About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times falsely claims Sotomayor "assert[ed] that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races"

July 08, 2009 12:47 pm ET

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.

235 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
        9
      That is exactly the assertion she made. How can MMfA spin her comments any other way? The Times quotes her verbatim, they don't crop it or summarize it. She said it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
        5  
        you do see she was talking about GENDER and NATIONAL origins- not race, right?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
            7
          Yes, thank you. While national origin and race may be distinguished, it is quite clear what Sotomayor is referring too.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
            6  
            Yes, it is. And it's equally clear that you missed the point completely.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
                6
              Her point was quite clear. Her judicial rulings may be fine, but it's her words that mystify many.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
                6  
                Yes, as I said, it was. And I'll stand by my statement that it's equally clear that you missed her point completely.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Maybe he doesn't realize that there are physiological differences between men and women because he's likely never seen a women up-close in her birthday suit.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
                6  
                Eddie is right. You are being absurd. The claim here is that Sotomayor claimed an inherent physiological difference from race. That is ludicrous. It didnt happen. You are arguing out of stubborness and a comittment to ideological blindness. When she mentioned an inherent physiological difference it is clear she meant gender. The rest of her statement we have discussed in other thread and are irrelevant to THIS lie told by the Wash Times
                Report Abuse
      • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 08, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
        3  
        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.


        That one little word makes a world of difference.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
          6  
          Exaclty. How can anyone with two brain cells to bounce together say she's 'ASSERTING' anything about the races by listing [what she did] as one of many possible explanations for the difference between two people's judgements?! Where do they get this crap? Where does she "assert" that the "races have physiological differences"?! She doesn't come anywehere close to that!!!

          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?)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
              10
            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jlw7717595 (July 08, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
              6  
              Where did you get that observation? The Rush Limbaugh pearls of wisdom?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
                  6
                Not from Limbaugh. But do you think I expect agreement around here? Not hardly. It is an observation based on my observations.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jlw7717595 (July 08, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Oh, and I supposed Bill O'Reilly telling African Americans who they can hold up as a black idol, referring to MJ, is not being obsessed with race.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
                      4
                    I never said liberals had the exclusivity on race obsession, I just said they were.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 08, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
                      4  
                      I just said they were.
                      And you were wrong.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
                        5 1
                        And Tommy is all over any thread concerning Sotomayor and "race".

                        Now who's obsessing?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
                          1 5
                          If you ever decide to surprise me and post anything of substance, I'll be the first to congratulate you. I would say you're obsessed with Tommy.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 08, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
                            5  
                            No, we just know Tommy when we see Tommy. And we're calling a Tommy a Tommy.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                                6
                              Do you think I am bothered or not by it?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
                                5  
                                It's always about you, isn't it?
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 4:42 am ET)
                                2  
                                You know I spent ten solid minutes thinking hard and I couldnt come up with a single question in the entire universe I could care less about.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
                                1  
                                Do you think I care or not?
                                Report Abuse
              • Author by jlw7717595 (July 08, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
                4  
                Definition of Physiology:

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
                    6
                  The way you and I make decisions, perhaps. But I don't expect a judge who is entrusted with disseminating fair and impartial decisions, which is the bedrock of our judicial system, to be influenced by his or her "physiological or cultural differences".
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                    5  
                    The problem is that EVERYONE has some differences and that is what makes us all unique. If every judge could wipe out their differences (but how could they?) they would essentially NOT be human- they would be like robots, and robots have no say in our judiciary decisions (although i have heard of this company called cybernet).
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                        7
                      Of course everyone has differences, who said they didn't? The point is our judicial system is not there to celebrate those differences, it is their to intepret our laws free of those differences so everyone is treated the same, regardless of those differences. This is not hard.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                        4  
                        I don't know where you're getting this 'celebrating' but it's difficult to say on one hand everybody has differences and then not expect those nuances to effect one's decision making. Of course we'd all love interpretations free of bias, but reality is a hard thing to ignore- peoples' differences will color (no pun intended) their their thinking, reasoning, and actions to some degree.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                            5
                          Now they're nuances? And yes, I damn well expect a professional, a judge, to issue rulings and decisions before them free of any personal prejudices or influences they may have that tilt that decision into partiality or unfairness, period. That is why they are judges, that is their job, that is why they are called judges. I am not a judge for a living.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
                            3  
                            I'm not arguing judges shouldn't do their best to be impartial- I'm stating the very obvious fact that differences/nuances/prejudices will always be in people to some degree. Who you are affects how you judge things. Any number of factors can influence who you are. It's pretty simple.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
                            5  
                            Now you are turning different perspectives into unfairness and partiality. Which Sotormayor CLEARLY hasnt shown. She once found FOR a racist saying he should NOT be fired for passing out racist literature when he wasnt on the job. You can keep acting like legal decisions are math equations and there is just one right answer if you want. It isnt logical and its simpleminded but you seem comitted to it. Good luck with that.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 8:55 am ET)
                          3  
                          RightOn is one of those people who think diversity is the new racism when, in fact, colorblindness is actually the new racsim.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by The_Cat (July 08, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
                        3  
                        If I take you at your word, then let us have no more discussions about what nominated justice Sotomayor said at any speech or to any journalist or wrote in any book.

