Wash. Times falsely claims Sotomayor "assert[ed] that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races"
SUMMARY: The Washington Times claimed that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "assert[ed]" in three speeches "that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races." In fact, Sotomayor made no such claim.
In a July 8 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "assert[ed]" in three speeches "that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races" and suggested her comments should disqualify her from serving on the Court. In fact, as the quote the Times provided clearly demonstrates, Sotomayor made no such claim. Rather, in a 2001 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, a 2002 speech at Princeton University, and a 2003 speech at Seton Hall University, Sotomayor repeated variations of the following statement: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague [federal district] Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
From Sotomayor's Berkeley speech:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 who hasn't lived that life.
From Sotomayor's Seton Hall speech:
In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Robert Carter and Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others who were involved in the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences -- a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum -- our gender and national origins make and will make a difference in our judging.
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Professor Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of "wise." Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.
From Sotomayor's Princeton speech:
In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women.
I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others of the then-NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins make and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
From the July 8 Washington Times editorial:
In the Berkeley speech, a 2003 speech at Seton Hall University and a 2002 address at Princeton University, Judge Sotomayor said this: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague [federal district] Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
In both the Princeton speech and the Seton Hall speech, she repeated another line, nearly verbatim, from the Berkeley address: "My experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge."
The first statement is the more abhorrent. In any other circumstance, any person who asserts that there are "inherent physiological" differences between the races -- especially when discussing mental abilities -- is automatically shunned from polite society and sometimes fired. If it is a fireable offense for sports and entertainment figures -- such as the late Los Angeles Dodger executive Al Campanis and the late oddsmaker Jimmy the Greek -- to assert that the races have inherent differences, then why is it OK for a judge to make such a bald assertion?
Judge Sotomayor, unlike Jimmy the Greek, took an oath to administer the law impartially. Her offense, therefore, is more serious.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "inherent physiological ... difference" line -- expressing a belief that Judge Sotomayor said she does not "abhor" or "discount" -- is an assertion one would have expected to hear more from 1960s race-baiters like George Wallace than from somebody nominated for the Supreme Court.

















You obsess over the one mention of race, and it's one that doesn't even actually MENTION race, as part of a larger statement, and yet you sya WE and SHE are the ones obssessed about race?!
You are absurd.
That one little word makes a world of difference.
And rightON's an idiot if he thinks it does. It' doesn't. Not even close. This is even "up is down" this is more like "up is fruit." It's utter nonsense. (But then... what should we expect? Learned discourse?)
Now who's obsessing?
1. the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes.
2. the organic processes or functions in an organism or in any of its parts.
Didn't she just acknowledge that people do function different, have cultural differences, or are born of different experiences? Is it so radical that this has an effect on the way we make decisions. To say we have inherent pysiological differences (which we do) is not the same as saying that races have inherent differences such as Hispanics being prone to laziness or, as Thomas Jefferson observed, that African-Americans sweat more and smell worse. The problem with the right is that they can't process complex arguments without short circuiting.
Let's confine ourselves completely to her judicial record, and reading her legal opinions from cases she has presided over. We'll decide her ability as a judge based on her actions as a judge. Fair enough?
Because this isnt a POLITICAL SITE. This thread is about the totally unsupportable claim by the Washington Post.
You are correct about that. A judge should be able to set all of that aside and make a fair, rational, Legal decision!!
YOU guys are the one obsessed with race - at least as far abeing paranoid about racial discrimination goes. I hear you guys cry about that more that the minorities do! Listen to AM talk radio for an hour, on ANY given day, and you'll hear it! Jessie Jackson only claims racial discrimination about once or twice a month or so. You people do it EVERY DAMNED DAY.
And, as I said below, if you really think you're losing something over this, then you have something you probably shouldn't.
"The fact is that liberals are obsessed with race, they view everything through the prism of race. And when they get called on it, like Sotomayor is here, they go nuts."
You're lying through your teeth. Again. You're claiming she said something she didn't (look up the word "or" in the dictionary) and you're projecting your own
obsession with race onto liberals. Your own racism is shining through and you're to ashamed to admit it. Disgusting.
But I decided to leave it out, you, make me wish I hadn't. Thanks for being on cue.
