• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How ironic is it that these folks call themselves, "People for the American Way"? The, "American Way", is the last thing they represent. This is going to be just like the persecution that Joe the Plumber was subjected to when he excercised his rights. Further proof that Facism is a Leftwing ideology rather than Rightwing.


WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter | McClatchy
Click to expand...
 
let's see why his litigious work history might be of some use:
... Senate Republicans have summoned him, along with Lt. Ben Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department, as two of their 14 witnesses next week. ...
Click to expand...
so, he is going to be paraded as a victim of Sotomayor's decision. then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony


let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
 
justabubba said:
let's see why his litigious work history might be of some use:

so, he is going to be paraded as a victim of Sotomayor's decision. then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony


let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
Click to expand...

If someone has a less than perfect work history, it's ok to discriminate against him because of his race?
 
apdst said:
If someone has a less than perfect work history, it's ok to discriminate against him because of his race?
Click to expand...

trying to figure out when it is ok to ever discriminate against someone because of their race
maybe you will tell us those examples
 
justabubba said:
let's see why his litigious work history might be of some use:

so, he is going to be paraded as a victim of Sotomayor's decision. then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony


let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
Click to expand...

Anyone that cites her own latina vagina as the font of her superior judicial wisdom should be a target, shouldn't she?

How about a member of a racist group?

How about a member of a sexist group?

How about a member who rules incorrectly, in favor of racism, on racially charged cases?

If Federal Circuit Court Justice Joseph W. Hite was a member of the KKK, how would you stand on his appointment?

Yet, you want to defend a member of La Raza.

If Judge Joe was a member of a men's only networking club, you'd be all upset. Yet, where are your comments on the Latina Vagina's membership in her all-female club, which she only recently, since her nomination, resigned from?

If a judge said his all-power white pecker gave him special insights into the cases he adjudicates, you'd be all upset.

If he acquited James Earl Ray, what would you say?


Give us some honest answers.
 
justabubba said:
let's see why his litigious work history might be of some use:

so, he is going to be paraded as a victim of Sotomayor's decision. then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony

let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
Click to expand...
Even if Ricci were the most combative, litigious soul alive, none of that has relevance to the facts of Ricci v DeStefano. Ricci studied for the exam that was to be the basis for promotion; Ricci passed the exam and, by the published parameters of the exam, earned promotion; Ricci was denied promotion because no black firefighters earned promotion.

Moreover, the relevant argument is not Ricci's character, nor Ricci's work history, nor even Sotomayor's character per se. The relevant argument is that Sotomayor, a sitting appellate judge, failed in her judicial duty to examine the law and to elucidate the proper application of the law to the facts put forward at the original trial. The criticism of Sotomayor in Ricci v DeStefano is not that she ruled against Ricci, but, by issuing a mere summary opinion, she and her fellow judges in essence failed to rule at all.

Judges who fear to tackle the issues of law laid before them of a certainty have no place on the Supreme Court.
 
celticlord said:
Even if Ricci were the most combative, litigious soul alive, none of that has relevance to the facts of Ricci v DeStefano. Ricci studied for the exam that was to be the basis for promotion; Ricci passed the exam and, by the published parameters of the exam, earned promotion; Ricci was denied promotion because no black firefighters earned promotion.

Moreover, the relevant argument is not Ricci's character, nor Ricci's work history, nor even Sotomayor's character per se. The relevant argument is that Sotomayor, a sitting appellate judge, failed in her judicial duty to examine the law and to elucidate the proper application of the law to the facts put forward at the original trial. The criticism of Sotomayor in Ricci v DeStefano is not that she ruled against Ricci, but, by issuing a mere summary opinion, she and her fellow judges in essence failed to rule at all.

Judges who fear to tackle the issues of law laid before them of a certainty have no place on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

close, but no guitar

Sotomayor applied the precedent of "adverse impact" to the case. the EEO regulations provide a standard that if 4/5 of the test scores exclude the minority population then that is prima facie evidence that the test was flawed

that is how the case was rendered when it came to her. she refused to legislate from the bench, but instead followed the law

the SC then made the (correct) decision that the EEO regs cannot trump the application of common sense when deciding these matters. at the SC level, that finding was appropriate. but not at a lower level. Sotomayor did her job properly in applying precedent and regulation. the SC did its job well in revising how the law would hereafter be interperted
 
justabubba said:
close, but no guitar

Sotomayor applied the precedent of "adverse impact" to the case. the EEO regulations provide a standard that if 4/5 of the test scores exclude the minority population then that is prima facie evidence that the test was flawed

that is how the case was rendered when it came to her. she refused to legislate from the bench, but instead followed the law

the SC then made the (correct) decision that the EEO regs cannot trump the application of common sense when deciding these matters. at the SC level, that finding was appropriate. but not at a lower level. Sotomayor did her job properly in applying precedent and regulation. the SC did its job well in revising how the law would hereafter be interperted
Click to expand...


