Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Meister]

I highly doubt this is over. And DavidS, you obviously have no idea what the case was about.

I think when the Supreme Court rules on it...it's pretty much a slam dunk. Almost all of the justices had high brows on the way the lower court refused to even let get heard.

Well you think incorrectly. Try reading the opinion.

And almost all of the justices had "high brows" on the way the lower court refused to even let get heard? Care to cite that?

Perhaps the District Court could have been more expansive in its discussion of these issues, but its conclusions appear entirely consistent with the record before it.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/07-1428.pdf Page 38

Hey Nik, I have an idea where this won't happen again, you would be on board with it.
When the test comes up again, just say "Whites need not apply." That would cover it for you.

 

[WillowTree]

Case was a slam dunk.

Glad to see they got it right.

Yes, what's kind of scary is that four justices voted against the firefighters. If you ever had a perfect set of facts showing reverse discrimination, this case was it. This one was a "gimme"... there was nothing hard about it. If you couldn't rule for the firefighters, you proved that you don't believe whites are entitled to equal justice in America.

I tell ya what, campers: America's turning into a racial warfare zone. The only group that hasn't yet gotten the message is whites. But slowly, this is changing.

Take a lesson from Frank Ricci, white man. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains of political correctness. What are you afraid of? That they won't hire you? LOOK! THEY ALREADY WON'T! That you'll lose the presidency? GUESS WHAT! That you can't get nominated to the SCOTUS? GUESS WHAT AGAIN!

White man, you are marked for death in Obamamerica. They don't want you as part of this new club. They want you and your race dead. Wake the fuck up, please.

I think I've been knowing the truth of this since the comments started flowing just previous to and right after the election. Yep! "We shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men, or to men who are trained to do the work." that was sorta a give a way!

 

[Nik]

Pot calling the kettle black

/pat you.



I have.



You think Ex parte Quirin set the precedents for Habeus? First of all, your incorrect. Secondly, don't cite me a case where they executed first, and then wrote the decision. If you knew anything at all, you'd not cite as "pretty much setting the precedent" a case which Scalia called "not the courts finest hour".

This I believe puts her at the average! But let me get this straight just being above the average is OK, when you are talking about putting someone onto the Highest Court of the land?

Its also a stupid standard to examine.

Ex Parte Quirin along with the Civil War Cases sent a precedent on when Habeus Corpus can be suspended! Like I stated I don't want to derail the thread!

If by civil war cases you are referring to Milligan, then you are somewhat correct. However, Thomas wanted to go far beyond what either of those cases advocated.

 

[WillowTree]

Isn't one of the qualifiers for being selected a SC justice a measure of how many times the SCOTUS has overturned one of your rulings?? Is this the 4th or the 5th for el Hispanic contender???

 

[Nik]

I think when the Supreme Court rules on it...it's pretty much a slam dunk. Almost all of the justices had high brows on the way the lower court refused to even let get heard.

Well you think incorrectly. Try reading the opinion.

And almost all of the justices had "high brows" on the way the lower court refused to even let get heard? Care to cite that?

Perhaps the District Court could have been more expansive in its discussion of these issues, but its conclusions appear entirely consistent with the record before it.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/07-1428.pdf Page 38

Hey Nik, I have an idea where this won't happen again, you would be on board with it.
When the test comes up again, just say "Whites need not apply." That would cover it for you.

First off, Sotomayor isn't on the district court, and it wasn't about that they wouldn't "let get heard". Its that they didn't discuss the issues as much as they could have. Secondly, your quoting from the dissent. That is, a MINORITY of the justices. How exactly did you equate a minority of the justices to "almost all"?

As for your weird speculation about how I would be ok with open and obvious discrimination against myself, what in hell would lead you to such a stupid, obviously wrong, and moronic belief?

 

[Nik]

Case was a slam dunk.

Glad to see they got it right.

Yes, what's kind of scary is that four justices voted against the firefighters. If you ever had a perfect set of facts showing reverse discrimination, this case was it. This one was a "gimme"... there was nothing hard about it. If you couldn't rule for the firefighters, you proved that you don't believe whites are entitled to equal justice in America.

I tell ya what, campers: America's turning into a racial warfare zone. The only group that hasn't yet gotten the message is whites. But slowly, this is changing.

Take a lesson from Frank Ricci, white man. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains of political correctness. What are you afraid of? That they won't hire you? LOOK! THEY ALREADY WON'T! That you'll lose the presidency? GUESS WHAT! That you can't get nominated to the SCOTUS? GUESS WHAT AGAIN!

White man, you are marked for death in Obamamerica. They don't want you as part of this new club. They want you and your race dead. Wake the fuck up, please.

I think I've been knowing the truth of this since the comments started flowing just previous to and right after the election. Yep! "We shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men, or to men who are trained to do the work." that was sorta a give a way!

Who said we shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men?

 

[Nik]

Isn't one of the qualifiers for being selected a SC justice a measure of how many times the SCOTUS has overturned one of your rulings?? Is this the 4th or the 5th for el Hispanic contender???

Its really not one of the qualifiers.

Its the 4th or 5th out of....how many opinions again? Bet you didn't look up that number, did you?

 

[WillowTree]

Yes, what's kind of scary is that four justices voted against the firefighters. If you ever had a perfect set of facts showing reverse discrimination, this case was it. This one was a "gimme"... there was nothing hard about it. If you couldn't rule for the firefighters, you proved that you don't believe whites are entitled to equal justice in America.

I tell ya what, campers: America's turning into a racial warfare zone. The only group that hasn't yet gotten the message is whites. But slowly, this is changing.

Take a lesson from Frank Ricci, white man. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains of political correctness. What are you afraid of? That they won't hire you? LOOK! THEY ALREADY WON'T! That you'll lose the presidency? GUESS WHAT! That you can't get nominated to the SCOTUS? GUESS WHAT AGAIN!

White man, you are marked for death in Obamamerica. They don't want you as part of this new club. They want you and your race dead. Wake the fuck up, please.

I think I've been knowing the truth of this since the comments started flowing just previous to and right after the election. Yep! "We shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men, or to men who are trained to do the work." that was sorta a give a way!

Who said we shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men?

some congresscritter in committee I don't remember his name. A whole discussion or two was posted about it right after the election..on this board.. Search!

 

[Nik]

I think I've been knowing the truth of this since the comments started flowing just previous to and right after the election. Yep! "We shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men, or to men who are trained to do the work." that was sorta a give a way!

Who said we shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men?

some congresscritter in committee I don't remember his name. A whole discussion or two was posted about it right after the election..on this board.. Search!

You made the claim, you back it up. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

 

[WillowTree]

Who said we shouldn't give stimulus jobs to white men?

some congresscritter in committee I don't remember his name. A whole discussion or two was posted about it right after the election..on this board.. Search!

You made the claim, you back it up. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

Don't! I don't give a shit. The people who were here then know exactly what I'm talking about..

 

[Coyote]

So basically the court ruled that the city doesn't have to follow the law as written.

Strange ruling, imo.

I think in this case the law was ambiguous - both decisions were "accurate" interpretations of the law. I'm sure this will lead to yet another baseless tearing down of Sotamayor as a racist.

The law itself should have been challenged.

 

[Nik]

some congresscritter in committee I don't remember his name. A whole discussion or two was posted about it right after the election..on this board.. Search!

You made the claim, you back it up. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

Don't! I don't give a shit. The people who were here then know exactly what I'm talking about..

Sure they do, liar.

 

[WillowTree]

You made the claim, you back it up. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

Don't! I don't give a shit. The people who were here then know exactly what I'm talking about..

Sure they do, liar.

Wink.. smile and nod!

 

[Meister]

Well you think incorrectly. Try reading the opinion.

And almost all of the justices had "high brows" on the way the lower court refused to even let get heard? Care to cite that?

Perhaps the District Court could have been more expansive in its discussion of these issues, but its conclusions appear entirely consistent with the record before it.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/07-1428.pdf Page 38

Hey Nik, I have an idea where this won't happen again, you would be on board with it.
When the test comes up again, just say "Whites need not apply." That would cover it for you.

First off, Sotomayor isn't on the district court, and it wasn't about that they wouldn't "let get heard". Its that they didn't discuss the issues as much as they could have. Secondly, your quoting from the dissent. That is, a MINORITY of the justices. How exactly did you equate a minority of the justices to "almost all"?

As for your weird speculation about how I would be ok with open and obvious discrimination against myself, what in hell would lead you to such a stupid, obviously wrong, and moronic belief?

I did the research on the dissent votes to prove my point with you. I thouight you were intelligent enough to connect the dots with the ones who voted for the firefighters. My mistake (mental note: Nickie is an idiot) it won't happen again.
Obviously wrong and moronic belief? Where I grew up the people who got the highest score were the ones who got the jobs first....despite race. In your world it seems more like "affirmative action"....something that even Martin Luther King was against. Who's the moron, Nickie????

 

[Nik]

Perhaps the District Court could have been more expansive in its discussion of these issues, but its conclusions appear entirely consistent with the record before it.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/07-1428.pdf Page 38

Hey Nik, I have an idea where this won't happen again, you would be on board with it.
When the test comes up again, just say "Whites need not apply." That would cover it for you.

