Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 386

Thread: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

  1. #371
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Vinny Testaverde has a greater wealth of experience in the NFL than Peyton Manning. Does that mean he's the better man to lead your team to victory?
    Better is a relative term, especially in the case of a judge. The question should be is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice.

  2. #372
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Talloulou, go to: http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/...2009-28-06.pdf scroll down to page 18(it's a PDF, so you should see page numbers), III Discussion A. Title VII. Scan through and read it. It refers to a number of other cases and "McDonnell Douglas three-prong burden-shifting test". See what you can make of it please when you can.

    By the way, Title VII is one part of 4 that the firefighters filed suit with, and the first that the judge dealt with.
    The argument was that they met the criteria as in other cases, this is undisputed, however the judges felt that since no promotions were given out they were not able to prove any wrong doing since they were all treated equally.

    Defendants do not dispute the first
    three prongs of the test, but argue that plaintiffs cannot
    establish an inference of discrimination because all applicants
    were treated the same, as nobody was promoted off the examination
    Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 19 of 48

    20
    lists.
    This is absolute b.s. and judicial activism for the judges to agree. They were not all treated equally. Some passed the test earning the promotion while others did not. Those who passed and would've earned the promotion were damaged by having the promotion denied due to the skin color of those that passed vs the skin color of those that failed. Had some blacks passed the test would have been considered legit. This is an absolute disgrace to declare they were treated equally due to the fact that nobody was promoted. The problem is that some SHOULD HAVE BEEN promoted and were not.

  3. #373
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Better is a relative term, especially in the case of a judge. The question should be is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice.
    "is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice" -
    -1 The test for qualification is not to be based upon political leanings or whether we agreed or not with her decisions.
    -2 Does she know the law ? Well it appears that she does since she has the schooling and has been a judge for a good number of years = experience.
    -3 Do you disagree with any or all of her rulings ? see item # 1

    -4 Is she intelligent enough to sing with the Supremes ? Well her school record does indicate intelligence.

    Well is she qualified ???

    ok let's see ???? acedemic qualification = yes
    inteligent ?? GRADUATED WITH HONORS FROM PRINCETON
    EXPERINCE = MANY YEARS ON THE BENCH/ PRIVATE PRACTICE/ AG

    If any of us think she is not qualified we will need to come up with the criteria for what qualified means. What that cannot mean is whether we agree with her rulings or not.

    The question is will she weigh each case without prejudice !!!!!????

    Well personally I need to thinK about that.....
    Last edited by F107HyperSabr; 05-27-09 at 08:15 PM.
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  4. #374
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Better is a relative term, especially in the case of a judge. The question should be is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice.
    Is she qualified? Sure.

    But I'm just making the point, that experience in and of itself is not a qualifier. Its being bandied about that she has more experience than any other SCJ had when they were nominated. I'm simply pointing out that experience does not necessarily equate to talent, skill, or knowledge. I'm not saying she isn't any of those things, but just that it shouldn't be assumed because of her experience.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  5. #375
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    The argument was that they met the criteria as in other cases, this is undisputed, however the judges felt that since no promotions were given out they were not able to prove any wrong doing since they were all treated equally.



    This is absolute b.s. and judicial activism for the judges to agree. They were not all treated equally. Some passed the test earning the promotion while others did not. Those who passed and would've earned the promotion were damaged by having the promotion denied due to the skin color of those that passed vs the skin color of those that failed. Had some blacks passed the test would have been considered legit. This is an absolute disgrace to declare they were treated equally due to the fact that nobody was promoted. The problem is that some SHOULD HAVE BEEN promoted and were not.
    What you quote is the defendants argument, not the judges I believe.