                        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?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                            5
                          Fine, but you better tell that to MMfA, they are the ones who put her speeches up for discussion.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by The_Cat (July 08, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                            3  
                            MMfA did not post Sotomayor's speeches in order to discuss her qualifications as a supreme court justice, right ON. They posted her speeches as part of a dialogue about how the content of those speeches has been twisted by the Washington Times to put words in her mouth for the purposes of justifying those who insist on calling her racist.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                            3  
                            RO

                            Because this isnt a POLITICAL SITE. This thread is about the totally unsupportable claim by the Washington Post.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 8:58 am ET)
                            2  
                            This is pathetic. MMFA is not "put[ting] her speeches up for discussion." MMFA is calling out [people like you] in the media who distort them. If YOU don't want to see her speeches on MMFA, go tell the RW media to stop distorting what she said in them!!!
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 08, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Again you fail. Why do you even bother. You're just another professional misunderstander, and your status is quicly being revealed as an amateur misunderstander.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:10 pm ET)
                      4
                    Right On

                    You are correct about that. A judge should be able to set all of that aside and make a fair, rational, Legal decision!!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 8:20 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Why in the WORLD would they have to put their personal experieneces aside to make fair, rational, legal decisions?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
                  3  
                  What you say isnt really relevant to whether the Wa Times is correct in thier claim. The physiological difference she was claiming seems clearly aimed at gender. Since gender was mentioned each time there is no possible way for them to substantiate their claim that Sotomayor was claiming a physiological difference between the races.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
              5  
              Ummm.... NO.

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by historygeek001 (July 08, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
              6  
              right ON:

              "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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
                  5
                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."

                But I decided to leave it out, you, make me wish I hadn't. Thanks for being on cue.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 08, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Actually, I was going to add this to my original post here
                  You've never made an original post here.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by historygeek001 (July 08, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
                  5  
                  I'm curious; do you actually think that you are refuting anything when say things like that, ignoring the facts (look up the word "OR"), and projecting your own racism onto others? Or maybe you have some strange, new definition of the word "racism" that means "liberals only." She didn't say what you're claiming she did, we can read it, we can follow the links, we can see the context, and you're clearly wrong and ignoring reality. Again. You're able to figure out that racisim is unjust, so you're not willing to admit to it, but your own actions prove you wrong. You take the statement and pretend it means something else, sort of like global climate change deniers pretend that their pseudoscience is actually valid, or that flat-earthers pretend that the planet isn't round. And you take the Rovian tactic of attacking where you're weakest and your opponent is strongest as if it makes sense; instead, you only reveal your own intellectual and ethical weakness. And you seem to be proud of your deliberate flagrant inaccuracies. Yet we should think you're a serious poster because...?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
                    6
                  Right on said

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 8:21 pm ET)
                    6  
                    You are lying AGAIN. It is your delusion this is some trait of the left however it is a trait of brainwashed hiveminders like YOU to lie obsessively about the left and pretty much never know what you are talking about.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (July 10, 2009 7:26 am ET)
                       
                    The fav game ... is to tag anyone who does not totally agree with them as a racist. It is sad, but all to common.
                    -POV

                    I think you've got the Washington Times (and much of the right-wing) pegged. Methinks they doth protest too much.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
              5  
              No the fact is you are obsessed with lying about liberals. Your hate based obsession with attacking liberals without even coming close to making sense is just sad
              Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 08, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
        3  
        Sorry but I disagree. She clearly does not assert that.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
        1 7
        Look at the last part of that statement, "...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
          5  
          Wow. She concedes that White people might just might tend top interpret the law differently than Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, etc... do.

          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?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
              5
            The point is if you concede that a latina women may interpret the law differently than a white male, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that a latina women or a white male may interpret the law differently for latinos or whites, male or female. And that is the scary part.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
              5  
              Well sure... if you're white.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
                  5
                So your idea of diversity is having a different set of judicial standards for different races? Incredible.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Tommy, it's not about "standards", but rather a broader perspective.

                  You probably have some delusional fantasy that Sotomayor will give citizenship to all the illegal immigrants and force everyone to learn the spanish language.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
                      5
                    Broader perspective? What the hell does that mumbo jumbo have to do with impartial and fair judicial rulings? Absurd.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Why are you so scared of Sotomayor? Is it because she's hispanic? How will she interpret the law differently?

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                          6
                        I am not scared of her at all. I just said I am not bothered by her rulings at all, just some of her statements. I expect her to be confirmed, if she is so be it. I am merely commenting on this piece by MMfA which is out to distort what she really said and soften it, falsely.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
                          3  
                          Understood. But you're the one who's conflating gender and national origin with race.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:16 pm ET)
                          3
                        Fog

                        Why would you retire? Is there a good pension?
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
                      4  
                      How can anything possibly be judged as "fair" (remember now, rulings are used as precident and can affect many other cases down the orad) if one does not consider the case from many angles, many points of view, many perspectives.

                      But again, to you, "fair" means: anything you agree with.

                      You really don't even know how to be principlaed, do you?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                          6
                        Your attempts to personalize this and accuse me of not having principles or fairness is the reason your arguments are dishonest, cheap and sleazy. You should be ashamed, but it's the only way you know how to discuss, so to you it's natural. Grow up.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
                          5  
                          You have answered a singel question. You've left every point I've made go unchalleneged. You say I've attacked you, but I've mostly just asked questions that you (apparently) can't answer. (I can only assume that if you did, you'd prove my point.) So instead you attack me. You call me (and my arguments) "cheap," "sleazy," "shameful," "dishonest" (BTW, how was I DISHONEST?! The other's are matters of opinion, which you're entitled to, but dishonesty can be demnstrated. Please show me where I've been "dishonest") among other things. For my part I called you an idiot. Exactly twice. And I did so in a conditional way (if you believe [this idiotic point] then you're an idiot.) So... I guess you're admitting it. Otherwise you might have had a counter.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Yeah... that lead should read: "You haven't answered a single question."

                            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.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                      5  
                      So broader perspective is mumbo jumbo and absurd? Have you lost your mind? Are you REALLY claiming that having a broader perspective means a court would NOT be impartial and fair? You arent even making sense.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by BCLance (July 08, 2009 7:55 pm ET)
                      4  
                      You need to read some case law if you think that there are clearly applied standards across the board and that those standards are impartial when handed down by judges who have little or no interest in racial and cultural realities.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
                  5  
                  As do I, but history has not always demonstrated that to be the case. What's more, they are interpreting laws MADE and WRITTEN (historically) by White Christain Males, for their own political and economic advantage. (I would find it "incredible" for you to deny this.) The judicial branch's role is to determine whether these laws are fair or not. If you think that an all-white-christian-male judiciary can do an impartial job of interpretaing the ocnstitutionality of laws written by all-white-christian-male politicians when these laws are challenged by a non-white-christian-male then you are (1) a white-christian-male and (2) a fool.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
                      6
                    You specifically said it was diversity, so your childish name calling can't help you out here, it was not a distortion. You just realized what a wacko assertion you made so you backpedaled. Whatever. And I am not opposed at all to a diverse court, but I am opposed to decisions made where that diversity influences fair rulings. And that can easily happen when a judge feels that their "physiological and cultural differences" play any role in those decisions. If you can't see the distinction then you're losing something.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
                      6  
                      "Backpedalling," that's rich. You distort what I said, and the very meanings of the words that I used and when I call you out on it, forcefully, you say I'm backpedalling. News flash: YOU'RE STILL DISTORTING THINGS!

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
                          6
                        You are wasting my time. Your desperate accusations and distortions are pathetic. To say I am against judicial fairness when I specifically said otherwise and backed it up only illustrates your weak position. Yes, you are obsessed with race. So go ahead and tell me how proud of yourself you are with your self-aggrandizing platitudes and pats on your own back, you look ridiculous.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                          5  
                          So... you got nothin' then?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by LuvLuLu (July 08, 2009 11:16 pm ET)
                          4  
                          Wow, this sounds so much like JamesB and Tommy that it's undeniable that it's Tommy.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
              6  
              Ah no you cant. Not if you mean that by JUST because they are latino or female. That they might SEE discrimination different because they were exposed to it then NO it isnt scary. Again. Sotomayor ruled IN FAVOR of an overt racist sending out racist literature not on the job so really I dont even see how you can CLAIM this is an issue in this case.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
              7
            Nice,
            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
                6
              Absolutely. To suggest that white males can't make fair and impartial decisions simply because they are white and male is not only idiotic and blatant prejudiced, but flies in the face of our very history.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
                4  
                To suggest that hispanic females can't make fair and impartial decisions simply because they are hispanic and female is not only idiotic and blatant(ly) prejudiced, but flies in the face of HER very history.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Hey, now- let's not use ones' own words to show flaws in their reasoning- people might just get upset!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
                    5
                  fog,
                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                    3  
                    When/where did she say that? No links to the Heritage Foundation, please.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by GlennJericho (July 09, 2009 7:38 am ET)
                        3
                      No links to the Heritage Foundation, please.


                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Disputed Zone (July 09, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
                        2  
                        In this case AA could link to anywhere he wants and it wouldn't help. What he posted is an outright, Hannity-style lie.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Liberals think they can write the rules.
                        Conservatives think they cab break the rules.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                    4  
                    No it doesnt but your posts shows you STILL dont understand the issues in Ricci. Also she said she expected those differences to bring about a better understanding or HOPEFULLY BETTER RULINGS on gender and race discrimination issues. Ya got nothin. This is why you keep trying to frame this discussion dishonestly.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
                    3  
                    No they dont. You assetion is ludicrous. You still dont understand Ricci. Apparantly you never will.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 08, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
                6  
                I don't trust half of the Justices on SCOTUS to make judgments about my right to choose, but I guess since I'm just a woman my opinion counts for zip because I could never have more insight into that issue than a man.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
                    6
                  You prove the conservative point by showing your identity and gender bias. Thanks.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Have you ever been pregnant, AA? Just wondering.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by GlennJericho (July 09, 2009 7:43 am ET)
                        2
                      A pregnant question!

                      pun
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Actually, questions are poignant. Pauses are pregnant. Why don't you try taking a long, pregnant pause before posting any more stupidity?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
                          1  
                          I'm not so sure on that one.

                          Dictionary.com:
                          4.full of meaning; highly significant: a pregnant utterance.


                          The same would seem to apply to "question". I've heard the phrase before, also.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                    4  
                    conservative point
                    There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. I'm still waiting for a single non-Jeter conservative to make an actual point on this site and I've been skulking about since 2004.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 08, 2009 11:29 pm ET)
                      2  
                      TheJBomb is good and he says consrvative.
                      Pretty long thread, RiteArm is still flogging away at the bottom of it
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 08, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                    3  
                    You just keep throwing up strawmen. As you and your comrade have stated, we all are not Judges, so my identity and bias are just that, mine. You're right, I don't believe that any man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I don't believe that is gender bias, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:21 pm ET)
                        5
                      I would agree with you, until the woman decides to be with a man and get pregnant. At that point, she has made her choices.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 8:38 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Ever been pregnant, POV?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
                        1  
                        And she still has many choices she can make, and the right to make them.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by newzhound (July 08, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
              5  
              anotheramerican: Did you read about the recent invasion of a gay bar in Texas by the alcohol control authorities? From the news accounts I read, it is quite clear the straight bar patrons were treated quite differently in another raid than the gay folks.

