Obama's Supreme Court Pick is.........

[Tech_Esq]

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

Firmly in control of it? So they have 60 votes in the Senate? When did that happen?

As to whether she'll get "Bork'ed", she won't. Thats not even an issue. Republicans are currently so unpopular that they don't have the ability to make it impossible for Democrats to vote for Soyomayer. Who is going to lead this Republican charge for the hearts and minds of the American populace. Maybe Boehner? McConnell? What are their approval ratings again?

If thats really the strategy, good luck. You'll need it

Who said that was the standard?

Youngster, Bork was not Bork'ed by the Dems on Capitol Hill.

There needs to be a political calculus done on whether it is a good strategy to nix her. Could be that the next person would be worse. So, you choose your battles with care. I'm not sure that there is currently enough direction within the party to bounce her nomination or not. It's really beside the point. The question is, what's the strategy to do it, if you are going to try.

That's really why we're having this discussion. Unless we're having it for the sake of just having it. The Dems have the votes. They can approve her qualified or not.

 

[GHook93]

That's funny. Seriously. Most lawyers acknowledge that he's the least capable jurist on the bench and is most ignorant of Constitutional law and the concept of Constitutional Construction. He also rejects the concept of stare decisis so he can insert his own agenda rather than abide by the law.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't understand what you're talking about.

True, I hear that and I agree that he writes far far too few opinions and dissents and almost seems lazy at times. But the opinions and dissents I read of his I like! I also hear how Ginsburg is a great judge although I think her judicial activism is disgusting at times, but not at disgusting as the right gives her credit for. I also hear how great Scalia is (of course from select groups) although I see him strongly deverge from his originalist philosophy when its suits him (which is a lot of the time), but hide behind it when it helps him. A philosophy I strongly support.

I will go off my own judgement rather than what I heard!

I also respect that the fact that you have a black man that is against affirmative action stating that its unconstitutional. I think it definitely had its place, but nowadays you can't escape the fact that it blatantly violates the 14th amendment!

I think Thomas gets an overly bad rep that is not justified!

 

[jillian]

True, I hear that and I agree that he writes far far too few opinions and dissents and almost seems lazy at times. But the opinions and dissents I read of his I like!

That's fine... but admit it's because he's activist in your direction, because his opinions are the WORST and have the least foundation in law.

I also hear how Ginsburg is a great judge although I think her judicial activism is disgusting at times, but not at disgusting as the right gives her credit for.

What activism? Specifically, what decisions?

Activism is generally considered as overturning legislative action... and the right is far more "activist" in that regard. The whole "activist judge" thing has no basis in reality and is another of those rightspeak things....

I also hear how great Scalia is (of course from select groups) although I see him strongly deverge from his originalist philosophy when its suits him (which is a lot of the time), but hide behind it when it helps him. A philosophy I strongly support.

so in other words, he's activist for YOUR pov, so it's all good?

Let me tell you what Scalia is... he's brilliant... and he's always wrong because he always starts from the absolutely incorrect basic premise. There is also no such thing as "originalism". It's a made up concept. To understand constitutional construction, one has to start with Marbury v Madison and work his way forward.

No one who doesn't believe in stare decisis is a jurist.

I will go off my own judgement rather than what I heard!

That's fine... but perhaps you should listen to the people who understand what he's done to our constitution and how he's spit at jurisprudence in favor of pushing his own political agenda.... something that the right accuses the left of, but of which scalia and thomas have been the most guilty.

I also respect that the fact that you have a black man that is against affirmative action stating that its unconstitutional. I think it definitely had its place, but nowadays you can't escape the fact that it blatantly violates the 14th amendment!

I think Thomas gets an overly bad rep that is not justified!

You can say that... but people who know the law would disagree. I don't mean that to sound snooty. But the truth is, I wouldn't tell my doctor how to do things because I don't have the knowledge and I'm afraid I've always found it a little offensive that everyone thinks they're a jurist.

 

[Ravi]

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

They did no such thing. They didn't promote anyone.

 

[Nik]

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

 

[WillowTree]

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

how did the test, test on race???

 

[Nik]

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

Firmly in control of it? So they have 60 votes in the Senate? When did that happen?

As to whether she'll get "Bork'ed", she won't. Thats not even an issue. Republicans are currently so unpopular that they don't have the ability to make it impossible for Democrats to vote for Soyomayer. Who is going to lead this Republican charge for the hearts and minds of the American populace. Maybe Boehner? McConnell? What are their approval ratings again?

If thats really the strategy, good luck. You'll need it

Who said that was the standard?

Youngster, Bork was not Bork'ed by the Dems on Capitol Hill.

Of course not...Kennedy's speech had nothing to do with his confirmation failure.

There needs to be a political calculus done on whether it is a good strategy to nix her. Could be that the next person would be worse. So, you choose your battles with care. I'm not sure that there is currently enough direction within the party to bounce her nomination or not. It's really beside the point. The question is, what's the strategy to do it, if you are going to try.

That's really why we're having this discussion. Unless we're having it for the sake of just having it. The Dems have the votes. They can approve her qualified or not.

The Dems don't have the votes. It takes 60 to break a filibuster, they have 59. Add onto that fact that the party isn't united in everything that goes on.

 

[Nik]

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

how did the test, test on race???

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

 

[GHook93]

That's fine... but admit it's because he's activist in your direction, because his opinions are the WORST and have the least foundation in law.

I might have read his good ones or the opposite for you. But I respect him!

Quoted by GHook93: I also hear how Ginsburg is a great judge although I think her judicial activism is disgusting at times, but not at disgusting as the right gives her credit for.

What activism? Specifically, what decisions?

Activism is generally considered as overturning legislative action... and the right is far more "activist" in that regard. The whole "activist judge" thing has no basis in reality and is another of those rightspeak things....

Come on judicial activism isn't a right talking point its real and both sides are guilty of it!

so in other words, he's activist for YOUR pov, so it's all good?

Let me tell you what Scalia is... he's brilliant... and he's always wrong because he always starts from the absolutely incorrect basic premise. There is also no such thing as "originalism". It's a made up concept. To understand constitutional construction, one has to start with Marbury v Madison and work his way forward

.
I think you are misinterpretting my stance on Scalia I dislike the man and do not think he is a good judge. I think his philosophy is sound, but he doesn't follow it!

That's fine... but perhaps you should listen to the people who understand what he's done to our constitution and how he's spit at jurisprudence in favor of pushing his own political agenda.... something that the right accuses the left of, but of which scalia and thomas have been the most guilty.

Fair enough!

You can say that... but people who know the law would disagree. I don't mean that to sound snooty. But the truth is, I wouldn't tell my doctor how to do things because I don't have the knowledge and I'm afraid I've always found it a little offensive that everyone thinks they're a jurist.

I will soon by the "doctor" in your hypo. I am going off the teaching by my Conlaw professor and off some legal writings of some prestigious attorneys!

 

[GHook93]

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

Que? It tested on fireman efficiency! Nothing more and nothing less!

 

[Nik]

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

Que? It tested on fireman efficiency! Nothing more and nothing less!

Really? How exactly do you know it didn't test anything else?

 

[GHook93]

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

Que? It tested on fireman efficiency! Nothing more and nothing less!

Really? How exactly do you know it didn't test anything else?

That is what it said in the facts above!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Firmly in control of it? So they have 60 votes in the Senate? When did that happen?

As to whether she'll get "Bork'ed", she won't. Thats not even an issue. Republicans are currently so unpopular that they don't have the ability to make it impossible for Democrats to vote for Soyomayer. Who is going to lead this Republican charge for the hearts and minds of the American populace. Maybe Boehner? McConnell? What are their approval ratings again?

If thats really the strategy, good luck. You'll need it

Who said that was the standard?

Youngster, Bork was not Bork'ed by the Dems on Capitol Hill.

Of course not...Kennedy's speech had nothing to do with his confirmation failure.

There needs to be a political calculus done on whether it is a good strategy to nix her. Could be that the next person would be worse. So, you choose your battles with care. I'm not sure that there is currently enough direction within the party to bounce her nomination or not. It's really beside the point. The question is, what's the strategy to do it, if you are going to try.

That's really why we're having this discussion. Unless we're having it for the sake of just having it. The Dems have the votes. They can approve her qualified or not.

The Dems don't have the votes. It takes 60 to break a filibuster, they have 59. Add onto that fact that the party isn't united in everything that goes on.

There has to be a decision to filibuster. That means the party decided to fight it. A lot goes into that consideration including, but not limited to, what I cited above.

 

[justabubba]

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

NIK, as has been the case throughout this thread, is correct again

the basis for the decision going against the majority firemen (and the latino fireman) goes to the 80% rule used to assess a determination of disparate impact. this will explain it:

The court wrote, "Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant's exam the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6% and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio ("AIR") of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC Guidelines. While the parties dispute the Captain's exam pass rate for African-Americans and Hispanics (see supra note 7), the pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that of minorities and thus by either party's statistic an AIR far below the four-fifths guideline is yielded. However, it is also undisputed that, because of the Rule of Three, the pass rate is not synonymous with the promotion rate, because only the top three scorers may be considered for each vacant position. Thus, the rank of the minority applicants is also a key factor. In 2003, given the number of vacancies, it appeared that at most two Hispanics and no African-Americans would have the opportunity to be promoted to Captain, and no minorities would have the opportunity to be promoted to Lieutenant."

In 1996 and 1999, New Haven gave promotional exams for Lieutenant and Captain to white, black and Hispanic firefighters. This sequence of tests was produced by a different vendor than I/O Solutions. Although those tests did not meet the EEOC's four-fifths rule, the test results of the minorities who took the test were distributed throughout the results of all the test takers -- in other words, they were not clustered at the bottom of the results, and minorities would be respresented in the promotional pool. The EEOC four-fifths rule results for the 2003 test were also well below the results from the promotional tests in 1999 and 1996.

The City's Corporation Counsel upon reviewing the results found New Haven in a no-win situation: certifying the 2003 test results left them vulnerable to a "disparate impact by examination" discrimination claim, or fight the "reverse discrimination" disparate treatment claim. The question is which takes precedence?

Reading the EEOC guidelines -- along with the findings of both the federal district court and the appellate court -- suggest New Haven's first responsibility was to do no harm by not certifying the test results and compounding the disparate impact. The lower court denied every claim of the plaintiffs: there was no disparate treatment because no one's test was certified, no one received a promotion based on either of test, the city was acting within the federal law and guidelines to not certify the test, the plaintiff's claim of "political pressure" was unfounded, the plaintiff's claim that the city was pretexting -- "making up" -- reasons not certifiy the test were unfounded, the claim for punitive damages denied. The appellate court agreed with the district court.

A Perfect Storm: "No Discrimination" Is Not "Reverse Discrimination" | Jade7243's Blog

 

[WillowTree]

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

how did the test, test on race???

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

what do I believe?

 

[WillowTree]

Whether the test was designed to take race out or not, it clearly did not take out race.

how did the test, test on race???

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

how can you say the test did not take race out? if you don't know how it put it in??? this is strange..

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

how did the test, test on race???

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

how can you say the test did not take race out? if you don't know how it put it in??? this is strange..

Because it keeps lawyers on equal footing no matter how lame their case it. They can argue, bill, argue, bill, rinse, repeat.

 

[Nik]

how did the test, test on race???

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

how can you say the test did not take race out? if you don't know how it put it in??? this is strange..

By looking at the results of the test. Thats how you can say that. As has been explained to you, repeatedly.

 

[Nik]

I have no idea. But merely not knowing how something creates a particular effect does not mean that the effect does not exist.

For example, I really have no idea how one can be so stupid as to believe the things that you do. And yet, despite the fact that the process is baffling to me, you still continue to say mind-numbingly idiotic shit.

how can you say the test did not take race out? if you don't know how it put it in??? this is strange..

Because it keeps lawyers on equal footing no matter how lame their case it. They can argue, bill, argue, bill, rinse, repeat.

Wtf????

 

[American Horse]

She is the pick for the Supreme Court Vacancy.

Wonder if she will make it.

She will make it. But the Republicans absolutely must make certain that the public is well informed about her history, her beliefs on the law and the constitution, and her qualifications. I heard a tape this morning first on the FNC and then on Rush in which in her own voice I heard her say what Rush played and commented on in his first hour today. From the Rush first hour transcript:

"This is 2005 in Durham, North Carolina, at Duke, the School of Law there during a panel discussion about the court of appeals. This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor had to say:

SOTOMAYOR: “All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- 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. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know”. (laughing)

RUSH: Well, there you have it. She makes light of it and makes jokes about what she determines her purpose to be. She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is; what he really believes in. And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having. She stands for policy making.

RUSH: One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored." …. "In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation," meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001.... "