Actually, I was going to add this to my original post here, "The fact is that liberals are obsessed with race, they view everything through the prism of race, and call anyone who isn't a racist. And when they get called on it, like Sotomayor is here, they go nuts."
Again, you are correct. The fav game of left, and many here, is to tag anyone who does not totally agree with them as a racist. It is sad, but all to common.
I think you've got the Washington Times (and much of the right-wing) pegged. Methinks they doth protest too much.
It is clear Sotomayor believes that "identity" is the key factor determining judicial decisions rather than interpreting the law within the context of the original intent.
Taking this argument to it's natural conclusion you see she feels she is not constrained by the intent of the law but can, under the pretext of gender and national origin, judge any issue through the prism of her gender and origin.
That is clearly seen in Ricci v New Haven when she joined the other judges in supporting overt racial discrimination against white males.
Wow. How frikcin' radical. Not like there isn't any historical precident for THAT, huh?
You people are fools. If the interpretation of the law were left solely up to white men, women still wouldn't have the vote, gays would still be arrested, merely for being gay and blacks and whites wouldn't be allowed to marry. (Etc, ect...)
But maybe that's the world you want. I mean... Seperate water fountains means shorter lines for everyone, no?
But: WHY?
Why it it any less scary for than it would be for a black/latino/asian/jew/muslin/gay/woman/etc... to be facing a white male christian judge with a long history of interpreting the law to always favor white male christians?
It's call diversity dude. And it's helps solve these kinds of problems. If you really think you're losing something over this, then you have something you probably shouldn't.
And for you to assume that a white male Christian judge favors white male Christians is a baseless and ridiculous assumption. I expect their professional duties to be just that, irrespective of race.
You probably have some delusional fantasy that Sotomayor will give citizenship to all the illegal immigrants and force everyone to learn the spanish language.
As a former judge (of wet t-shirt contests, now retired), I can say for a fact that having a broad perspective is important in reaching wise decisions.
Why would you retire? Is there a good pension?
But again, to you, "fair" means: anything you agree with.
You really don't even know how to be principlaed, do you?
As for your lack of principles, it's very simple: Show me how you risk anything by having your position. I'm inviting the opinions of people who don't share my background. Thus they will probably not agree with everything I say or believe. So I'm risking something, as a white mail, to believe in the inherent goodness of a diverse opinion. Show me what YOU risk, when you speak of fairness, but only as long as everyone agrees with the historic, white-male POV. Unless you're black you're not risking anything by having that "principal." It's just self interest. Nothing profound about it.
Prove me wrong.
Otherwise, it doesn't even make sense to those who agree with me. I can argue with the best of them, but I can't type (or proofread) for $#!t.
That's why jurisprudence is taught and studied, and why why judges are tasked with a hermeneutic task when examining and applying the law.
It's particularly important given that you seem unable to parse a simple sentence.
And no, diversity does not mean that you have a different set of judicial standards for different races. That's a, absrud distrotion, and either you KNOW that, or your an idiot. Diveristy plays a role in making sure that you have more than just "all-white-christian-male" opinions being heard when interpreting the law, and that diveristy of opinion will, in the long run, end in a more fair, and CONSISTANT, system of justice for ALL involved.
Again, if you think you're losing something here, then it's something you shouldn't have.
Also:
"I am not opposed at all to a diverse court, but I am opposed to decisions made where that diversity influences fair rulings."
So basically... anything that benefits white-christian-males: FAIR.
Who the hell are YOU to say what's fair?! That's why we have courts! And every post you've made in every single thread concerning Sotomayor reveals that the only thing you think is "fair" is a legislature and judiciary that writes and interprets laws that benefit the white-christian-male. You are ruled by fear dude, as most conservtaive are, and it's patently obvious to all liberals who read and listen to you and your lot. If you don't have all the cards, and the ability to deal them face up, and take any back any that you didn't want dealt, you say it's UNFAIR.
Between you and me, I'M the only ome taking a PRINCIPLED position. I'm a white-male, yet I'm calling for more diverse opinions. That may result in [something] not being ruled "my way" at some point, but it's the only real way things can be FAIR, for EVERYONE. (You see, to be principled, you have to go beyond mere self-interest. You should try it sometime.) You seem more concerned with things not going YOUR way than with anything being FAIR.
Again: Tell me what you are losing here that you have any right to have in the first place.
Oh, and your "again" is so asinine it doesn't deserve a response. Keep reading it again and again and you may figure it out.
And undeniable that it's a ridiculous argument.
And undeniable that it's strictly a derailing technique to distract from the topic at hand - that she didn't say anything about race.
But Tommy/JamesB/rightON sure is good at derailing. I hope the job pays well, because he's going to hell in a handbasket when it's over and done with, based upon his deceitful behavior here on Earth.
Your ignorance of history and the Constitution is warped by your political outlook. You should know better.
Women gained the right to vote through the adoption of the 19th amendment. If you'll look back, it was passed through the votes of Christian, white, men.
The rest of your rant about gays being arrested is true of Islamofascist countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, but is just flat out wrong here in the United States.
White men, (and women,) fought for desegregation. Most of them were Republicans.... (think Lincoln...)
You are simply showing you are completely biased and prejudiced against white men and perfectly represent the same sort of thinking that Sotomayor has repeated through her rulings and her speeches over the years.
The difference is she says she will judge based on those differences. The prejudicial statements she made and the decision in Ricci v New Haven shows her biases. Not a good thing for a SC Justice to admit.
3 other judges voted with her on Ricci. Are they biased too?
You are reading WAY too much into the Ricci decision. In fact, I bet you don't even know what was decided in that case.
Liberals think they can write the rules.
If you still feel like playing along, instead just cite the appropriate Heritage Foundation footnote to avoid 37 ad hominem posts.
pun
Dictionary.com:
The same would seem to apply to "question". I've heard the phrase before, also.
Pretty long thread, RiteArm is still flogging away at the bottom of it
Missing from the above quotes from Judge Sotomayor is the fact that she was speaking about specific types of cases. To admit that people have difference perspectives, or to point out that one's life experiences color one's opinions and views, is obvious. That's what Judge Roberts spoke about at his confirmation hearing, BTW...
People have many different perspectives based on their life's experience that are not easily visible by their race or gender. None of it should enter into professional rulings or decisions, period. Leave it at the door, that is their job.
I have not read about the gay bar incident.
I agree with you about people having different perspectives. However I disagree with Sotomayor that those perspectives should influence their judicial decisions at the SC level.
Yes, women should be thankful for the benevolence of the White Christian male. It's not like they had to fight for it.
Why is it that those such as AA, who are never right, constantly accuse others (who get their facts straight and support their arguments with evidence) of being wrong? Is projection that pleasurable that they become addicted to it?
You've just posted another example of the faulty liberal logic that pervades so many on your side who post. I guess you are trying to one up Nice's silly rant.
You talk in generalities, making outlandish statements, and offer no supporting evidence.
It is not surprising that you try to defend someone who would write above quote. But why you would want to is beyond me. I have to laugh that use this as an example of those on your side getting their facts straight and supporting their arguments with evidence. Perhaps you can point out supporting facts and/or the evidence in this instance? Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.
Of course one's ignorance of history can be warped by their political outlook. Rather than look at actual history, Nice simply reverts back to silly liberal/progressive talking points in what is simply an ignorant and liberally warped rant.
Please list those facts.
Now that's sad.
And it wasn't like these rights (gender and racial equaity) were just given away freely. Wars were fought. People died. (People were still dying for these right 100 years later!) They were ruled against in court MANY times before prevailing. So this idea that racial and gender (and religious) bias hasn't played a role AGAINST social progress is absolutley absurd. If women were involved from the start, they never would have gone WITHOUT the vote! If blacks had been consulted when the laws were frist drawn up, we would never have HAD slavery (or the civil war!) So going back to the founding of this conutry supports MY argument far more than yours: It replete with examples of how diversity and a broader consideration of all those involved could have PREVENTED soem of the travesties that occured over the centuries.
You want me to think about LINCOLN? I do. YOU should try to square Dred Scot with your idea of the "fairness" that'sbeen handed down (historically) by the all-white-christian-male judiciary. You also might want to remind some of your modern-day Republicans to think a little about Lincoln, with a second course in Teddy Roosevelt and just a brief refresher on Dwight Eisenhower. You and they are the ones that have forgotten. Not me.
You are veering even further off course.
I never said that there wasn't race or gender bias so your
is a straw man argument.
Why you are making up historical scenarios I do not know, but your post is not making any sense to me. You started off making outlandish statements and you are continuing to do so. I think you need a beer. :-)
1) We had slavery. (Do you deny it?)
1a) We had anti-miscengeny laws throug the 1960's. (Do you deny it?)
2) Women lacked sufferage until 1920. (Do you deny it?)
3) Blue Laws, on the books in some states through the 1990's, resulted in gays getting arrested, and charged with nothing other than "sodomy." (You DO deny this, but the facts are simply not on your side. It happened, and you can look it up.)
WHITE-CHRISTIAN-MEN in the legislatures wrote the laws that created these, and WHITE-CHRISTIAN-MEN in the judiciray upheld them for centuries. ALL THIS IS FACT. YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. WHAT ARE YOU DENYING HERE?!
By the time these laws were overturned, (by exceptional, not typical, WHITE-CHIRSTIAN-MALES) wars had been fought and more people had died outside over those wars (up to 100 years later, in the case of civil rights: Martin Luther King, Malcolm X., Metger Evers) AGAIN: These are all facts. LOOK. IT. UP.
NOW. Unless you think that women having the vote is a bad thing, or that segregation was a good thing, how do you look at these FACTUAL HISTORIC EXAMPLES and not come the the realization that diversity, which could have fixed or prevented all of these had it been in vogue at the time, is an inherently good thing?
There's nothing "silly" (or for that matter non-factual) about any of this. You just want to keep drinkin' the RW kool-aid that diversity is a code word for anti-white racism. And since you can't make a sensible argument, without revealing this to be true, you say I'm making stuff up and being silly. No - I'm using FACTS. You're the one being "silly."
Typical con tactic - laugh in the face of facts.
However in your post you did not cite them and they do not support your silly contention if left up to white men, women would not have the vote, gays would still be arrested, and blacks and whites would not be allowed to marry.
These are not facts but simply scenarios made up in your liberal imagination. The fact is... none of those "facts" are still in play and white Christian men had a lot to do with getting rid of them.
(Does anyone ELSE see this black-and-white thinker as just being allergic to nuance here? Not to mention logic?)
Basically, AA has concluded that since:
600 WCM's wrote and upheld aborhant laws, that were unfair to any non-WCM...
and 1 WCM eventally overturned these laws...
therefore WCM's, as a group, are fair and can be trusted to look out for the good of all.
Yeah.
And somehow I was proving that (ludicrous) 'point' for him...
Dude, you need medication.
Yeah... you never heard of Blue Laws, huh? Anti-Sodomy laws that were only stuck down by the SC in the late 1990's? How about the Stonewall uprising? Mr. Frisch has done several nice writeups about that. Try reading one or two. It is not "flat-out wrong." It is a matter of verifiable, historical public record. It happened. A lot. HERE.
Do you never tire of being proven wrong?
If nothing else, you've got to stand shocked and in awe of their mental endurance. These guys NEVER seem to tire of being proven wrong!
that said, trying to claim Civil Rights for the Republican party is laughable, especially given the crucial role played by Democrats and the Democratic President at the time. Southern Democrats who opposed it en mass are now Republicans, and the Republican Party as a whole did not have the record of defending Civil rights or leading on it as a national issue. MLK,jr. was a Republican, though. That's true.
The Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments, the 19th Amendment as well as all Civil Rights legislations were passed by a majority of white males.
And as you might remember, blacks (as well as "wise latinas") voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage in California. (You might also remember at the time that some gays were quite fond of violence against anyone who disagreed with them. Probably would have used fire hoses if they had any at their disposal.)
If you want me to blow any more of your arguments out of the water, meet me in a fortnight at the Kremlin on the Potomac...
Since we're back on the topic of the SCOTUS, were you able to find any other decisions of the SCOTUS that were not to be used as precedent as you asserted isn't uncommon in this thread (even though you "forgot" you made it):
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010029
Brabantio (May 01, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
Bush vs. Gore stated that the decision shouldn't be used as precedent. If there was a sound basis for the ruling, then there shouldn't be any problem with using the same reasoning in the future. The only way it makes sense is if they knew they were making a purely political decision and they didn't want to justify the same sort of decision benefitting a Democrat at any point in the future.