              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...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
                  8
                Everyone, every living breathing human being has different experiences and backgrounds, culturally and otherwise. What if you had two white male judges, one had very limited exposure to blacks and their culture because of where he was raised and his environment, and he had a racist father who was a major influence in his life. And the other white male had the exact opposite experiences, positive and diverse. Are you going to cut the one with the racist influences and the limited exposure some slack because of his personal experiences? Of course not. They are and should be irrelevant to his rulings, and if they are not he should not be a judge. Just as the other white male's experience as well.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                  3  
                  How do you determine if it did or not?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Again you pretend that legal decisions are math equations with only one right answer when often they are a balancing act about which rights are being MORE violated. The Ricci case was a perfect example. There isnt any question that in the past exams WERE used to assure that white men were getting the promotions. A civil righst law was established saying such tests must show a business necesity to stop that. In Ricci the racial outcome gave the city pause. The real dispute was is there a business necessity. A clear dispute about THAT ISSUE was the core of the case. The city didnt think they could show there was one. So they tossed the test. Whites were hurt by being denied a promotion they thought they had earned. IS there a necesity to keep these tests being used to give preferential treatment to whites? Yeah. Is there a need to assure that whites are treated fairly also. Sure. So this is a balancing act. Where do you draw the line on these tests? It isnt as simple as six plus nine minus five a JUDGEMENT is called for. If it were a math equation then pretty much all SC decsions would be nine zip. This one was five four. That is why it is called JUDGEMENT not figuring out or analysis
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by BCLance (July 08, 2009 8:03 pm ET)
                  2  
                  You just don't understand the way Law works in a common law tradition, which is okay, since most Americans don't.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                  3
                Newz,
                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
                     
                  It is impossible for you to disagree with Sotomayor on that point, because she never said any such thing. Now, at least, you are showing diversity by making Latina straw women.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
              3  
              "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."


              Yes, women should be thankful for the benevolence of the White Christian male. It's not like they had to fight for it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
                  4
                You forget that a lot of Christian, white men also fought for women suffrage. As an example, Teddy Roosevelt had it as one of his planks when he ran as a Bull Moose.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Sometimes injustice is so obvious and egregious that even the oppressor is forced to change their ways. The same thing happened when Martin Luther King successfully shamed the white majority into granting civil rights to blacks.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                  4  
                  White Christian males held women, Blacks and other racial groups, gays, etc. down for a long time and each group paid with their lives to get some semblance of what Whites have always had.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:26 am ET)
                  2  
                  Yes - exceptional white-christian-males, not typical one. White-christian-males who embraced diversity as it was in that day, instead of the far more common impulse to embrace the self-serving status quo.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:26 am ET)
                  2  
                  Yes - exceptional white-christian-males, not typical one. White-christian-males who embraced diversity as it was in that day, instead of the far more common impulse to embrace the self-serving status quo.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 08, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
              5  
              Your ignorance of history and the Constitution is warped by your political outlook.
              I've never heard of ignorance being warped, but if anyone can imagine it, the most ignorant poster here can certainly conceive of it and project it upon others who actually know what they are talking about.

              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?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
                  5
                ETRW,

                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.

                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...)


                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.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Generalities regarding cons wouldn't work if there were ample examples refuting them. You and the other cons on here provide no evidence that conservatives are capable of any kind of a rational fact-based discussion. The proof is in the pudding. If you don't like the characterization, do something to change it. You can start by coming to the table with something other than talking-points and copy-and-paste editorials from far right-wing sites.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:05 am ET)
                  2  
                  And it surprises me not at all that you laugh in the face of facts and call them silly. That's all you con's ever do. You got nothin' dude. My quote contains naught but demonstable, verifyiable fact. You claim something didn't happen THAT DID. You're the silly one here. You're the one who think you caqn wave away FACTS just by saying they're false, when anyone with google/wiki access (or any knowledge of US legal history) knows they're not.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
                      1
                    NGE,

                    Please list those facts.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
                      2  
                      I did. I cited many historic examples, and you've even conceded that they ware "well known." Read onme of my longer posts. I'm not typing them out again.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
                  2  
                  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...)
                  That quote you just tried to use as an example of my posts isn't from one of my posts. I don't think it is from anyone's posts here, so I don't know why you put it up as a quote, except to create yet another straw man. Except this time, even the straw man beat your argument, and you lost to a logical fallacy.

                  Now that's sad.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                    1  
                    The quote is from NiceguyEddie's post that AA responded to above. That post by AA is what you responded to. AA specifically said that you were defending someone that would write that, not that you wrote it yourself:
                    It is not surprising that you try to defend someone who would write above quote.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
              5  
              You speak of exception, I'm speaking of (historically) the rule.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                  4
                Nice,

                You are veering even further off course.

                I never said that there wasn't race or gender bias so your
                So this idea that racial and gender (and religious) bias hasn't played a role AGAINST social progress is absolutley absurd.

                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. :-)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:19 am ET)
                  3  
                  I do need a beer, thanks. But you need a history lesson. How is anything I said not true?

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
                      3
                    You are repeating well known 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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Yes - EXCEPTIONAL white christian men. YOU seem to forget that MANY, far more TYPICAL white christian men made those laws in the first place and upheld them for centuries. It was only white Christian men who finally embraced diversity that overturned those abhorrent laws.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
                          3
                        Thanks for making my point.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
                          3  
                          Yeah... I made YOUR point...

                          (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.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Thanks for making my point.
                          Nope, God made your point, and put it squarely on the top of your head.
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
              4  
              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.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                2  
                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.
                Just for one case, look up Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick. And that was just using Google for two minutes.

                Do you never tire of being proven wrong?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 09, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Actually, those were two cases. There are many more.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
                  2  
                  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!
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by BCLance (July 08, 2009 8:00 pm ET)
              4  
              It's a historical fallacy to claim that Lincoln is the same as the Republicans of the civil rights movement. The Republican party of Lincoln was transformed at the turn of the XXth century, and bears little resemblance to the XIXth century version, That doesn't mean there weren't Republicans who supported civil rights, just that the connection to Lincoln is a specious, if beloved of modern Republicans, one.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 12:51 am ET)
                2  
                Yes lets not forget the Republican party started as a coalition of groups many nativist parties like the Know-nothings.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bluhawk7398 (July 08, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
              2
            I know it's not on the original topic, but I have to know...Do you really believe that "if interpretation of the law were left solely up to white men...." ? That is some scary thinking!! I hope it was in jest or for dramatic effect!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 12:52 am ET)
              2  
              Not really. There is NO single group that I would trust with the task of interpretation of the law.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by GlennJericho (July 09, 2009 7:11 am ET)
              2
            It seems that you are the fool.

            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...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by seahawks123 (July 09, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                 
              Those white males didn't bring about justice out of the goodness of their own hearts. They were brought there by the power of passive resistance and a shift in public attitude brought about by liberals and progressives.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
          4  
          The case was about racial bias in the TEST.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 08, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
          5  
          She and those who decided for the city cited precedent, AA. Do you think Scalia would separate his religious views from a decision on abortion?

          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?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
              4
            Fried,

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
              3  
              You're still confused. If there is a test given and no minorities pass this tests, minorities can go to court and argue "disparate treatment" (overt racism in the test) or "disparate impact" (no overt racism but a racial impact that could have been avoided). What the conservatives on the Court did was to change the law to pit them against each other and Ginsburg noted that in her opinion. She went further and said that it should be remanded to the lower Court (because they changed the law) but the conservatives on the Court decided to rule on it themselves. The minority firefighters can still go to court and argue "disparate impact" if they choose to and that's what New Haven was trying to avoid in the first place.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                  4
                The court did not change the law. The SC decision simply acknowledged the illogic of disparate impact.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                  6  
                  However in doing so, they discriminated. It's that simple.
                  No. They didn't. The only way they would have been discriminated against is if the new criteria for promotion put them as a disadvantage due to their race.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
                    4  
                    EXACTLY
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 8:40 am ET)
                      2
                    No. They didn't. The only way they would have been discriminated against is if the new criteria for promotion put them as a disadvantage due to their race.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                      2  
                      What are you basing that on? They threw out the test because the proportionality threw up a red flag and they didn't think they could prove that the test was proper. Are they really supposed to risk lawsuits because the dominance of white people is sacred or something?

                      And do you think that removing an advantage is the same thing as creating a disadvantage?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
                          2
                        Are they really supposed to risk lawsuits because the dominance of white people is sacred or something?

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
                          2  
                          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

                          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.

                          The lower court didn't remove an "advantage" from the white firefighters.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                              2
                            The statistical anomaly was worth investigating, to ensure no discrimination was at play. But let's remember that all blacks didn't fail the test, they just didn't score high enough to be promoted. Not many people did.

                            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.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                              2  
                              The question for me is about good faith. Whether they made a mistake or not is one thing, saying they discriminated is quite another.

                              I appreciate the clarification of your more general comment about the quota system putting white people at a disadvantage.
                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by seahawks123 (July 09, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
                         
                      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.
                      Wrong. They didn't toss it because too many whites qualified. They tossed it because too many minorities didn't. The white firefighters do not have the inherent right to be promoted based on a test that could be biased in their favor.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                  5  
                  The court did not change the law. The SC decision simply acknowledged the illogic of disparate impact.


                  They changed the law. Congress did not intend for any institution to be sued because they were trying to follow the law.

                  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.


                  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.

                  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.


                  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.

                  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.


                  They did not find fault with the Appeals Court. That's right-wing nonsense.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 8:42 am ET)
                  2
                The minority firefighters can still go to court and argue "disparate impact" if they choose to and that's what New Haven was trying to avoid in the first place.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (July 09, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
                     
                  All the Supreme Court said is that the city could not throw out the test because they feared a lawsuit.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
              5  
              I am tired of everyone explaining Ricci to you. At this point it is obvious you just flat dont have the intellect to understand what was at issue with Ricci
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
                  5
                Solon,

                But apparently you are not tired of sophomoric and meaningless posts.

                You should get some more rest.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Ricci has been explained to you a dozen times and you STILL misunderstand and misframe it. YOU need to get some functional braincells.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
                      3
                    Solon

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 8:40 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Actually no I am not. The majority decision also did NOT say that the appeals court decided this based on race. There is NO QUESTION this boiled down to the cities decision to avoid a lawsuit. Whether they could show a business necessity to the test. To make THEIR decision the majority added a NEW obligation to the city that they have to show strong evidence that the plaintiffs would prevail in a Title 7 lawsuit. The Appeals court just said they acted within their rights to AVOID such a suit. Again the basic dispute is whether they could show a business necessity of the test. The minority said there was good reason for the city to believe they couldnt and the majority said there was one. Neither the SC, either side, NOR the appeals court based this decision on the fact that blacks failed the test and whites didnt so AA is making false accusations against the decision FLAT OUT.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
                          3
                        But the city did make the decision based on race.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
                            2
                          well, they were nice quotes until this new and improved system for comments got a hold of them.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
                          5  
                          Your first quote was obviously just an opinion.
                          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
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                  3  
                  It wasn't sophomoric. It's stating a fact. You don't have the intellect to understand. We know that. This isn't some rash insult. It's a studious observation that becomes more and more valid with every one of your posts.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 08, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
                  5  
                  AA, you are still pretending that the Ricci case was decided based on race. It was decided based on precedent. The majority of the SC overruled it - as is their perogative. And, now I am explaining this simple process to you again.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 08, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
                4  
                I agree Solon. Once again we are stuck explaining a concept to someone who clearly is incapable of understanding it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 09, 2009 12:25 am ET)
                  2  
                  He's not incapable of understanding it, he just refuses to understand, if liberals overturn precedent that he likes, they're activists. If conservatives overturn precedent that he doesn't like, they're doing the right thing.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 09, 2009 12:23 am ET)
              2  
              Again, AA, disparate impact is the law. It was not a minor point, AA. Precedent is sometimes wrong, you're right, but if a liberal judge overturned precedent and you disagreed with it, I guarantee you would call that judge and activist. You excused the SCOTUS by saying that Bush v. Gore was not an uncommon occurrence.

