From the White House:
READOUT OF THE PRESIDENT’S CALL TO JUDGE SOTOMAYOR
FROM PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
“President Obama called Judge Sotomayor from the Oval Office this morning to wish her good luck as she completed preparations for her confirmation hearing. He complimented the Judge for making courtesy calls to 89 Senators in which she discussed her adherence to the rule of law throughout her 17 years on the federal bench.The President expressed his confidence that Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court for many years to come.”
Dude, 89 courtesy calls?
Good for the President to reach out.
She will be confirmed but all of this noise about Judge Sotomayor is just a small testament to the work that has to be done in terms of racial relations.
Good for him.
Meanwhile, those fine, outstanding folks at People for the American Way are urging reporters to dig into the past of Mr. Ricci, the lead plaintiff firefighter from New Haven who had the colossal nerve to file a lawsuit that has proven embarrassing for this wise Latina…
J.
I thought it was already common knowledge that he was a serial greivance filer. Sort of like those folks in Alaska that drove poor governor Palin from the governmental stage in tears.
Doesn’t affect the substance of his complaint, of course.
Wilbur,
“Doesn’t affect the substance of his complaint, of course”
Perhaps you could expand on the substance of his complaint for us in your own words. It is quite interesting how this case even came to the attention of the Supreme Court. While the Democrat’s numbers in Congress and the racial spoils system will probably confirm Sotomeyer she is most certainly not Supreme Court material. The irony of her bragging about being an affirmative action baby is almost funny to observe.
Meanwhile, those fine, outstanding folks at People for the American Way are urging reporters to dig into the past of Mr. Ricci
Oh noes!!!! Teh Google.
And what might be your opinion Oliver, serial litigant or brave American fighting discrimination after being cheated out of a promotion because of his race?
“…serial litigant or brave American fighting discrimination after being cheated out of a promotion because of his race?”
From all accounts, Ricci fits BOTH characterizations.
Frank Ricci couldn’t get his jobs (plural) without suing, which if right wingers had any sense of internal logic, consistency, integrity, or even short term memory, right wingers would remember they were against such lawsuits.
Right wing rules:
Right wing lawsuits good.
Left wing lawsuits bad.
Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People
Perhaps you could expand on the substance of his complaint for us in your own words
As I understand it, he and several others took an exam for promotion, but the results of the exam were discarded when the results showed disparate impact for minorities and the city was threatened with lawsuits if it retained the exam results. Ricci and his co-complainants argued that this was, in effect, to discriminate against them on the basis of race.
I freely admit that if I was in his shoes I’d have been pretty pissed off. I think I probably would have waited for the city to re-tool its promotion procedures and try again rather than suing them, but I can’t say for sure what I would have done in his situation.
It was unfortunate in the first place that the criteria for promotion was based so heavily on a standardized exam. But given that it was the city was faced with a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation. One can reaonsably argue about whether they made the right choice, but their choice was not arbitrary or motivated by anti-white bias, but was based on the the language of title vii and pertinent jurisprudence thereto, as was the decision of Sotomayor and her colleagues. The SC has decided to refine, or some would say re-define, the disparate impact standard. They are free to do so, and in some cases it may serve the cause of justice that they do so, but the notion that they are slapping down Sotomayor for an incompetent and outrageous decision is nothing but ignorant and/or childish right-wing bullshit.
As even Justice Scalia notes in his opinion on the case, the relationship between title vii and the equal protection clause of the xiv amendment is not a simple matter. So your ill-considered notion that xiv precludes any consideration of disparate impact and forbids any sort of efforts to enhance and maintain diversity is not even supported by all the conservatives on the SC.
As for Ricci, like I said, I can’t really blame him for bringing this suit, though I can’t really blame the city for defending against it either. When I read about his background and his litigious past I just worry that we’re seeing the elevation of yet another in the line of Sarah P and Joe the Plumber, a not-ready-for-prime-time sacrificial lamb for a bankrupt political movement desperate for heroes. That schtick is getting pretty tiresome. If the republican party wants to ride down that last hill to the swampy bottomlands of irrelevance as the champion of the horribly oppressed white male, here’s hoping that Ricci isn’t stupid enough to let himself be dragged along with it.
When I read about his background and his litigious past I just worry that we’re seeing the elevation of yet another in the line of Sarah P and Joe the Plumber, a not-ready-for-prime-time sacrificial lamb for a bankrupt political movement desperate for heroes. That schtick is getting pretty tiresome. If the republican party wants to ride down that last hill to the swampy bottomlands of irrelevance as the champion of the horribly oppressed white male, here’s hoping that Ricci isn’t stupid enough to let himself be dragged along with it.
So, Wilbur, you’re saying that because Ricci might have filed questionable suits in the past, he shouldn’t have bitched when he thinks he was screwed over this time?
Sounds a bit like the “she shouldn’t have dressed like that if she didn’t want to get raped” argument to me… a bit of blame the victim.
I’m sure you didn’t mean that, though.
J.
So, Wilbur, you’re saying that because Ricci might have filed questionable suits in the past, he shouldn’t have bitched when he thinks he was screwed over this time?
No Jay, that’s not what I said at all, but try again. If Ricci can overcome his dyslexia so can you!
Lysdexics of the world, untie!
Well, then, Wilbur, could you draw the distinction between what you said and how I interpreted it?
I’d rather not try it again and risk getting it wrong a second time.
J.
Okay, Jay, at one point in my post I say…
I freely admit that if I was in his shoes I’d have been pretty pissed off. I think I probably would have waited for the city to re-tool its promotion procedures and try again rather than suing them, but I can’t say for sure what I would have done in his situation.
And then, later, I say…
As for Ricci, like I said, I can’t really blame him for bringing this suit…
That’s all I say about whether Ricci should or should not have filed suit. I’m not sure how any rational individual could equate either of these statements to your…
because Ricci might have filed questionable suits in the past, he shouldn’t have bitched when he thinks he was screwed over this time?
Maybe you could do some elucidating for me?
Sorry, Wilbur, you were sending mixed signals. I put greater weight on the part I quoted.
J.
Jay, in the part you quoted I was not talking at all about whether Ricci should have filed suit (or “bitched”) or not. I was expressing the hope that he not let himself be turned into the latest GOP/Limbaugh/Savage poster boy for the oppressed white male.
Glad to be of service.
Because, Wilbur, under the New Rules, people aren’t allowed to be individuals. They HAVE to represent their race, their sex, their sexual identity, their ethnicity, and all that other baggage. And if they fall into certain categories, then they HAVE to abide by the established rules and stereotypes.
Witness what happens to those who dare stray off the plantations. Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Michelle Malkin… minorities simply aren’t allowed to be conservatives.
Similarly, white males HAVE to be emblematic of their types. It’s only fair.
J.
Sorry Jay, but you still don’t understand. I’ll try to keep it to words of one syllable this time: I am glad for him to be an uh, uh, uh, individual [sorry, 4 syllables!]; what I dread is that the bad [R] guys won’t let him be that, but will make him a front man for a “poor, poor white guy” dog and horse ["pony" has 2 sylls.] show.
Okay enough of that – as an individual F. Ricci is a guy that apparently got a raw deal, not from any deliberate discrimination but on account of a city government that allowed itself to be painted into a corner, and went to the courts for redress of that raw deal. If that’s all he presents himself as, and is presented as, then fine by me; but the question then arises, why all the fuss?
It wasn’t me who established the “downtrodden white guy” stereotype, it was you lot. I remember not so long ago on this site there was discussion of Michael Savage’s observation that “the white heterosexual christian male represents what is best in this country, but the white heterosexual Christian male is demonized in this country.” Did you and the rest of your right-wing homeys decry Savage’s invidious conceptualization of the “downtrodden white guy” as a consistent type? Most of what I remember from you all is crickets and equivocation.
Re your list of downtrodden right-wing minorities, I would emend your statement as follows: “… minorities simply aren’t allowed to be conservatives when they mastermind a disastrous foreign policy, act as one of the thickest planks ever to sit on SCOTUS, prostitute the administration of justice to partisan politics, or stand as an apologist for concentration camps and one of the shrillest partisan harpies on the intertubes” Majorities aren’t allowed to be conservatives under such conditions either.
the latest GOP/Limbaugh/Savage poster boy for the oppressed white male.
To paraphrase Beetlejuice, that just keeps getting funnier every time I see it.