Reply Report Abuse
by anotheramerican (May 01, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
Brab,
I do believe the Court rules this way fairly regurlarly.
I know the last time I brought this up, you didn't remember the exchange. Would you please spend a few minutes and find a case in the last 50 years that the SCOTUS said was not to be used for precedent? If you can't, would you agree that they went with politics over legal reasoning?
I understand what Sotomayor and all the liberals have said about citing precedent. What you and all the rest forget is that sometimes previous precedents are simply wrong. Look at the Dred Scott decision.
My belief, as you cited above, was but a minor point in a long discussion. A quick google search shows There are instances at the Circuit Court Level and Appeals level where the rulings are not to be cited as precedent. However if your point is that there are no other SC decisions with the caveat that the particular decision should not be used as precedent, I'll concede.
What I don't concede is that it is politics over legal reasoning as you have suggested. As we both know, the SC does not have to take into account precedent although it does in most cases. In Bush v Gore the SC is simply saying that in the matter of a Presidential election, that the next case should be judged on it's own merits, not the precedent set by Bush v Gore. That simply takes the politics out of it and leaves a future ruling up to the facts of that particular case.
In the case of Ricci v New Haven, it is evident that previous rulings, (i.e., the judicial construct of "disparate impact",) have created confusion into resolving discrimination lawsuits. Yes, Sotomayor and the libs can argue that they are simply following precedent in disparate impact, but they are ignoring the disparate treatment that resulted in discrimination against those white firefighters. Siding on the "disparate impact" side of the coin puts Sotomayor and like minded judges in the topsy turvey world of liberal thought where obvious discrimination against whites are in fact defended as anti-discrimination. In this case, as with practially all other liberal views, there comes a point when the liberal viewpoint is flipped and does the exact opposite of it's intended purpose.
I realize that New Haven was being intimidated by black activists and decided to discriminate against the white firefighters in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. However in doing so, they discriminated. It's that simple.
Nobody has proven that the black firefighters who took the test were discriminated against in any way by the test. It was objective. Others simply studied better and got the higher test scores.
The illogic of disparate impact can be seen if you reverse the color of those who got the higher scores with those that didn't. You would be arguing, rightfully so, that the blacks who scored higher were being discriminated against if they were denied their civil service promotion. So I do not agree with Ginsburg. What is interesting is that Ginsburg and the rest, even if they did not agree with the majority, found fault with Sotomayor's and the 2nd Ct. of Appeals summary judgement.
The city did attempt to add new criteria. Originally, the criteria for promotion was based on the tests that were taken. When the results came in, they decided that the criteria for promotion could be based on this test only so long as whites were not overrepresented. They added new criteria for who gets promoted after the test already had been given. Clearly this new quota-based criteria puts whites at a disadvantage. The city declined to certify the tests because too many whites qualified for the open positions.
And do you think that removing an advantage is the same thing as creating a disadvantage?
Yes. They shouldn't be so willing to screw over the test-takers who studied and performed well simply because of fear of lawsuits. Your inflammatory reference to sacred white dominance is ridiculous
Aside from the statistical disparity, there is nothing in the record indicating that the test was unfair. The facts of the case, as set forth by Kennedy, reveal that the test developer went out of his way so ensure the test was race neutral. But when the results showed a disparity, the city changed the rules of the game, and added new criteria for who they determine will qualify for promotion. In addition to any test results, the city wanted Again, to ensure that those promoted, no matter how deserving, are not too white.
Not sure that I understand your last paragraph. The lower court didn't remove an "advantage" from the white firefighters. Besides the fact that no blacks scored well enough to qualify for a promotion, there is no evidence that the white's had an advantage in the test. The objective evidence establishes exactly the opposite.
I really don't think it's that outlandish. Of course it's possible that the results were just a statistical anomaly, but the low odds of that can easily lead someone to believe that the test was biased. The fact that white people did well on the test is not a basis for dismissing that concern.
My point is that you're saying that white people were put at a disadvantage. Equality is not a disadvantage, unless you believe that white people are inherently superior. I'm not saying you believe that, but your phrasing is definitely odd.