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 12:36 am ET)
              2  
              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.


              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.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by pongotwistleton (July 08, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
              4
            She and those who decided for the city cited precedent, AA. Do you think Scalia would separate his religious views from a decision on abortion?

            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?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
              1  
              the fact that white test takers scored better than black test takers?
              Yes.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
              3  
              Actually NO. After the racial disparity they were challenged about whether there was a busniess necessity for the test, that is did it truly measure the ability to do the job. THAT was the Title 7 application not did they intentionally discriminate by race. The City didnt think they could show a business necessity. THAT is why they tossed the test. If they COULDNT they would be open to a lawsuit. The SC and lower court decisions were basically did the City over react or act too timidly in supporting that the test DID have a business necessity the dispute of which is the core of the case. I dont think I have heard anyone argue that the city intentionally discriminated by race except rightwingers who think the city discriminated against the whites because of their race an absolutly ludicrous proposition
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 8:18 am ET)
                1 4
                They threw out the test because not enough black firefighters qualified for promotion. Stated differently, they threw out the test because too many whites scored well enough to qualify for promotion. It WAS intentional discrimination.

                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.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Stated differently, they threw out the test because too many whites scored well enough to qualify for promotion. It WAS intentional discrimination.


                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                      2
                    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.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
                      2  
                      It WAS intentional discrimination.


                      Possibly, but in this case the group discriminated against was comprised of white people.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
                          2
                        No. You're incorrect. It's unfair to discriminate on the basis of race. In this case, the city treated people differently (discriminated) on the basis of their race. The race of the victims in this case happened to be white. If a handful of the white firefighters who qualified for promotion happened to be black, then the results would've been certified. It's a discriminatory policy based on race.

                        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 . ..
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Well, then it's discriminatory that Lindsay Lohan isn't going to be on the next cover of Ebony magazine. Is that racial enough?

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
                               
                            Intentional discrimination does not need to be "hostile." In my view, race-based quotas is a form of intentional discrimination -- it's a policy that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race. Although I disagree with them, I don't equate those who favor affirmative action with racists or hostile. I concede that they intend to do good, but simply think they're good intentions to implement race-based remedial measures unfairly come at the expense of other people. But nonetheless, they're intent is to disciminate on racial grounds.

                            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.
                            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
              2  
              This is part of Ginsburg's opinion:

              In codifying the Griggs and Albemarle instructions, Congress declared unambiguously that selection criteria operating to the disadvantage of minority group members can be retained only if justified by business necessity.5 In keeping with Congress’ design, employers who reject such criteria due to reasonable doubts about their reliability can hardly be held to have engaged in discrimination “because of” race. A reasonable endeavor to comply with the law and to ensure that qualified candidates of all races have a fair opportunity to compete is simply not what Congress meant to interdict. I would therefore hold that an employer who jettisons a selection device when its disproportionate racial impact becomes apparent does not violate Title VII’s disparate-treatment bar automatically or at all, subject to this key condition: The employer must have good cause to believe the device would not withstand examination for business necessity. Cf. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 806 (1998) (observing that it accords with “clear statutory policy” for employers “to prevent violations” and “make reasonable efforts to discharge their duty” under Title VII).

              EEOC’s interpretative guidelines are corroborative. “[B]y the enactment of title VII,” the guidelines state, “Congress did not intend to expose those who comply with the Act to charges that they are violating the very statute they are seeking to implement.” 29 CFR §1608.1(a)(2008). Recognizing EEOC’s “enforcement responsibility” under Title VII, we have previously accorded the Commission’s position respectful consideration. See, e.g., Albemarle, 422 U. S., at 431; Griggs, 401 U. S., at 434. Yet the Court today does not so much as mention EEOC’s counsel.

              Our precedents defining the contours of Title VII’s disparate-treatment prohibition further confirm the absence of any intra-statutory discord. In Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U. S. 616 (1987), we upheld a municipal employer’s voluntary affirmative action plan against a disparate-treatment challenge. Pursuant to the plan, the employer selected a woman for a road-dispatcher position, a job category traditionally regarded as “male.” A male applicant who had a slightly higher interview score brought suit under Title VII. This Court rejected his claim and approved the plan, which allowed consideration of gender as “one of numerous factors.” Id., at 638. Such consideration, we said, is “fully consistent with Title VII” because plans of that order can aid “in eliminating the vestiges of discrimination in the workplace.” Id., at 642.

              This litigation does not involve affirmative action. But if the voluntary affirmative action at issue in Johnson does not discriminate within the meaning of Title VII, neither does an employer’s reasonable effort to comply with Title VII’s disparate-impact provision by refraining from action of doubtful consistency with business necessity.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
            2  
            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)
            He's waiting for Heritage to right an article about it so he can copy-and-paste it here.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
          5  
          You are fast becoming a sad joke she says those differences may and will make a difference and you hear, through your brainwashed programming that identity is the KEY FACTOR in judging. REALLY? I know you have become nothing but a troll propagandist but that was worse than your usual weak and dishonest. THEN you take YOUR silly interpretation and take it to YOUR natural conclusion which only the most viciously brainwashed hiveminder could to she is not constrained by the law. Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing. You THEN bascially LIE about the Ricci case which we have been over a hundred times and you complete your journey of delusion. There was NOT OVERT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. The case was about whether the city had a right to toss a test they didnt think they could show a business necessity for to avoid a lawsuit under a civil rights act. There isnt any question there was a dispute about that very thing. The MOST you can really claim if you had any care about honesty is they were too timid in their interpretation since there is a CLEAR dispute about the business necessity. In the end you are trying to claim the civil rights act is racist because ending racial preferences for whites is to you somehow racial prejudice AGAINST whites.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
            5  
            **WHUMP**

            (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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
              5
            Nice rant,
            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.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
              6  
              I am tired of you COMITTMENT to not seeing facts and reality. There wasnt anymore evidence that there was racial discrimination against the whites because of the decision to avoid a lawsuit under Title 7 than there is of discrimination of blacks because they didnt pass the test. NO ONE DENIES in the past these tests HAVE been intentionally used to deny blacks promotions. Thus Title 7. The city didnt think they could show the business necessity required by title 7. The SC did NOT aggree with you that Sotomayors decision was racist or based on race.

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
              4  
              The SC found that tossing out the tests violated Title VII


              The conservatives on the Supreme Court changed the law and then said that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by seahawks123 (July 08, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
              3  
              To throw out a test when all white and one Hispanic scored highest the test because blacks did not is racial discrimination against whites
              No, it's not. You can say it a thousand times, and may have, but it still isn't true.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by LuvLuLu (July 08, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
                3  
                Crickets.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pongotwistleton (July 09, 2009 9:44 am ET)
                  2
                You're examples are irrelevant. Read the opinion. The test pertained to skills which FIREFIGHTERS had advised the test developer were relevant to their jobs. The developer oversampled minorities in their questionaires to develop test questions. Two of the three oral examiners, for that part of the examination, were minorities. Again, the test questions were developed based on factors which firefighters deemed relevant to their job. Your analogies are simply baseless.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Actually, the fairness of the test is not really the issue here. The issue was whether or not the black firefighters may have been able to make a case, and whether or not the city was right to fear a lawsuit being brought over the test. And they WERE... at least until the conservtaive activists on the SCOTUS changed 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.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Actually, the fairness of the test is not really the issue here. The issue was whether or not the black firefighters may have been able to make a case, and whether or not the city was right to fear a lawsuit being brought over the test. And they WERE... at least until the conservtaive activists on the SCOTUS changed 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.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (July 08, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
        2  
        "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."

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
        2  
        Can you read? The inherent physiological difference she was talking about was GENDER? Did you REALLY not get that?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 08, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
          3  
          Solon, I'm curious about who you are addressing here. I'm hoping it's not me, as I was pointing out to right On that Sotomayor's comments were in fact taken out of context and edited as well. As I read her remarks in full, it seems self evident that she was speaking to the physiological differences between genders as opposed to races.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
            4  
            I have to start putting identifiers in my posts. Not you obviously your posts on this issue have been exceptional. In fact this was to the very first RO post. I dont have any idea how it got this far down. My fault here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (July 08, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
              3  
              Well, thank you! And allow me to return the compliment. I've enjoyed your posts on many threads. It -does- get a little confusing at times who replies are directed to.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (July 08, 2009 8:40 pm ET)
                1 2
                MMFA needs to bring back the feature they had before the "update" which stated in each post who you were responding to!!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 12:19 am ET)
                  3  
                  I have exactly zero idea of why they got rid of that feature. You can figure out what post is responding to what by collapsing parts of the thread, but it's a major pain.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (July 08, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
      2  
      Doesn't matter. Just an opportunity for conservatives to let off more steam.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
      2  
      I do think race, gender, national origin, etc. makes a difference in the way people judge others. If I were accused of a crime the last thing I would want is an all-White jury. I just don't think I would be judged fairly.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
          2
        Juries are not professionals, they are our peers. Judges are professionals, and that is their sworn duty.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
          2  
          Which leads me to a thought I used to ask my friends: If you were on trial, and had the choice, would you prefer to be judged by a single judge or a jury of peers? Inevitably, everyone's choice ALWAYS came down to what was the race/gender/age of the accused, judge, and jury.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pongotwistleton (July 08, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
            1 1
            Based on my experience with the criminal justice system in my city, I would take a jury of my peers. Now I'm white, and my city's majority black or minority. If I were a black guy on trial in the suburbs, I'd likely think differently. My impression though, is that mostly all of the criminal court judges (be they white, black, woman, man) tilt toward the prosecution, and are more willing to take the word of police officers over other witnesses. I found that jurors were more skeptical . . .
            Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
          2  
          Judge, jury, it doesn't matter. I would rather have a minority judge.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
              2
            So it is about race, not competence or impartiality? And somehow that is OK with you? Incredible.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
              2  
              I'm being realistic. I think a White judge might readily screw me than a minority judge.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
                  2
                You're assuming that a minority judge will be "softer" or more compassionate about your plight, or whatever put you in front of him? What if the minority judge you're in front of is just the opposite. He or she has come from very humble beginnings and doesn't buy into you or is as sympathetic to you as you thought? Whereas as a white judge may cut you more slack if he or she feels they can't comprehend your plight as easily. It could work against you.

                Which is why it should be irrelevant, period.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                  2  
                  You're assuming that a minority judge will be "softer" or more compassionate about your plight, or whatever put you in front of him?


                  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?"
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                    2  
                    I also thought "Would this be happening if my brother were White?"
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 08, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Most judges, regardless of race, tend to defer to the prosecution.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:01 am ET)
                        2  
                        I'd imagine that the majority are former prosecutors.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by mr. l (July 08, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Of course the judge can be or think anything- given the choice, though, people go with their experience. People see discrimination every day- why would they believe it would be different in a court? Again, history has shown prejudices borne out in all areas of life, the courts are not immune.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
                      3
                    I cannot believe how cavalier all of you are about this, like, oh well it happens. I expect judges to interpret laws based on our constitution, not their prejudices or their personal experiences. That is what we all should want, that is our system. This is not some pundit on TV judging some politician or entertainer. This is the bedrock of our judicial system and its integrity in fairness and impartiality is critical, it's paramount, over all else. If we start accepting less we are in big trouble.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                      2  
                      I cannot believe how cavalier all of you are about this, like, oh well it happens. I expect judges to interpret laws based on our constitution, not their prejudices or their personal experiences.


                      In a Utopian world that would happen but we don't live in that world.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Its not even possible. He keeps pretending that the law is a series of math equations. The constitution is written in broad principles that need interpretation which is judgement by definition. That is why the SC was necessary in the first place. Its not utopian its Alice's Wonderland.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 08, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Nobody is trying to subvert the Constitution here, RightOn. We're merely trying to make sure it is applied equally, to all. And history is replete with example of how that fails when left up to an all-white-christian-male legislature and judiciary. We're not suggesting that ALL white judges are racist. That WOULD be absurd. But you seem to be suggesting that NONE of them are. And that IS absurd.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
                          4
                        Apply equally to all?, as long as there are judges who will use their personal experiences as influences in their decisions and rulings. Sorry, not for me.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by loonz (July 08, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                          3  
                          I would assume personal experience comes into play with every judge. I don't think you can separate it.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 08, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
                            4  
                            Of course it does! Do we really have to be so stupid as to pretend that Scalia and Roberts and Thomas and Alito and Kennedy are not taking into account their personal experiences in their rulings? Are we that ignorant of reality?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by foghornleghorn (July 08, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
                              3  
                              Especially Scalia's personal experiences of going hunting with Cheney.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 08, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
                          6  
                          So you were concerned when Alito said this...

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 8:16 pm ET)
                          3  
                          It is completely bogus to claim that judges using their personal experience to influence their decisions is somehow unfair. Why wouldnt they apply those experiences equally to all? No one would blink an eye about a judge saying his experiences as say a corporate lawyer would influence his decisions about corporate law. There is ZERO logic in what you just said.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 08, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
                      4  
                      You really think judges can only use the Constitution to back up their rulings? Really? I am trying not to get caught up in this fourth grade argument explaining race vs. gender to you, but thinking that judges can only use the Constitution to make rulings is particularly simple-minded.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
              5  
              When I was in high school I was selected to be judge for a day. I sat with the judge through the entire work day and was even in chambers while he discussed a case with the lawyer and prosecuter in a drug case. I was told not to say anything at all or I would be asked to leave. I watched the white judge screw this guy because he was black. The guy had a VERY small amount of cocaine and about one joint worth of pot. He was a recently returned Vietnam Vet who got a drug problem IN Vietnam a point not disputed by anyone. He had 1100 dollars on him and they argument was that he was a trafficer going to buy though no evidence whatsoever was shown he was anywhere drugs WERE bought or anyone who said he HAD EVER bought trafficing amounts. When asked he said his mother gave him the thousand dollars to make purchases for the store they owned the next morning. The police called his mother at three in the morning and asked if she gave her son 800 dollars to make a purchase for her store. She said yes. The prosecution argument was that the rest of the money was obviously for a drug buy. The defendents lawyer was ready to plead guilty to the possession and asked for a treatment option since this guy had NO PREVIOUS RECORD WHATSOEVER. Not so much as a parking ticket. The judge bought the prosecution argument and gave him two years in prison. No one is ever going to convince me that a white defendent would have gotten the benifit of the doubt with such shaky evidence basically nothing more than a guess by the prosecution. That isnt an indictment against all white judges but lets be clear this DOES happen
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 12:52 am ET)
                3  
                I don't know how you kept quiet. They would have had to have me forcibly removed because I wouldn't be able to stop myself from verbally disemboweling the judge over that decision.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (July 08, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
          3  
          Her statements do not provide any evidence that her rulings are favorable based on gender or race. In fact, legal experts that have looked at her record find that not to be the case.

          Her problem is that she did not do as good a job as past Supreme Court nominees at hiding her feelings on her background.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Disputed Zone (July 08, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
      3  
      I have yet to see a conservative critic address the line from the Berkely speech that immediately follows the "wise latina" line:

      Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.


      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 08, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
          2
        I am in no way saying we don't need diversity on the court. What I am saying is that we don't need judicial rulings or decisions where that diversity influences those in any way.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Disputed Zone (July 08, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
          2  
          Have you read the speech? Sotomayor agrees that that is the goal. But she also recognizes that:

          The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.


          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.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
          3
        Craig,

        It would be helpful if Sotomayor. (or you,) would cite the rulings she says upheld sex and race discrimination.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 12:08 am ET)
          3  
          Seriously? You really think that if there was any basis to question her claim that one of your favorite websites wouldn't have sent you an e-mail alert about it? There isn't one person in the entire right-wing blogosphere that has enough of a background in law to recognize such a potentially significant error or lie?

          It seems difficult to believe.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Salamandastron (July 08, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
      2  
      WOW! What a stretch.

      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.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.