First off, Sotomayor isn't on the district court, and it wasn't about that they wouldn't "let get heard". Its that they didn't discuss the issues as much as they could have. Secondly, your quoting from the dissent. That is, a MINORITY of the justices. How exactly did you equate a minority of the justices to "almost all"?

As for your weird speculation about how I would be ok with open and obvious discrimination against myself, what in hell would lead you to such a stupid, obviously wrong, and moronic belief?

I did the research on the dissent votes to prove my point with you. I thouight you were intelligent enough to connect the dots with the ones who voted for the firefighters. My mistake (mental note: Nickie is an idiot) it won't happen again.
Obviously wrong and moronic belief? Where I grew up the people who got the highest score were the ones who go the jobs first....despite race. In your world it seems more like "affirmative action"....something that even Martin Luther King was against. Who's the moron, Nickie????

You made a specific point about the lower courts decision and the expansiveness of it. Voting for, or against, the lower court has absolutely nothing to do with the expansiveness of it. You flat out lied, and now you are trying to backtrack from it.

You obviously don't know the facts of the case. It had nothing to do with affirmative action.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Umm, you should prolly. And feel free to discount them the fastest growing demographic in the US

so you believe that unjust discrimination should be allowed to coddle to latinos simply because they are growing demographic?

Nope. Try to avoid leading questions in the future, eh?

Not a leading question at all. You're the one implying that I should take into consideration the feelings of a particular ethnic group because they are a growing demographic.

The decision is just even if the latinos and blacks don't think so. Isn't that how the courts are supposed to rule; with no consideration but the constitutionality of the law?

So again, fuck them if they don't like the decision. It was right period.

 

[Nik]

so you believe that unjust discrimination should be allowed to coddle to latinos simply because they are growing demographic?

Nope. Try to avoid leading questions in the future, eh?

Not a leading question at all. You're the one implying that I should take into consideration the feelings of a particular ethnic group because they are a growing demographic.

Taking the feelings of Latinos into account is just a wee bit different than allowing "unjust discrimination" so as to "coddle Latinos".

The decision is just even if the latinos and blacks don't think so. Isn't that how the courts are supposed to rule; with no consideration but the constitutionality of the law?

So again, fuck them if they don't like the decision. It was right period.

The decision was just?

Did you even read the opinion?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope. Try to avoid leading questions in the future, eh?

Not a leading question at all. You're the one implying that I should take into consideration the feelings of a particular ethnic group because they are a growing demographic.

Taking the feelings of Latinos into account is just a wee bit different than allowing "unjust discrimination" so as to "coddle Latinos".

The decision is just even if the latinos and blacks don't think so. Isn't that how the courts are supposed to rule; with no consideration but the constitutionality of the law?

So again, fuck them if they don't like the decision. It was right period.

The decision was just?

Did you even read the opinion?

yes,

you assume a lot don't you?

 

[Coyote]

Case was a slam dunk.

Glad to see they got it right.

Yes, what's kind of scary is that four justices voted against the firefighters. If you ever had a perfect set of facts showing reverse discrimination, this case was it. This one was a "gimme"... there was nothing hard about it. If you couldn't rule for the firefighters, you proved that you don't believe whites are entitled to equal justice in America.

I tell ya what, campers: America's turning into a racial warfare zone. The only group that hasn't yet gotten the message is whites. But slowly, this is changing.

Take a lesson from Frank Ricci, white man. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains of political correctness. What are you afraid of? That they won't hire you? LOOK! THEY ALREADY WON'T! That you'll lose the presidency? GUESS WHAT! That you can't get nominated to the SCOTUS? GUESS WHAT AGAIN!

White man, you are marked for death in Obamamerica. They don't want you as part of this new club. They want you and your race dead. Wake the fuck up, please.

It has nothing to do with political correctness or racism but how the law reads which leads to two different, correct conclusions - and decisions can only be made on the basis of law.

There is nothing scary about the judges dissenting because the law itself is complicated leading to differing conclusions.

The only thing that is obvious in the case is that it was not slam-dunk.

 

[Nik]

Not a leading question at all. You're the one implying that I should take into consideration the feelings of a particular ethnic group because they are a growing demographic.

Taking the feelings of Latinos into account is just a wee bit different than allowing "unjust discrimination" so as to "coddle Latinos".

The decision is just even if the latinos and blacks don't think so. Isn't that how the courts are supposed to rule; with no consideration but the constitutionality of the law?

So again, fuck them if they don't like the decision. It was right period.

The decision was just?

Did you even read the opinion?

yes,

you assume a lot don't you?

No, I don't. What about me asking a question makes you think I assume a lot?