• 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!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

That's called "argument from authority".

Guess what? It doesn't support anyone's claim, it means that the four judges were wrong.

The assumption that a test with a disparate racial impact is racially biased and should thus be discarded is illogical and should not be accepted as law by any court. That's not "judicial activism", that's the courts telling the legislators they 're not making any sense.

So it's only judicial activism when you disagree with a ruling. It's ok when you agree. I see, and am not surprised you would think that way.

Note, I firmly believe that if she had thrown out a law saying "legislators are not making any sense here", you would be screaming about judicial activism.
 
Please prove that claim with quotes from the ruling. Note that I quoted several parts from the ruling,

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.

Which is based on this:

246. Thus, it is necessarily
undisputed that, had minority firefighters challenged the results
of the examinations, the City would have been in a position of
defending tests that, under applicable Guidelines, presumptively
had a disparate racial impact.


"presumptively". This is "law"? A presumption of guilt is encoded into law and the courts accept it as a basis for denying people's claims of reverse discrimination?
 
Well, it was her character that prompted her to say that a female hispanic judge will judge better than a white male judge. So her character is inherently racist and chauvinist.

Yet she was nominated anyway.

What's that say for the character than nominated her?

My recollection is that she said a "female hispanic judge " would judge "from a diferent perspective" I did not hear that she said "better". It's the same as saying that an old White guys from the deep South will judge from a diferent perspective than a "female hispanic judge " or a black judge from the North.
 
So it's only judicial activism when you disagree with a ruling.

No, it's judicial activism when it creates new law from the bench.

It's what courts are supposed to do when the law violates established legal principles or the Constitution. When an agency writes about "presumptive" racial discrimination in it's code, it's violating the basic tenet of Assumed Innocence, and hence the code is flawed. The legislators and regulators have to re-write the code.

Note, I firmly believe that if she had thrown out a law saying "legislators are not making any sense here", you would be screaming about judicial activism.

No. It's the courts job to interpret the law. When law makes no sense, it can't, by definition, be interpreted and it must be rejected.

That too complicated for you, the assumption that laws are supposed to make sense, but you have no issues with laws that assume guilt?
 
My recollection is that she said a "female hispanic judge " would judge "from a diferent perspective" I did not hear that she said "better". It's the same as saying that an old White guys from the deep South will judge from a diferent perspective than a "female hispanic judge " or a black judge from the North.

Right. Of course. We all know that female hispanic judges can't be racist even though we all know all white southerner judges are.:roll:
 
My recollection is that she said a "female hispanic judge " would judge "from a diferent perspective" I did not hear that she said "better". It's the same as saying that an old White guys from the deep South will judge from a diferent perspective than a "female hispanic judge " or a black judge from the North.

Sotomayer's experience exceeds that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. Her competence has been established. Your remarks about "female hispanic judge" are racist without excuse.
 
Sotomayer's experience exceeds that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. Her competence has been established. Your remarks about "female hispanic judge" are racist without excuse.

Her arrogance and inability to move past her race is her biggest failing, she should in no way be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court:

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . 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."
The 'Empathy' Nominee - WSJ.com
 
"presumptively". This is "law"? A presumption of guilt is encoded into law and the courts accept it as a basis for denying people's claims of reverse discrimination?

You are not understanding what you are quoting. The part being referred to here is the plaintiffs filing under Title VII. The city was in a catch-22, because if they did not throw out the results, then also under Title VII, blacks or hispanics could have sued the city.
 
Last edited:
You are not understanding what you are quoting. The part being referred to here is the plaintiffs filing under Code VII. The city was in a catch-22, because if they did not throw out the results, then also under Code VII, blacks or hispanics could have sued the city.

I haven't been able to find the text of any Code VII law. Whose law is it, the citites? The firefighters ?

I want to read the text of the law.
 
I haven't been able to find the text of any Code VII law. Whose law is it, the citites? The firefighters ?

I want to read the text of the law.


it's Title VII, just changed the post you read, give me a sec on text link, will try and find it.
 
Sotomayer's experience exceeds that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. Her competence has been established. Your remarks about "female hispanic judge" are racist without excuse.

How was I being racist ????? I put quotes around the phrase = '"female hispanic judge" because I was quoting another poster. Yet she has been described or identified just as that "female hispanic judge". I would like to know exactly what was "racist" about my post !!!
 
found it. It's a federal civil rights law

The Equal Pay Act of 1963

Now to read through it to find the claim they assert...

Yes. Definitely a bad ruling. Nowhere does Title VII say anything other than tests may not be designed with racial bias. It does not say anywhere that if no blacks pass a test then it should be automatically considered that the test was unfair and tossed out. Did I miss something in the reading. Their finding that the test was racist and their methods of justifying that finding where absolutely judicial activism.
 
Breakdown of pertinent parts:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

In fact this tidbit:

(l) Prohibition of discriminatory use of test scores

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
is exactly what the court did. The court agreed since no blacks passed (skin color) the results would be altered, ie tossing the test in the garbage.
 
From where I sit (with admittedly no legal knowledge) this was a complete crackpot ruling.
 
Sotomayer's experience exceeds that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. Her competence has been established. Your remarks about "female hispanic judge" are racist without excuse.

I don't really think that her experience actually "exceeds" that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. What I would say is that her experience are diferent and possibly broader in that she came from almost "poor" roots and definately a minority group. The closest that any other judge currently singing with the Supremes who came from a minority and "poor" roots is Thomas. As far as acedemically and intellectually she is probably at best slightly above average but most likely average. I do not beleive that she will be any shining star just as Thomas will never be a shinning star.

My opinion of her and Justice Thomas is not racist or anti-Peurto Rican it is based upon what I have observed.
 
Reading, I am going to have to bounce back and forth between ruling and this I think. Give me a few minutes, and I don't think I am going to get my housework done before hockey game starts...
 
Sotomayer's experience exceeds that of any other justice currently sitting on the court. Her competence has been established.

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?
 
Talloulou, go to: http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/Judge%20Arterton%20re%20Summary%20Judgment%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.
 
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.
 
Talloulou, go to: http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/Judge%20Arterton%20re%20Summary%20Judgment%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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom