Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’

[Ravi]

I disagree with that generalization. The charge has been levied against many many people who've not suffered the slightest adverse consequence as a result. In fact, it's been a veritable boon for some.

Hillary Clinton proves you wrong.

 

[manifold]

Calling someone a racist simply because you disagree with how they ruled is lame, even for you. I suppose you can't help yourself, the plantiffs were white, she is brown...of course she ruled based on race.

Right, because one's actions have nothing to do with who they are.

Of course they do. But ruling that the city was allowed to throw out the results of a test because said test violated title vii is a rational ruling. In your mind, she can't be rational because she's brown. I wouldn't label her the racist here.

She didn't say why she sided with the city.

 

[manifold]

I disagree with that generalization. The charge has been levied against many many people who've not suffered the slightest adverse consequence as a result. In fact, it's been a veritable boon for some.

My worship of Hillary Clinton proves you wrong.

 

[Ravi]

Right, because one's actions have nothing to do with who they are.

Of course they do. But ruling that the city was allowed to throw out the results of a test because said test violated title vii is a rational ruling. In your mind, she can't be rational because she's brown. I wouldn't label her the racist here.

She didn't say why she sided with the city.

No? So you automatically ASSume she did it because she was racist?

The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy to the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]". The trial court's opinion was adopted in its entirety by the panel.[9]

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manifold]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

 

[Ravi]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

Title vii might be racist. Ruling that the city followed the law in place isn't.

Must be too subtle for you.

 

[manifold]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

Title vii might be racist. Ruling that the city followed the law in place isn't.

Must be too subtle for you.

It's debatable whether the test actually violates title vii.

Edit: But I agree with you 100% that title vii itself is racist.

 

[Ravi]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

Title vii might be racist. Ruling that the city followed the law in place isn't.

Must be too subtle for you.

It's debatable whether the test actually violates title vii.

Edit: But I agree with you 100% that title vii itself is racist.

What, now it's debatable and just yesterday you judged that it wasn't and labeled someone a racist because it wasn't debatable?

I didn't say title vii is racist...but you know that.

 

[AllieBaba]

She is racist because she states baldly that because of her race she is able to make better decisions than old white guys.

That's a racist comment. And she's said it more than once.
“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 …”

From Sean O’Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”
Is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor racist?

 

[Coyote]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

The problem is they were following the law and the law in this case points in two contradictory directions. What should be addressed is the law itself, not those following it.

 

[Coyote]

She is racist because she states baldly that because of her race she is able to make better decisions than old white guys.

No. She did not say that. How about reading the entire quote?

That's a racist comment. And she's said it more than once.

“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 …”

If that is what she actually said it would be racist - but cherry picking quotes to prove a point is dishonest.

From Sean O’Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”
Is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor racist?

NCLR has been criticized but most of it is baseless. To make comparisons to the KKK shows an incredible ignorance (or maybe bigotry) on the part of Tancredo.

 

[del]

you can parse it any way you want, she still believes that a latina will make better judgments than a white man.

it's okay, though, that's completely different from a white man believing he'd make better judgments than a latina.

 

[Coyote]

you can parse it any way you want, she still believes that a latina will make better judgments than a white man.

it's okay, though, that's completely different from a white man believing he'd make better judgments than a latina.

How is providing a full quote "parsing"...? Seems to be me selecting one sentence upon which to make a judgement is "parsing".

 

[del]

you can parse it any way you want, she still believes that a latina will make better judgments than a white man.

it's okay, though, that's completely different from a white man believing he'd make better judgments than a latina.

How is providing a full quote "parsing"...? Seems to be me selecting one sentence upon which to make a judgement is "parsing".

in the context of the speech, it's even more racist/chauvinist than as a stand alone sentence. that you choose to see it otherwise tells me that you are parsing.

 

[manifold]

What, now it's debatable and just yesterday you judged that it wasn't

Another bald faced Ravi lie. Shocker!

 

[AllieBaba]

you can parse it any way you want, she still believes that a latina will make better judgments than a white man.

it's okay, though, that's completely different from a white man believing he'd make better judgments than a latina.

How is providing a full quote "parsing"...? Seems to be me selecting one sentence upon which to make a judgement is "parsing".

What a bunch of crap.

I love it when lefties insist we have to involve context in their racist rants.

 

[manifold]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

The problem is they were following the law and the law in this case points in two contradictory directions. What should be addressed is the law itself, not those following it.

When a law points in two contradictory directions in a particular case I view that as license to rule in favor of true justice. And anyone that believes true justice lies in denying these firefighters what they rightly earned, based solely on the color of their skin, is by definition a racist.

 

[Coyote]

you can parse it any way you want, she still believes that a latina will make better judgments than a white man.

it's okay, though, that's completely different from a white man believing he'd make better judgments than a latina.

How is providing a full quote "parsing"...? Seems to be me selecting one sentence upon which to make a judgement is "parsing".

What a bunch of crap.

I love it when lefties insist we have to involve context in their racist rants.

Ah...so context doesn't matter?


Or...does it only matter when it involves a particular ideology?

 

[Coyote]

I think the city's decision and the ruling are racist. I'm dumbfounded that anyone can conclude otherwise. Actually that's not true. I've witnessed the mental gymnastics from your type enough now that I guess I'm no longer surprised by your astonishing feats of denial.

The problem is they were following the law and the law in this case points in two contradictory directions. What should be addressed is the law itself, not those following it.

When a law points in two contradictory directions in a particular case I view that as license to rule in favor of true justice. And anyone that believes true justice lies in denying these firefighters what they rightly earned, based solely on the color of their skin, is by definition a racist.

I don't think it's as simple as that. The town was not wrong in what it did in that it followed the law stating in essence no one got discrimminated against because all results were discarded. Personally - I did not agree with the town's actions but I think this case would have been a perfect one to look at the law itself and challenge it. Either way you ruled someone would be discrimminated against according to the law. How could have "true justice"?

 

[manifold]

The problem is they were following the law and the law in this case points in two contradictory directions. What should be addressed is the law itself, not those following it.

When a law points in two contradictory directions in a particular case I view that as license to rule in favor of true justice. And anyone that believes true justice lies in denying these firefighters what they rightly earned, based solely on the color of their skin, is by definition a racist.

I don't think it's as simple as that. The town was not wrong in what it did in that it followed the law stating in essence no one got discrimminated against because all results were discarded. Personally - I did not agree with the town's actions but I think this case would have been a perfect one to look at the law itself and challenge it. Either way you ruled someone would be discrimminated against according to the law. How could have "true justice"?

True justice would be a decision that ignores race altogether IMO.