living?
LOL News,
Care to point out a specific lie. And again I ask you just what was your point? Are you claiming that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments aren’t what I said they were? Or that they don’t exist? Or what?
So when I agree with your facts and use your quotes to show the facts I’m agreeing with that makes me a racist.
No Amused. It’s when you put your words in my mouth that you’re a racist fuck.
You seem to want to insist that this case proves that blacks are not as capable as whites in one way or another.
The facts of the case don’t lead to anywhere near that kind of conclusion.
in the results.
You want to assume that this is because these tests are “less challenging” intellectually. But test bias has nothing to do with making questions easier for dumb people.
There are ways to test people for certain skills that are just as rigorous that don’t also produce racial disparity in the results.
The city threw its test, however, not because it was racially biased but because it did not adequately measure the skills for the promotions.
When you wrote:
You, and you alone, are beginning with the premise that blacks have difficulty with “firefighting ability” which is patent racist nonsense.
Dude,
You just won’t accept responsibility for what you wrote.
You said they changed the new test to make it more relevent.
“The city threw its test, however, not because it was racially biased but because it did not adequately measure the skills for the promotions.”
If the old test wasn’t relevent about firefighting what was it about? Regardless of the contents of the first test the blacks all failed it. That is what you said.
“You seem to want to insist that this case proves that blacks are not as capable as whites in one way or another.”
Grades on a test are often used to judge capability on the subject being tested. This is hardly a radical or controversial viewpoint.
What other premise is available other than, in the small sample group studied, blacks were less capable than whites on the topics and subjects tested?
But I am most curious, if these tests given to firefighters aren’t about firefighting what are they about. Who is responsible for giving firefighters firefighting tests that aren’t relevant to firefighting?
But I am most curious, if these tests given to firefighters aren’t about firefighting what are they about. Who is responsible for giving firefighters firefighting tests that aren’t relevant to firefighting?
You really haven’t bothered to read a single actual fact I’ve posted and linked to have you?
You keep asking these questions as if they haven’t already been answered in a court of law, Amused. The facts are readily available on the internet. I’ve posted them here. I’ve linked to a pretty straightforward article outlining the whole case.
And you appear to have not read any of it.
Fafaroo,
I’ve stipulated your every point. I’ve endured harsh namecalling. I’ve tried to take only facts you yourself have posted. Surely we can agree with the facts that you yourself have posted?
The only thing we appear to disagree with is the motivation behind throwing out the tests. You feel it was an honest mistake by city officials boxed in by federal law. Having the mistake brought to thier attention they invalidated the results of the sets.
I just don’t share your level of trust in the city officials. That hardly makes me a racist fuck. In any event we shall soon see what the Supreme Court thinks about the honest mistake that the city officials did or did not make.
Now this is the part where you are supposed to apologise for calling me names.
I’ve tried to take only facts you yourself have posted. Surely we can agree with the facts that you yourself have posted?
Amused, if you had actually read anything about the case, anything I’ve actually quoted about the case or the link I provided, you would have all the answers to all the questions you’ve asked namely because the court has already answered them.
You’d also understand that your suspicion of the motives of city officials might have been taken into consideration by the courts in determining the outcome of the case, if, in fact, Ricci and his lawyers bothered to bring it up themselves:
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/ricci_2dcir_rhdn.PDF
So, Amused, again, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the specifics of the case and the reasons for the court’s decisions before you open you’re mouth.
Now this is the part where you are supposed to apologize for calling me names.
And Amused, to repeat myself, nothing I have posted and none of the facts of the case suggest anything remotely like your conclusion that blacks found the test too challenging because they are inferior to white candidates or that blacks find firefighting itself too difficult.
You inserted that bullshit into this discussion, not me. So yeah, I totally think you’re a racist fuck.
Remember though, that doesn’t excuse you for not knowing or understanding the basic facts of the case.
because you seem incapable of doing either, I’d add that you’re a stupid, racist fuck.
Dude, so harsh
“your conclusion that blacks found the test too challenging because they are inferior to white candidates or that blacks find firefighting itself too difficult. ”
I never said blacks find firefighting too difficult. We both said that the first test was too challenging for the small group of black firefighters taking it, they failed it.
When someone fails a test that generally means that thier grasp of the material tested is inferior to someone who passes the test.
You bring up the minutia of the arguements made in court, but overlook the basic events underlying the case.
The best thing to do when you paint yourself into a corner is wait for the paint to dry.
We both said that the first test was too challenging for the small group of black firefighters taking it, they failed it.
Amused, I never said the test was “too challenging” for blacks. That is not how I characterized it at all. You added that because you want to assume that:
When someone fails a test that generally means that thier grasp of the material tested is inferior to someone who passes the test.
There are, however, other reasons why people don’t do well on tests.
I cited an article which noted that studies have shown some kinds of tests produce similar racial disparities not because of the subjects of the tests, but because of the way the subjects and questions are presented. There’s a difference there.
As to this:
I think what you mean to say is this:
And Amused, how do you reconcile this claim:
With this phrasing:
We both said that the first test was too challenging for the small group of black firefighters taking it, they failed it.
Once again, Amused, you simply are not reading what I’ve posted.
Again, here it is:
If you can’t get the basic facts of the case correct, why should anyone bother to discuss it with you?
“But although a number of African American and Latino firefighters passed the exam, only two Latinos and no African Americans scored high enough to make the promotion list.
If you can’t get the basic facts of the case correct, why should anyone bother to discuss it with you?”
Well Fafaroo I guess I take a more pragmatic approach. When one takes a test for promotion, the objective is to score high enough to qualify for promotion. I would suggest that a score that is indeed not high enough for promotion would be termed for lack of a better word failure.