The law is flawed, not the test.
 
The first time I read this thread a couple of minutes ago, I thought to myself, "Why are HACKERS getting involved in a Supreme Court nomination process, and why is the press mentioning them in the headline?"

This is what I get for reading DP without glasses and before I finish my coffee.

Carry on. :lol:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The first time I read this thread a couple of minutes ago, I thought to myself, "Why are HACKERS getting involved in a Supreme Court nomination process, and why is the press mentioning them in the headline?"

This is what I get for reading DP without glasses and before I finish my coffee.

Carry on. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's the Liberal Stasi at work, again.
 
justabubba said:
Sotomayor applied the precedent of "adverse impact" to the case. the EEO regulations provide a standard that if 4/5 of the test scores exclude the minority population then that is prima facie evidence that the test was flawed
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. Sotomayor did not apply that precedent. Sotomayor did not apply any precedent.

The entirety of Sotomayor's opinion is this:

We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
Click to expand...
There are no precedents cited, no legal reasoning given, no expostulation of any law whatsoever.

Had Sotomayor done as you state, and merely applied precedent incorrectly, her handling of the case would have been less susceptible to challenge.

The problem with Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci is not that she did her job badly or incorrectly. The problem is that she did not do her job at all.
 
celticlord said:
Completely wrong. Sotomayor did not apply that precedent. Sotomayor did not apply any precedent.

The entirety of Sotomayor's opinion is this:

There are no precedents cited, no legal reasoning given, no expostulation of any law whatsoever.

Had Sotomayor done as you state, and merely applied precedent incorrectly, her handling of the case would have been less susceptible to challenge.

The problem with Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci is not that she did her job badly or incorrectly. The problem is that she did not do her job at all.
Click to expand...

The court was just affirming the lower court's opinion. Is it unusual for such a decision to have a short opinion?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
The court was just affirming the lower court's opinion. Is it unusual for such a decision to have a short opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes. The nature of a summary opinion is that there is no compelling matter of law to be adjudicated by the appellate bench. Ricci v DeStefano was decidedly not such a case.

In this case it was particularly unusual, so much so that another appellate judge, Jose Cabranes, sought a rehearing of the case en banc (with all thirteen appellate judges participating), and that the denial of a rehearing was narrowly decided by the appellate court 7-6.

It is worth noting that, in the order of denial of a rehearing, even the concurring judges had more commentary on the case than Sotomayor offered up in the per curiam opinion. That such commentary can be made is strong evidence that there was more substance to the case than appeared in the summary per curiam opinion. That the Supreme Court saw fit to reverse is even stronger evidence that there were substantive matters of law that were simply ignored in that summary opinion.
 
justabubba said:
lso, he is going to be paraded as a victim of Sotomayor's decision.
Click to expand...

He is a victim of her decision.

then, let's also understand the facts of this "victims" troubled work history, which might offer some additional perspective on his testimony
Click to expand...

His "troubled" work history has no bearing on his ability to pass an exam for a promotion and then get denied that promotion due to racial discrimination.

let us also be clear that it is Sotomayor who is being "targeted"
Click to expand...

It's a game of cat and mouse, no doubt, however, there is nothing inappropriate in him testifying against her at her confirmation hearings. He was directly affected by a decision she made that was wrong and overturned by a higher court. Because he is speaking out, he'll now get ravaged like all the others who stand up to the will of the Dalai Bama.
 
The politics of personal destruction.

Followed by the childness of "they did it first".

Concluding with fewer quality individuals in positions of leadership.

Return to Step 1 and continue, ad infinitum

How much longer will the governed continue to shrug?
 
apdst said:
How ironic is it that these folks call themselves, "People for the American Way"? The, "American Way", is the last thing they represent. This is going to be just like the persecution that Joe the Plumber was subjected to when he excercised his rights. Further proof that Facism is a Leftwing ideology rather than Rightwing.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to support your point against Sotomayor you are definately using false information and disported opinion. When you say "Joe the Plumber" I have to assume that you are using a knickname and you really Samuel J. Wurzelbacher who not hold a plumber's license. So you are trying to compare " Samuel J. Wurzelbacher " a make belive plumber to a real fireman! You are trying to to falsely represent this make believe plmuber as someone who was "persecuted" when the truth is that he was exposed as a fraud and very possibly a liar in that he is not licensed and he did owe back taxes at the same time hat he was trying to make believe that he could actually get into a tax brackett where the Obama tax plan would not help him.

I don't even know what your blurb on Facism being leftwing is all about but that just defies logic and understanding of the history and development of Nazism and Facism.

I think that the fireman's case can better be served without comparing or dragging that fraud Joe the Non-Plumber as a comparison.
 
When I saw that not one African American had ranked high enough in the test I immediately thought, "something's got to be wrong with the test".

I'm conservative usually, but this just didn't smell right to me.

From reading I did find that there was an oral part to the test that was subjective, so I don't know what to think.

But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American.
Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.
"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom