Nice.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is dead set on voting against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. In fact, he’s so certain of his position that he refuses to even meet with her.
Sotomayor has been meeting privately with Senators over the last few weeks, but when it was Inhofe’s turn, he declined.
He probably thinks being Hispanic is contagious.
I hope there’s a test.
Weak minded right wingers know that if they don’t talk to the other than the other can’t pull a Jedi mind trick on them.
Republicans must be so proud.
“take a bath in wite-out and we’ll talk”-James Inhofe
Classy. I wonder if any false equivalence is forthcoming.
Conservative takes ball, goes home. Heard to shout, “I ain’t gonna play with you!”
“Earlier this week, Inhofe called his vote against Sotomayor a “foregone conslusion,” citing his vote against her nomination to a circuit court in 1998.
“If you voted against anyone on the circuit [court], I have never been able to see how you turn around when the bar is actually higher and support it at a higher level,” Inhofe said,”
Polite? No. Rational statement displaying maturity? More rational and mature than anything posted above me.
Do we know why he voted against her at the circuit level?
And I don’t necessarily agree with the rationality of Inhofe’s statement, AO. Suppose they showed themselves over the course of their circuit career to have been a better or worse judge than you’d previously thought. In theory everyone improves in their career with experience, but they might not have performed as well as you’d hoped previously.
In that event it would be perfectly rational to change your vote. Which makes it all the more perplexing that he’d turn down a meeting with Judge Sotomayor, as it is his duty to make the MOST informed decision he can make. I hope he was doing something extremely important with that hour.
In theory everyone improves in their career with experience … it is his duty to make the MOST informed decision he can make
a) In practice,very rarely do Supreme Court Justices swing to the right after their appointments; on the contrary, most move to the left. At least, that has been my experience since The Warren – Douglas Court.
b) Why would a meeting with Judge Sotomayor make Sen Inhofe more informed? At best, she will attempt to spin her previous decisions and dissents to make seem more palatable to the Senator. At worst, she might actually deceive and dissemble to get his support.
A) So you’re freely suggesting that you believe he will choose based on politics and not qualifications or legal knowledge.
B) I don’t quite get where you’re going with that, Frank. Are you suggesting that the chance to ask her questions would result in confusion? That she’d use a Jedi mind trick to weasel support out of him?
I can’t conceive of a situation where the chance to directly question a candidate wouldn’t be beneficial. He has the choice to think criticially, to believe she’s spinning and discount what she says, does he not? Or, conversely, he has the chance to be impressed and change his mind. There’s no set ’she’ll spin and he’ll eat it up or just come out befuddled’ outcome.
Frank,
Frankfurter and White were to the right of what FDR and JFK expected, respectively. And if you’re right about Sotomyor, he should call her bluff, interview her, and then give examples of her tap dancing.
Why would a meeting with Judge Sotomayor make Sen Inhofe more informed?
Exactly. When you’ve been as willfully ignorant as Inhofe has for most of his career, why start now?
Parthenon
So you’re freely suggesting that you believe he will choose based on politics and not qualifications or legal knowledge.
Yep — I’m a grown – up, now … That’s why politicians do stuff — for political reasons. Welcome to 21st Century America.
I don’t quite get where you’re going with that, Frank. Are you suggesting that the chance to ask her questions would result in confusion?
No , I am suggesting that she would either cast her decisions and dissents in a favorable [to Sen Inhofe} light; or, worse, actually attempt to deceive him. No one suggested use of hypnosis, or The Force.
I can’t conceive of a situation where the chance to directly question a candidate wouldn’t be beneficial.
I can.
I’m a Hick
Frankfurter and White were to the right of what FDR and JFK expected, respectively .
I was not alive during the FDR administration. And, if only White was more conservative than Kennedy expected, then the exception proves the rule.
Duros62
Why would a meeting with Judge Sotomayor make Sen Inhofe more informed?
Your comment, while glib, misses the point … The operative word was “more” , not informed.
Could anyone tell me what Judge Sotomayor might convey to Sen Inhofe that might lead him to believe that she is other than a postmodern relativist, who believes in “sociological jurisprudence”?
Could anyone tell me what a postmodern relativist, who believes in “sociological jurisprudence” is?
She could start by telling him what empathetic means.
The operative word was “more” , not informed.
When you start from nothing,…
Could anyone tell me what a postmodern relativist, who believes in “sociological jurisprudence” is?
Certainly.
["Postmodernism"] stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person [emphasis added - fd].
“Relativist” refers to “moral relativism”: Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc. [emphasis added -fd ]
Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) … was one of the original advocates of sociological jurisprudence in the United States. According to Pound, the aim of every law — whether constitutional, statutory, or case — should be to enhance the welfare of society. [emphasis added - fd]
And there you have Judge Sotomayor’s philosophical underpinnings. Please note that there was no mention of her gender, her ethnic background, or her early life.
Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc.
You mean, like the society we currently live within now? Or is self-defense no longer considered a viable exculpatory factor when one kills?
Self – defense as a mitigating circumstance in a case of non – accidental death in no way affects the “truth” of the death of a person by your hand.
And there you have Judge Sotomayor’s philosophical underpinnings.
Fascinating. You determined this how?
Inhofe’s afraid of her. Sotomayor would beat his punky little ass up one side of the street and down the other, whether you were talking judicial awareness or just beating him up.
Are Republicans capable of doing anything other than wetting themselves these days?
Survey says: nope.
Quaker — she appeared to me as in a dream …
I also read 1000’s of words about her … She has been in the public eye for quite a while.
Inhofe doesn’t want to get infected with intelligent thoughts.
It’s a pretty good rule that if you’re on the opposite side of Inhofe, then chances are that you’re right. He’s just making things really easy for us now.
And there you have Judge Sotomayor’s philosophical underpinnings. Please note that there was no mention of her gender, her ethnic background, or her early life.
… or anything else that would connect Sotomayor to what you wrote. Weak, Frank, weak.
What we see is no interest in Sotomayor the person, but rather Sotomayor is just being used as a synecdoche for your typical panoply of right wing fears. They live in fear and just need a tangible, physical presence upon which to thrust their fears on. Sotomayor plays that role for now. Eventually Frank will forget his little outburst and obsess over someone else as the epitome of everything he thinks is wrong in the world.
… and Tyro will get that Associates’ Degree in psychology from correspondence school he’s always wanted.
I was asked a question, and I answered it. What do you want, 5,000 words on Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy of jurisprudence complete with Citations and Annotated Bibliography?
This from guys who pontificate at length without so much as a cite, let alone a link.
This from a guy who doesn’t know the meaning of synechdoche, but tries to use it in a sentence, anyway.
“What we see is no interest in Sotomayor the person”? Are you kidding? How can anyone discuss Judge Sotomayor as a person, when to do so gets you excoriated as a chauvinist, a bigot or worse?
If you don’t fear moral relativism and sociological jurisprudence, it can only be because you have no fear it will ever do you any harm. That is either venal selfishness or blissful ignorance.
“I also read 1000’s of words about her … She has been in the public eye for quite a while.”
And therein lies the problem.
Reading 1000s of words ABOUT her is not an acceptable subsitute for actually sitting down and reading 1000s of words BY her.
There is no subsitute for reading her decisions. They are out there and readily available. Why should anyone rely on the opinions of a Limbaugh or whoever (or an Olbermann or Maddow for that matter) to to frame one’s view of her. It is the worst sort of willful ignorance to avoid dispositive source material and rely on the biased opinions of others.
As it happens, after reading a fair number of those written decisions the idea that she could be called accurately a post modernist relativist or some other perjorative du jour is simply laughable. Just as one small example: in a sample of 50 race discrimination cases that came up before panels she was sitting on – she only voted 3 times out of 50 in favor of the party claimining racial discrimination.
That’s a matter of public record and no amount of opining about Latinas or empathy or moral relativism will change her actual record.
I think the fact that apart from the firefighter case the emphasis has been on atmospherics rather than her record speaks volumes.
Lonya… What you say makes sense. Please keep in mind that Limbaugh, Olbermann and Maddow don’t write much, and it is not them I read (or listened to).
If the “fireman case” is not an example of her work, why are not her supporters putting forth cases that are typical. You can call it atmospherics if you wish, but let’s not pretend that only her detractors have access to print media, not to mention the fact that I have read much about her where the authors have struggled mightily to be fair.
Take this quote from Slate Magazine:
And let me guess, Frank, you think the Ricci decision is somehow an example of Sotomayer applying the ideas in that quote. Right? Am I right?
No, you are not.
I will keep you in suspense no longer, fafaroo. The Ricci case is a perfect example of “sociological jurisprudence”: ‘the aim of every law should be to enhance the welfare of society’
What other aim should the law have?
Bruce : How about the dispensation of justice to the aggrieved party (ies) ?
Last time I looked Judges judged; legislators legislated. If judges want to “enhance the welfare of society”, they can run for Congress.
Frank . . .
“If the “fireman case” is not an example of her work, why are not her supporters putting forth cases that are typical.”
I suspect because they lack focus as much as her detractors. Oh I’ve seen analysis of her cases in the print media (pro and con) but it is overwhelmed by the atmospherics (pro and con). Its no different in the Senate. There may be some aides who have started going through her cases but our ruling elite seems too busy pontificating to do much else. That is a systemic failure and I’m not at all happy about it.
As to the Slate quotation, I can see where that would trigger bells for you but I’d suggest this is not an inaccurate historical reflection on jurisprudence in this country since the founding of the Republic. I think there’s plenty of room for debate here around the concept because the devil is in the details (your basic level of judicial activism debate) but in addition to the area you highlighted I’d highlight her saying it should not be made lightly as a counterbalance. But yeah that’s worth talking about.
“The Ricci case is a perfect example of “sociological jurisprudence”: ‘the aim of every law should be to enhance the welfare of society’”
Well, Frank, as far as the aim of laws are concerned that would be more the purview of the legislator and executive than the judiciary. Where this “sociological jurisprudence” might enter the equation would be those instances I suppose where a court could be accused of induling in an excess of ‘judicial activism”. (And let’s accept that construct as a ‘bad thing’ to save time and argument.)
I’m not at all sure the Ricci case represents either sociological jurisprudence of judicial activism. What the district court was called upon to do and what the court of appeals affirmed was the question as to whether the City acted under authority of a law on the books. The court didn’t create new law and it didn’t create new rights.
The question before the court was really whether the city had the authority to act the way it did. The issue wasn’t whether the city was right or wrong or even whether it was a smart or stupid decision – it was about whether they acted under color of law when they made the decision. A court will often make explicit note of this in its decisions when it has some misgivings about the underlying merits of the decision itself. It will say “we don’t necessasrily agree with the decision of the city/county/congress etc. but we are not here to judge the widom of their actions but their legality.”
That said, I think we’re all viewing the wsdom of her vote on that case based on our underlying feelings about affirmative action. Fair enough.
Bottom line- what I think we need to look for in a judge is someone whose decisions do not match 100% with his/her leanings. I think you can find plenty of cases (those challenging the authority of police actions for example) where she may be seen voting against her personal feelings.
. . . . sorry about the length . . . I’m too lazy to be concise . . .
Lonya: You see the question as requiring some thought: Kudoes to you !
The subject seems to have shifted from where it was originally…
To get back where we were : It is my belief that Judge Sotomayor will be schmoozing those Congressman who she believes might hinder her appointment. Couldn’t this all be avoided by presenting sober, moderate decisions on her part, or at least, serious commentary by trustworthy people with that in mind ?
I agree that focusing on one paragraph from one speech is not even a good snapshot of her beliefs, let alone a summary. Oh, if only a show like Firing Line still existed !
I am fairly certain from her statements and decisions and dissents of which I am aware [as well, of course, as the fact that Pres Obama wants her appointed], that she will be what I would call a liberal activist judge.
That is no surprise. But I never fail to be amazed at this dance that occurs when liberals do liberal stuff, and then try to pretend it is not liberal stuff.
And there you have Judge Sotomayor’s philosophical underpinnings.
Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct. This would be a bad thing why?
The Ricci case is a perfect example of “sociological jurisprudence”: ‘the aim of every law should be to enhance the welfare of society’
Frank, if you don’t like that, and you don’t like “a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy” how exactly was the Ricci case ever going to be decided to your liking?
The subject seems to have shifted from where it was originally…and I’m in way over my head all of a sudden, so let me repeat my original talking points and hope no one notices …
Judge Sotomayor judged the Ricci case based on the law.
What right wingers wanted was judicial activism that showed empathy for the white male fire fighters.
What right wingers are trying to do with the Ricci case is to overturn a law through right wing judicial activism.
And they right wing Supreme Court judicial activists might just be empathetic to the white males in the case enough to overturn the clear language and intent of the law.
Frank, if you don’t like that, and you don’t like “a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy” how exactly was the Ricci case ever going to be decided to your liking?
Bring back the stocks!
The City of New Haven should have been found to have erred in throwing out the test simply because there was an undesirable outcome (given that the outcome that New Haven sought was unrelated to the hiring of firefighters).
Mr Ricci was deprived of a position, the right to which he had legitimately earned.
Where was the justice for Mr Ricci in dismissing the results of that exam ?
Whose interest was served by not hiring one of the people who had proven their fitness for the position?
And having sufficient empathy to see what constitutes fairness is not the same thing as making empathy the paramount consideration in the choice of a Supreme Court Justice.
Interestingly, neither moral relativism, postmodernism, nor sociological jurisprudence demand anything more than a modicum of empathy.
And, fafaroo: No, I did not wish to continue discussing the dynamic whereby Judge Sotomayor came to be perceived as a “liberal” judge, because, in my view, that perception is correct. I felt no need to investigate it any further. If you, or anyone here, has any evidence that Judge Sotomayor is something other than a judicial activist, feel free to present it.
I always find myself in these threads defending everything I say, while none of you seems capable of even demonstrating things to be true, let alone proving them.
” as the fact that Pres Obama wants her appointed], that she will be what I would call a liberal activist judge.”
Well, Bush41 wanted her appointed to the District Court so i don’t know. My own opinion is that she will surprise people on the left in much the same way Kennedy (used to) surprise people on the right when he provides a ‘liberal’ swing vote on hot button issues. (And I’m more likely to be convinced that Obama wanted her in part more for identity politic than ideology – if I were so inclined.)
“But I never fail to be amazed at this dance that occurs when liberals do liberal stuff, and then try to pretend it is not liberal stuff.”
Well, I’m not sure anyone is pretending she isn’t a liberal. I’m not. But what’s critical for an analysis of her suitability for the bench is whether the ideology she brings to the table trumps all. As I suggested, a look at her record reveals plenty of times where her decisions and votes seem aligned with a liberal ideology but there are plenty of times when they don’t. What this suggests to me is that she appears willing to let the facts of a specific case be accorded its proper weight in a trial/decision. That’s the importance of her record on race discrimination claims for example. Its almost certain she supports race and sex discrimination laws and believes in them – but if the facts of a case do not meet with the requirements of the law she has not hesitated to say so. I do not think that’s the mark of a ‘party-line ideolgue.’
Lonya, I can only hope against hope against hope that you are right.
I am a right-to-lifer; I don’t expect her to advance that cause any time soon.
I think Sotomayor is a conservative centrist (overall).
But to right wing fanatics a conservative centrist is “liberal” (to their world view).
Nothing I’ve read about her has suggested to me that she’s a “liberal”. If you could point me to something that says otherwise (that’s not a right wingers nonsense) I’d be interested in reading it.
As it is, the complaints I’ve read from the right have been hyperbolic whining that Sotomayor’s ruling weren’t right wing judicial activism.
Sotomayor has ruled consistently within the law and in strict observance to the law.
The Firefighter case was ruled in strict observance to the law, right wingers are looking for right wing judicial activism, that’s not who SOtomayor is and so the right wing are ginning up complaints about her that are complete inventions.
Since the right wing are going to complain no matter what, I would have preferred Obama to nominate an out and out liberal, but that’s not who Obama is.
And that’s the way it is.
If you, or anyone here, has any evidence that Judge Sotomayor is something other than a judicial activist, feel free to present it.
By the right’s own definition of “judicial activist,” that is, legislating from the bench, the Ricci decision is evidence of Sotomayor being something other than a “judicial activist.”
This is why your summation of what was wrong with that decision:
is so monumentally stupid.
Not only do you clearly not understand the basic facts of the case, in order to grant Ricci his desired outcome, the court would have had to overturn the law, as written.
In others, when you criticize the Ricci decision, you are criticizing Sotomayor for NOT being a judicial activist.
Nice going, fafaroo
Frank, if you’re going to cut and paste that much of someone else’s work, you really should give attribution or a link.
Just sayin’.
Frank, reading 100s of words from the right wing losers you’re obsessed with is not going to make you informed. It’s not even meant to make you informed– it’s to reinforce yhour lemming like dedication to movement conservatism.
You cut-and-pasted a bunch of babble about postmodernism and then didn’t connect any of it to Sotomayor because you’re lazy and just out to make some cheap rhetorical shots not based in reality. When you get actual argument, then maybe your posts will be worth anything. As it was, it was just empty babble regarding the bug upi your ass yo9u have about your betters like Sotomayor.
Besides, you’re allyoing yourself with Inhofe, a fanatical global warming denialist who rants about strange conspiracy theories. You’re just another one of the crazed right-wing lemmings on this– I will leave you and Inhofe to your personal derangements, but don’t expect us to take you seriously. Look, you have certain ideological outlooks– we know that they are wrong and espoused by crazed fanatics like Inhofe and other movement conservatives. So you’re really in no position to offer any philosophical counterpoint to Sotomayor– you’re an ally of nutcases like Inhofe. Who the hell cares what you think?
I was asked a question, and I answered it. What do you want, 5,000 words on Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy of jurisprudence complete with Citations and Annotated Bibliography?
I wanted you to actually base your arguments in reality instead of engaging into the empty, deranged babble that seems to play well with your right wing peers. You didn’t in anyway connect anything you said to Sotomayor. You made an empty assertion that among the morons among whom you associate seems smart to them vbut we recognize as just empty assertions. It’s clear that you read too much right-wing propaganda whose purpose is to make you feel informed and seem informed to the ignorant and easily led but is in fact neither. You’re just another right-wing ignoramus mindlessly mouthing talking points that have turned your brain to mush– all the better to make sure you’re an easily manipulated right-wing loser and Inhofe-loving doofus.
Tyro, if you don’t care what I think, put a sock in it …
So far, all you have done is insult me , and other conservatives none of whom you know or know about.
You guys crack me up … You didn’t respond to anything I said , except to say you don’t approve. Talk about lacking substance !
As for the source of the above comment , it’s right here :
http://tinyurl.com/qvfdxv
Now, queue up the criticism of the website and the author while you demonstrate that you have no idea why you support her, except maybe that she is:
1. A woman
2. Hispanic
3. Obama’s choice
Why don’t you try describing her philosophy of jurisprudence for me, if you are so sure I don’t know what it is ?
And if I get all my information from the “morons with whom I associate” [as if you might possibly know who or what I have read], then by all means, CORRECT ME!
Say something, somebody – anybody! – that indicates that you have some idea what this woman believes , and try to come up with a reasonable projection as to what she might be like on the Supreme Court bench.
Finally, Tyro, please tell me what denying Global Warming (of course, anyone who was on earth last winter knows how much bilge water that is) has to do with with Constitutional Law?
Judge Jose Cabranes’ dissenting opinion noted that the ruling “lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal” and “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” concluding that the “perfunctory” actions of the majority in their decision “rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”
Frank, you clearly have no idea what any of this actually means.
If you did, you would note that Cabranes’ dissented because the majority opinion did not weigh in on the Constitutionality of Title VII. In other words, it failed to challenge the Constitutionality of Title VII which is the very definition of judicial activism for conservatives.
Of course, the author of the article you link to fails to mention Title VII at all. To discuss Ricci and not mention Title VII is to overlook the key to the whole decision.
From an actual slate article, and not a readers forum:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
So to repeat, Frank, the decision you wanted in Ricci would have required the court to overturn established law. In other words, engage in judicial activism.
Frank, you’re an idiot.
Fafaroo,
Yes Frank is an idiot for thinking that a return to interpreting the Constitution as it is actually written would be an example of the judicial activism that conservatives hate.
Title 7 is in itself a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment and the bulk of civil rights law that rests upon Title 7 should be overturned.
One can only wonder if the firefighters that failed the exam were only there because standards had already been lowered to allow them to be hired in the first place. A race to the bottom in the name of fairness overlooks the reason to test in the first place. As it now stands the testing is done to reach a mininum level of competance and then the spots are awarded by group membership. If the test does not supply the politically correct mix of candidates the test is altered until the incompetants can finally qualify.
fafaroo: Being called an idiot by someone like you is a compliment.
If you can scroll up a few comments you will see that it was you who tried to badger me into saying that the ruling in Ricci was an example of judicial activism. I said it was a clear example of “sociological jurisprudence” : By allowing New Haven’s decision to stand , the desired result was left undisturbed.
But, to suggest, as you did, that a judicial ruling that overturns a law is judicial activism, is not stupidity, or idiocy, or even ignorance . You are simply lying to pretend you have won an argument. More than two hundred years ago, Chief Justice Marshall opined that it would be impossible to rule in interstate disputes without ruling on Constitutionality, and a new, implied Judicial power was born. I would like to believe that violations of the Constitution that were ruled upon , and the rulings he anticipated in the future , would point at egregious violations of the letter and easily determined spirit of the Constitution. Further, I doubt that Chief Justice Marshall intended for Judges to rule that clear violations of a Law’s intent would be permissible, if a Judge could find some “general welfare” to be obtained , or preserved. Finally, I am sure that Justice Marshall anticipated that such laws as were declared unconstitutional would be rewritten, not simply tossed out in the trash bin, never to be seen again.
If the Court, in re: Bakke could rule that quotas were not an intended outcome of the Civil Rights Act, then the Court could have ruled the same way in re: Ricci. This is not to say that the cases were similar, but rather that in both cases, the law was being applied inappropriately.
Fafaroo, I call your “idiot”, and raise you one “liar.”
Right winger “Amused Observer” gets to the crux of the right wing argument against Sotomayor’s firefighter ruling: “Title 7 is in itself a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment and the bulk of civil rights law that rests upon Title 7 should be overturned.”
The intent of the firefighter case is to use the courts, through right wing activist Judges, to overturn the Legislators explicit law.
It’s not about the firefighters, it’s not about Ricci (except that he’s a sympathetic figure that right wingers have empathy for because he’s a white male that they feel reflects them and represents their interests).
The aim of the right wing is to overturn Legislation through Judicial activism.
It’s Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
Right wingers are against ‘Judicial activism’ when it’s convenient and for ‘Judicial activism’ when it’s useful.
The complaint that the right wing has against Sotomayor is that she’s not a right wing Judicial activist.
In fact, Sotomayor isn’t a Judicial activist in any sense.
News,
WWhat Frank said.
Right wing fanatic “Frank DiSalle” asks “please tell me what denying Global Warming (of course, anyone who was on earth last winter knows how much bilge water that is) has to do with with Constitutional Law?”
Because Supreme Court judgements rooted in scientific evidence are crucial to our republic’s health.
A “Judge” that doesn’t understand scientific evidence or the scientific method or peer reviewed science isn’t qualified to rule over Judicial cases that involve science.
Ruling over cases that involve science is something that the Supreme Court does routinely.
Someone who rejects the peer reviewed science of global warming isn’t qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Fanatics like right winger “Frank DiSalle”, who thinks the sun magically turns off 12 hours a day, will of course disagree.
If the Court, in re: Bakke could rule that quotas were not an intended outcome of the Civil Rights Act, then the Court could have ruled the same way in re: Ricci.
Once again Frank, you have no idea what the Ricci was about, why the decision was made or what it is that was in question from a legal standpoint. Zero. None. Not a single fucking clue.
WWhat Frank said.
And, of course …
Once again Frank, you have no idea what the Ricci was about
If I don’t, it is because no one here has explained what is wrong with my characterization of Ricci, or provided their own.
No one here has contested my assessment of Judge Sotomayor, or provided their own.
And, of course, no one has provided a particle of evidence to support the contention that Sen Inhofe would have anything to gain from a meeting with Judge Sotomayor.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” concedes his ignorance but still manages to make his ignorance someone elses fault.
Here’s a good reason for Republican Senator Inhofe to have met with Supreme Court Justice Nominee Sotomayor beyond basic courtesy: If he believed he was smart enough he could have asked her tough questions so see if he could oppose her more effectively.
But Republican Senator Inhofe isn’t that smart and it’s clear Inhofe knows he’s not that smart.
Instead he not only showed an astonishing level of disrespect to her but he also lost an opportunity to privately press her on answering specific questions he felt might be important and gave the appearance of being too cowardly to have a conversation with an smart, capable Judge.
In a nutshell, Ricci and the other plaintiffs charged that complying with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The district court found for the city.
Mr Ricci was deprived of a position, the right to which he had legitimately earned.
Where’d you get that? When the case was brought to district court, individual performance on the test had not been revealed. We don’t know if Mr. Ricci placed first, last, or somewhere in the middle.
Also, the results of the test did not guarantee a promotion–merely a place on an “eligible-for-promotion” list. Placement on that list did not assure a promotion.
The bloviating, bombastic “News” “Reference” claims that Sen Inhofe was disrespectful to Judge Sotomayor, thus betraying his ignorance of Congressional Protocol.
She asked to see him — he declined . THat is all the “respect” a US Senator owes a Federal Judge, even one who is a Supreme Court nominee. Perhaps you were thinking he owes her the courtesy of a ‘one on one’ because she’s a gal?
Welcome to 1959, Newsie.
a) Perhaps he knows enough already to oppose her effectively. If he knew nothing at all, he would seem to know more than you do, that might help advance her appointment (yep, I am still waiting).
b) It is not in the least bit clear that Sen Inhofe is not smart, nor has he demonstrated that in any way — except between “Newsie’s” ears.
c) By declining to speak, he merely indicates that his mind is made up, and he has no plans to change it on the basis of a conversation. That may be an attitude liberals pretend to possess — an openmindedness which would present the possibility that they might change their mind if someone would present them with a cogent argument. What we see in the real world is that liberals only want dialogue to change the minds of those who disagree with them. That they brook no opposition from those who disagree with them is evident in their use of their term “denier” to characterize those who actually went outside last Winter, and experienced directly the evidence that Global Warming is ecofreak baloney. They even changed their concern from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” so as to blame human action for hurricanes, freezing cold and record amounts of snowfall. So much for openmindedness.
and bold Sorry
end bold Sorry
Frank, it’s his duty to make the most-informed decision he can on an up-or-down vote. You’ve yet to make a convincing case for what the Senator has to lose from meeting the woman who will likely sit on his nation’s highest court for the rest of her life (at least the rest of her professional career).
If I don’t, it is because no one here has explained what is wrong with my characterization of Ricci, or provided their own.
no frank, it’s because you get all your information from right wing hacks.
The Ricci decision simply upheld the previous courts ruling that the city’s decision to throw out the test results did not constitute racial discrimnation, as Ricci claimed, becaue the city wa acting in accordance with federal law. If , in fact, the city had kept the test results, it would have been in violation of the law. The prohibits discrimanatory tests for employment or promotion. The case had nothing to do with quotas or not having enough monorities in the promotion pool. The test results prompted am examination of the tests which found that the test was indeed invalid under the law.
Now you claim that the case was decided wrongly because Sotomayor was trying to use her position to achieve a desired sociological goal, rather than deciding based on the law. And yet that is exactly what the court did.
So simply using the word “denier” is an example of brooking “no opposition from those who disagree with them?” Little melodramatic, eh, Frank?
“No one here has contested my assessment of Judge Sotomayor, or provided their own.”
uh that’s not true. The fact that you haven’t agreed with contrary assessments doesn’t mean that they were not advanced. It simply means that you discounted them so perfuntorily that they were as if they have not been made.
“And, of course, no one has provided a particle of evidence to support the contention that Sen Inhofe would have anything to gain from a meeting with Judge Sotomayor.”
Well, its not about gaining anything. It is a matter of common courtesy and long-standing Senate protocol that meet and greets of this sort are undertaken. Its not now nor is it typically a matter of changing anyone’s mind. Its something they do. Inhofe’s public rejection of a courtesy call is churlish, childish, and petulant and that has nothing to do with whether or not they have something to gain. Its part of the daily life of a Senator.
Of course Inhofe’s closed-door policy with regard to this meet and greet stands in stark contrast to his ‘my door is wide open 24/7′ when it comes to Big Energy interests. I mean he does have something to ‘gain’ from them considering the $2 million he received from special interest groups in the last election cycle.
But hey he’s got nothing to gain from a meeting with Sotmayor since she won’t be arrriving with a brown bag filled with cash. But he should return the high horse he is sitting on to the nursery he stole it from.
Gawd I wish there was a spell check function on all blogs. My bad.
Title 7 is an abomination. It is in opposition to 14th Amendmend because it promotes discrimination to fight discrimination. The fact that the Supreme Court runs roughshod over the Constitution in no way maks this right or even a legitimate action by the court.
What this boils down to in the end is making the test easy enough for minorities to pass. If they can’t pass the test is too hard. It would be funny happening anywhere but here.
And we come full circle to amused’s racist rants.
Fafaroo,
Thats the sad pragmatic reality. Spin it any way you want to, that’s what it comes down too. Disregard the Constitution so favored minorities can have the playing field leveled for them so they can catch up. Not equal opportunity but equal outcome.
The fact that the Supreme Court runs roughshod over the Constitution in no way makes this right or even a legitimate action by the court.
Yes it does. The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Marbury v. Madison, dude.
Quaker,
That’s how you turn a country like this into a third world banana republic. You erode the highest law of the land until it is a meaningless historical oddity. Yet that is not how Marbury vs Madison was decided, Quoting Justice Marshall from the unanimous decision:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions”
The Supreme court may use judicial review upon the laws created by Congress, the Constitution is the standard to be used in judicial review.
Title 7 is in opposition to the Constitution, it is illegitimate.
“Title 7 is in opposition to the Constitution, it is illegitimate.”
Please explain why you believe the following is in opposition to the Constitution and your reasons for believing it to be illegitimate:
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title 7 is in opposition to the Constitution,
Sez who?
Ionya,
section 1 seems to be in perfect alignment with the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment and is in fact redundant.
It is section 2 that may be troubling if interpretetated with an agenda. Testing for competence being held to be limiting or classifying an applicant by race, skin color, etc. if the outcomes of such testing show any racial disparity.
Testing for competence being held to be limiting or classifying an applicant by race, skin color, etc. if the outcomes of such testing show any racial disparity.
Amused, again, you have no idea what you’re talking about either with regards to Title VII or the Ricci case specifically.
There is nothing in Title VII that makes the outcome of any test the measure of compliance. All that matters is whether the test itself is found to be discriminatory:
What that means in the Ricci case is that the city would have been in violation of Title VII if it had thrown out the test based solely on the racial disparity of the results. But that is not what the city did.
Rather, based on the results, the city examined the test closer and found, based on expert opinions, that the test itself could have been found to be discriminatory. That being the case, the city had no choice but through out the results in order to comply with Title VII.
If the city’s subsequent investigation had found that the test was not discriminatory, it could have kept the test results regardless of how many whites passed or how many blacks didn’t. What compounded the city’s dilemma in this case is that it had been informed, before the fact, that its test might not be appropriate for the purposes required and that there were other, non-discriminatory tests available that would have suited the purpose just as well.
As to whether Title VII requires quotas, there’s this:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
So with Ricci, Title VII did not compel the city to throw out the results because it would have lead to more whites being promoted than blacks. Again, the results and their impact on the make up of the fire department had nothing to do with the city’s decision to throw out the test. It was, rather, the test itself that was the problem.
If more blacks had passed the test than whites, and the city kept the results, Ricci could have sued and guess what? HE WOULD HAVE WON.
Is it too much to ask for you guys to do just a little bit of research before you start yammering away?
Right winger “Amused Observer” rants: “That’s how you turn a country like this into a third world banana republic. You erode the highest law of the land until it is a meaningless historical oddity.”
Now you are just sounding like a crazy lefty.
Next you’ll be complaining about Republican Bush’s signing statements, merciless Republican sadist John Yoo’s memorandum, Bush’s the evisceration of America’s Torture Law and War Crimes Law, his shredding of the Constitution, even the ancient principle of Habeas Corpus (explicitly in the text of the Constitution), the trashing of the Bill of Rights, and the betrayal of international treaties as basic to human rights as the Geneva Convention.
Not to mention the Imperial designation of the citizenry as “enemy combatants” and the illegal domestic surveillance….
Those are some of the things I would have pressed a Supreme Court Nominee on had I had the unique privilege to do so.
To squander such an opportunity is bizarre to me.
Fafaroo,
You are blowing smoke again. The devil is in the details. The law is crafted in one way and policy is determined by regulators interpretation and often desire in another way. Affirmative Action when first crafted was specifically not supposed to have quotas, but in the end it did.
These experts that the city hired jusdge discriminatory effects by what criteria, objective or subjective? What is the qualification of an expert?
“Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment…”
To require in your example is not the same as to allow…
Since you admonish posting bfore research, perhaps you can give us examples of what made this test discriminitory? The court has already ruled that testing for intelligence can be construed as discriminitory.
Again Fafaroo you are blowing pc smoke.
The court has already ruled that testing for intelligence can be construed as discriminitory.
Oh, I do hope you’ll elaborate on this one, AO.
Quaker,
Look it up, I shall return in a few hours, that should give you plenty of time.
Look it up,
I did. Came up empty. You didn’t just make this up, did you?
Right winger “Amused Observer” makes stuff up and then insists others take the time to dispel his lies.
Quaker,
Griggs vs Duke Power
Griggs? You mean the decision that says you can’t practice discrimination just because you call it “intelligence testing” or some other noble sounding name?
The devil is in the details.
Amused, whenever you actually take the time to acquaint yourself with them (they’re also called “facts”) you just let us all know.
Since you admonish posting bfore research, perhaps you can give us examples of what made this test discriminitory?
And just one post later you wrote: “Quaker, Look it up, I shall return in a few hours, that should give you plenty of time.”
What a moron.
Quaker,
You think testing for intelligence is a bad thing when making a hiring decision?
Look at whoever hired Fafaroo, if only they’d access to an intelligence test.
Look at whoever hired Fafaroo, if only they’d access to an intelligence test.
Amused, when I don’t know something, I look it up. Now let’s check out one of your latest comments:
These experts that the city hired jusdge discriminatory effects by what criteria, objective or subjective?
What is the qualification of an expert?
Since you admonish posting bfore research, perhaps you can give us examples of what made this test discriminitory?
Now there’s three questions that you seem to believe are important to understanding the Ricci case.
And yet you don’t know the answers to them.
I do.
Because I read all about the case a month ago when Sotomayor was first nominated.
Why don’t you know the answers to these questions?
Why do you think you’re at all qualified to engage in a discussion of the case if you don’t know the answers?
Fafaroo,
Have you ever been in court and witnessed testimony in a trial? Expert opinions are offered for sale in any flavor you might choose.
Have you ever been in court and witnessed testimony in a trial? Expert opinions are offered for sale in any flavor you might choose.
And you still have no idea what your talking about. Have you bothered to look into the details of the Ricci case at all? Ever?
You see, Amused, we don’t have to speculate about what experts were used and what they said in the Ricci case. It’s all a matter of public record.
All you have to do is look it up and read it.
LOL,
Playing your cards close to your vest won’t make any difference when you have to lay them on the table. You’re blowing smoke, if you had aces you would have laid them down already.
You’re blowing smoke, if you had aces you would have laid them down already.
So ignorance really is bliss, isn’t it?
You seem fairly happy about this case.
You think testing for intelligence is a bad thing when making a hiring decision?
I think testing for “intelligence” as a pretext for justifying predetermined outcomes is illegal discrimination. What was Duke Power’s history on this score, AO?
Flaming leftist radical Chief Justice Burger, in the majority decision in Griggs:
What is it they say? Hard case makes for bad law. The consequences of throwing out the ability to generally test for intelligence in hiring far outweigh the specifics of one company’s hiring practices. Leveling the playing field to the lowest common denominator is no way to achieve excellence in anything.
Leveling the playing field to the lowest common denominator is no way to achieve excellence in anything.
So-called “intelligence testing” won’t always get you to excellence either. The NFL uses the Wonderlic test–the same one Duke Power used. Quarterback Travis Dorsch scored higher than any other player who ever took the test. Remember when Dorsch took the Cincinnati Bengals to the Super Bowl?
Me neither.
Sorry. Placekicker-punter. Not QB.
LOL Quaker,
Even the smartest or most athletic kicker can only do so much! Personally the only thing I wonder about a kickers intelligence is if he keeps his shoe on. Everytime I see one of those guys kick barefoot I feel like limping around for a while. Talk about tough.