Nonetheless, it is my opinion that the city's knee-jerk reaction was to cast aside the results in order to avoid accusations of racial discrimination. The comments of the city's attorney and representatives of the mayor's office indicated to me that they wanted to avoid any such accusations from the outset. They cowed to the racially-charged atmosphere and screwed the people who qualified for promotion.
What I'm saying is that the white firefighters who qualified for promotion were disadvantaged by the decision.
I appreciate the clarification of your more general comment about the quota system putting white people at a disadvantage.
They changed the law. Congress did not intend for any institution to be sued because they were trying to follow the law.
The White firefighters may have felt discriminated against but they weren't (no one was promoted). The minorities were getting the short end of the stick.
They don't have to prove that. All they have to do is say there are better ways to test for the particular job that won't have a racial impact.
They did not find fault with the Appeals Court. That's right-wing nonsense.
Actually they can't. The Court held that the 'disparate impact" claim had no merit. That is why the city could not intentionally discriminate against the white officers. The Supreme Court put that claim to rest.
But apparently you are not tired of sophomoric and meaningless posts.
You should get some more rest.
In all fairness, you are framing the Ricci decision form the perspective of the four liberals who dissented, not the majority whose ruling became law.
From the SC decision
"All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white" p2
Also from the decision
"results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.” 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 152; see also ibid. (respondents’ “own arguments . . . show that the City’s reasons for advocating non-certification were related to the racial distribution of the results”). Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision making violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of a individual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1). p 19
While there were issues such as business necessity etc involved, race was clearly at the center of this case, and clearly the driving force behind the city's actions.
They can SAY all evidence shows but the City's motive is only open to interpretation unless they truly CAN read minds which we both know they cant. This is irrelevant to my spanking of AA. He claimed not that the CITIES decision was based on race but that Sotomayors was.
This is unsupportable. The facts of the case have been gone over enough times. The core of the issue for the COURT was did the city have a right to suspend a test they didnt think they could show a bussiness necessity for to avoid a title 7 lawsuit. NOT should the city have tossed the test just because the black guys failed.
That is different. I dont think the majority got that right either. In the end race was at the bottom of the issue but that in no way means that the court decisions were based on the race disparity rather than the precedent and the fact the City didnt think they could show a business necessity for the test and were therefore open to a Title 7 lawsuit
I will say this. You are an eyelash smarter than Tommy/right ON. I'll give you that. However, your arguments are more intellectually dishonest. So, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Every case is fit within precedent and the ideas of those justices deciding on it. With the explanation that you espouse, each political election should be judged on its own facts, and that logic was applied to each case, there would be no need for precedent in ANY case. Bush v. Gore PUTS politics into it by saying the reasoning in this decision should never be used again.
Again, I will ask you, find me ONE SCOTUS (not circuit, not any other court) that was not to be used as precedent in the last 50 years. Just one. Its not a minor point by any means, its how you explained the ruling.
If you were wrong about this point, just admit it.
What the hell? You just admitted that there was "politics" involved in making the Bush v. Gore decision. That was exactly my point to begin with, that it was partisan. And you have to be talking about the specific political considerations in that case, because any other case regarding a Presidential election would obviously involve political parties anyway.
What precedent, cited by the city and Sotomayer, stated that a statistical disparity in the test results, alone, allowed the city to violate Title VII and intentionally discriminate on the basis of race -- the fact that white test takers scored better than black test takers?
The Court notes at the very outset that discriminatory treatment in this case, against the white firefighters, was a given. The Court also notes that Title VII (not the constitution) allows discriminatory treatment, in certain circumstances, in order to avoid disparate impact. They call this benign discrimination, as opposed to pernicious, as there supposedly are some laudable intentions behind this so-called remedial, but intentional, discrimination. The case was about reconciling these two conflicting provisions of the statute. (The constitutionality of the lower court's decision was not addressed). That's the Court's job. There was no "judicial activism," which is just a nonsense phrase bandied around by the losing party in every supreme court case.
It looks like you've read a decent amount of material regarding this case, as have I. So you know the painstaking process that was involved in developing the test. If not, just read Kennedy's unrefuted factual recitation. The city was completely satisfied that the test questions were being developed in an objective manner, and concerned matters relevant to firefighting, UNTIL it received the results showing the statistical disparity. The facts reveal that the test developer took great pains to make the test race-neutral and relevant to firefighting. Recall that when the developer sought information from firefighters, for guidance in coming up with relevant questions, it oversampled minorities.
But when the results came in, counsel for the city stated, specifically, that the test could be discarded based SOLELY on the statistical disparity, in order to avoid lawsuits. Pretty gutless.
Of course the firefighters who scored well challenged this blatant misrepresentation of the law, and the city conducted the hearings, at which the racist slime pastor (and his cohorts) injected race-politics into the matter. (Recall that his one disciple called "Klansmen" the firefighters who wanted the test certified.) Putting aside this slime, the strongest witness who testified on the city's behalf was the test developer's direct competitor. And even this guy said the results should be certified.
What I'm not seeing here is anything to suggest that the exact same thing wouldn't have happened if there was some other imbalance in results. In other words, there's nothing to say that the intent was to discriminate against white people specifically as opposed to an effort to have a fair test no matter which group congregated at the top of the field.
Possibly, but in this case the group discriminated against was comprised of white people. I believe the city was wrong, but I'm not saying they were racist or anything. Nonetheless, they did choose to treat differently, and to their disadvantage, the people who qualified for promotion because they were white. Had 50% of those qualified been black, the tests would've been certified. But since they were all white, and one hispanic, the tests weren't certified. That's discriminatory treatment.
If the test truly was designed to give whites and advantage, or was unrelated to firefighting skills, then I'm all for a disparate impact claim. But in my opinion, the facts were remarkable to the extent that they established exactly the opposite.
So the problem is that you're misusing the term "discrimination". It's discrimination to decide that a 450-pound woman isn't going to be on the cover of the next Victoria's Secret catalog. It's not unfair, though. If they were to be consistent and hold to the same principle that if black people were all clustered up at the top of the list, then they would scrap the test, then "intentional discrimination" is meaningless. That phrase is not consistent with a good faith effort to be fair. Nobody was discriminated against specifically because of skin color.
If the same test were given, and only black people qualified for promotion, my analysis would be the same. That is, if the test were discarded simply because not enough white people scored well, then I'd say the black firefighter who scored well are victims of race-based discrimination.
Every law, regulations or whatever, discriminates between groups of people, so your example doesn't add much. It's discriminatory policies based on race that are relevant . ..
An effort to be fair is not discriminating "on the basis of race". It's on the basis of results. The distinction is that it's not about any hostility towards a specific race. So "intentional discrimination" is meaningless as you're using it because the intent is not to discriminate. This is why the Victoria's Secret example was made. There's no lack of good faith involved here. Your phrasing equates an act of racism with an act of racial equality.
In the instant case, the city intentionally discriminated, on the basis of race, against the white firefighters who qualified for promotion. As I noted before, had a proportion of the discrimination victims been black, they could have been promoted.
Moreover, you seem to equate statistical racial equality with fairness. In my view, although there obviously was a statistical racial disparity in this case, the Sup. Court's decision was entirely fair to all the parties.
(Sound of Solon banging his head against the wall)
Nice try, but AA and Tommy have made up their mind about Ricci and Sotomayor. Your excellent explanations based on FACTS are lost on them.
To throw out a test when all white and one Hispanic scored highest the test because blacks did not is racial discrimination against whites. You purposely ignore that inconvenient truth. In case you missed it, the SC agrees with me.
The SC found that tossing out the tests violated Title VII , while certifying the test would not have been a violation of law because there was no "strong basis in evidence" for believing that the black firefighters would prevail on a disparate impact claim.
Yes, the minority disagreed, which is their right, and that is okay. But you state the minority view while completely ignoring the majority view. Why is that?
Your ad hominem attacks are simply boring and only show you to be slightly unhinged.
I do not dispute the SC decision but it was based on something NEW. The city NOW has to decide IF there is strong evidence the plaintiff will prvail in a suit. The Sotomayor court was only deciding if the City had a reason to AVOID a suit because they didnt think they could show a business necessity for the test. I have said over and over that I dont care which way this went. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. However your constantly claiming that the decision shows racial bias by Sotomayor is plainly ludicrous and shows clearly that you either cannot understand or are too dishonest to aknowledge the FACTS OF THE CASE.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court changed the law and then said that.
Imagine if the test given to the firefighters was all about country music trivia. I bet in that scenario the whites would score much better than the minorities. Suppose then the city decided to throw out the test because they realized that it wasn't a legitimate test of job performance and applying it would open themselves to lawsuit. Throwing out the test in that situation wouldn't be discrimination against the white firefighters who passed. Though this is an extreme example, the same principle applies to the Ricci case.
If the city then administered a test that was all about R&B and Rap trivia, then that would be discriminating against the whites.
Making the test fairer, not culturally-biased, and in tune with the actual requirements of the job is not discrimination, unless you think white firefighters have a right to be judged based on a test that may be biased in their favor.
And OT, but there was also no real issue as far as discrimination against the white FF'er goes, because nothing was actually taken away from them, and no one less qualified was promoted ahead of them. They were not demoted, and as far as them earning those promotions goes (which still doesn't mean they're entitled to them anyway!) if the city felt the process was unfair, and potentially litigious, then they were within they're rights to go back and try again... at least they were before the SCOTUS chanegd the law.
And OT, but there was also no real issue as far as discrimination against the white FF'er goes, because nothing was actually taken away from them, and no one less qualified was promoted ahead of them. They were not demoted, and as far as them earning those promotions goes (which still doesn't mean they're entitled to them anyway!) if the city felt the process was unfair, and potentially litigious, then they were within they're rights to go back and try again... at least they were before the SCOTUS chanegd the law.
This is the quote from the Seton Hall speech. By physiological differences, she clearly referred to the differences between men and women, not between the races.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "inherent physiological ... difference" line -- expressing a belief that Judge Sotomayor said she does not "abhor" or "discount" -- is an assertion one would have expected to hear more from 1960s race-baiters like George Wallace than from somebody nominated for the Supreme Court."
And this is what the Washington Times said when it quoted her. See the three little dots? That's an ellipsis, and it means that text has been omitted, or, cropped if you prefer. MMfA is not the one doing the spinning, here.
And as if it wasn't bad enough that they scrapped the "newest-to-oldest" viewing option, they include moderated posts in their comment tallies. So if you have a 200-post thread, you update it and it says 207, you can go through the entire flipping thread and find not one new post. They're all from newer posters hanging in moderator limbo. And you can't figure it out until you scroll through the entire thread, because you can't go in unthreaded chronological order.
I like the voting feature and the textboxes, but the old version was incredibly more convenient.
She's going to be confirmed and the balance of the court will remain the same.
The Roberts court will remain right-wing and will continue to rewrite law around issues like race such as in the Ricci case.
Roberts, Alito and Thomas acted like automatons and were heralded by conservatives as nothing more than following law & the Constitution to the letter.
But of course this is just conservatives covering up for their own religious beliefs and beliefs on race that clearly affect their decisions.
They just did a better job of hiding it from public view.
No one, including me, would want to take a chance on peoples' supposed impartiality if they could avoid it because, again, reality and history show people choosing things based on their prejudices.
Which is why it should be irrelevant, period.
I have no idea. I'd just rather take my chances with a minority judge. My brother got screwed last year [in my opinion] by a judge who happened to be White. It looked like the judge was giving deference to the prosecutor by letting the him do whatever he wanted and shutting down my brother's attorney at every turn. I thought to myself "Would this be happening if we had a minority judge?"
In a Utopian world that would happen but we don't live in that world.
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Of course you weren't.
Her problem is that she did not do as good a job as past Supreme Court nominees at hiding her feelings on her background.
That two of the best regarded Justices in the history of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of discrimination makes the need for diversity on the bench obvious.
To most of us anyway.
For example, because of their experiences as white men, Justices Holmes and Cardoza allowed sex and race discrimination to continue in our society, despite, I'm sure, their general desire for justice.
It would be helpful if Sotomayor. (or you,) would cite the rulings she says upheld sex and race discrimination.
It seems difficult to believe.
There certainly are "inherent physiological" differences - skin color as one example - which can affect a person's life experience, and probably a person's judging. Nowhere, however, did Sotomayor suggest that it has any effect at all on "mental abilities" -- that is a wholly spurious inference drawn by the WaTimes editorial board. She did not say that or imply that.