    Proof of a prima facie case shifts the burden to defendant
    "to produce evidence that the plaintiff was [terminated] for a
    legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. This burden is one of
    production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility
    assessment.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133, 142
    (2000) (internal citations, quotations, and alterations omitted).
    Defendant’s burden is satisfied if the proffered evidence "‘taken
    as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a
    nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.’" Schnabel v.
    Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting St. Mary’s
    Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993)). In this case,
    defendants proffer a good faith attempt to comply with Title VII
    as their legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to
    certify the exams.
    If the employer articulates a neutral reason for the
    plaintiff’s termination, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff
    to show pretext. That is, the plaintiff "may attempt to
    establish that he was the victim of intentional discrimination by
    showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of
    credence." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143.
    The defendant(the city in this case) had the burden of proof to show they where acting "in good faith" to comply with Title VII, which the judge gives them credit for. This means that plaintiff has to show he was a victim of intentional discrimination, which the judge did not feel was the case.

    After all this, next time I read a Grisholm book, I won't even feel a twinge that it might be fun to be a lawyer.

  6. #376
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Is she qualified? Sure.

    But I'm just making the point, that experience in and of itself is not a qualifier. Its being bandied about that she has more experience than any other SCJ had when they were nominated. I'm simply pointing out that experience does not necessarily equate to talent, skill, or knowledge. I'm not saying she isn't any of those things, but just that it shouldn't be assumed because of her experience.
    Experience can be indicative of talent, skill or knowledge. That is, all other things being equal, experience suggests a larger likelihood of talent skill and knowledge.

  7. #377
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Experience can be indicative of talent, skill or knowledge. That is, all other things being equal, experience suggests a larger likelihood of talent skill and knowledge.
    Can be. But shouldn't be assumed. You've worked on F/A-18s. You probably saw that there were some experienced guys who didn't know their elbow from their asshole.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  8. #378
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    "is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice" -
    -1 The test for qualification is not to be based upon political leanings or whether we agreed or not with her decisions.
    -2 Does she know the law ? Well it appears that she does since she has the schooling and has been a judge for a good number of years = experience.
    -3 Do you disagree with any or all of her rulings ? see item # 1

    -4 Is she intelligent enough to sing with the Supremes ? Well her school record does indicate intelligence.

    Well is she qualified ???

    ok let's see ???? acedemic qualification = yes
    inteligent ?? GRADUATED WITH HONORS FROM PRINCETON
    EXPERINCE = MANY YEARS ON THE BENCH/ PRIVATE PRACTICE/ AG

    If any of us think she is not qualified we will need to come up with the criteria for what qualified means. What that cannot mean is whether we agree with her rulings or not.

    The question is will she weigh each case without prejudice !!!!!????

    Well personally I need to thinK about that.....
    You forgot to add:

    Believes ones personal "journey" and gender and race factor into how they judge, and how judges should act.


    That is what disqualifies her.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #379
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Can be. But shouldn't be assumed. You've worked on F/A-18s. You probably saw that there were some experienced guys who didn't know their elbow from their asshole.
    Absolutely correct.

  10. #380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    What you quote is the defendants argument, not the judges I believe.



    The defendant(the city in this case) had the burden of proof to show they where acting "in good faith" to comply with Title VII, which the judge gives them credit for. This means that plaintiff has to show he was a victim of intentional discrimination, which the judge did not feel was the case.

    After all this, next time I read a Grisholm book, I won't even feel a twinge that it might be fun to be a lawyer.
    They did show they were discriminated against IMO. Title VII says nowhere that a test must or even should be deemed obsolete garbage just because a surprising number of white men and a Hispanic scored high while black men did not.

    The proof is obvious. The test was issued to see which fire fighters would be promoted to lieutenant or captain. The "pc correct ratio" of skin colors did not perform as desired. Thus the test was deemed racist. There is no proof whatsoever that the test was racist and there is NOTHING in Title VII saying that ratio results may be used to determine whether or not an employment test was prejudiced.

    This is point blank reverse racism where the top scorers are punished because some have a problem with most of them being white as opposed to more diverse.

Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •