• 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!

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

apdst said:
She's already stated that her race will bring something extra to the table, so it's easy to see that she's going to base here rulings on race rather than the rule of law.
Click to expand...

That's one way to interpret it.

Another would be that she is going to let her racial bias effect her rulings.

A third would be that she simply meant the fact of her race itself would bring something extra to the table. Racially diverse court, anyone?

So many ways of interpreting it.
 
Why do you people ignore the more interesting bit here.

The SCOTUS issue long and lengthy opinions on this issue.

Sotomayor issued less then a paragraph. Her worth was proven by this case, she's a minor league lightweight compared to what is required of a Justice.
 
Re: White firefighters win Supreme Court appeal

Councilman said:
Sotomayor is over turned again. She has been shown in her own words to a racist. This is not going to help her confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

If only that were the case. Her nomination appears to be inevitable, regardless of the several reasons that she has no business sitting on that Court.
 
The Mark said:
A third would be that she simply meant the fact of her race itself would bring something extra to the table. Racially diverse court, anyone?
Click to expand...


but, that's nowhere close to what she said.
 
apdst said:
but, that's nowhere close to what she said.
Click to expand...

Entirely possible, as I personally have no idea what she said, and was only extrapolating what she had actually meant from the post I quoted.
 
aps said:
The fact that it's a 5-4 ruling would indicate that her ruling isn't all that "wrong." I'd be concerned if it was a 9-0 or 8-1 ruling. So her ruling must have some basis in law.
Click to expand...

First of all I view this as the correct ruling. I am sure that the four who were against this ruling did render their own opinion based upon some basis in law as did the majority. These guys interpret. When they interpret the way we as individuals like we say hey yeh !! When we don't like the ruling we can dust off the old impeach Earl Warren signs, change the name and have a great time.

APS you are very correct that if the decision was 9-0 or 8-1 she would be hobbled worse in the hearings than her broken ankle hobbled her. Yet the fact is plain she was on the wrong side of this decision and that will come up and the ineteresting part will be how she handles it, or doesn't.
 
From what I have read on this, it's actually a kinda interesting ruling. It seems to create a new standard by which to judge things. Likelihood of being sued is not the proper standard, but likelihood of losing the suit.
 
apdst said:
She's already stated that her race will bring something extra to the table, so it's easy to see that she's going to base here rulings on race rather than the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Does amyone know what race she is ? I heard her labled as a Latina but Latino is not a race. She looks sort of whitetish. She has a touch of probably American Native Indian and I am sure there is Spanish there. So which race will she bring into her decisions ? White or Ameircan Indian ?

Wonder if they will ask her during the hearing. I could just hear the senile old Robert Byrd ask "Miss Sotomayor are you a Colored Girl or are you one of them Injuns ?" . Anyhow could be interesting.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Does amyone know what race she is ? I heard her labled as a Latina but Latino is not a race. She looks sort of whitetish. She has a touch of probably American Native Indian and I am sure there is Spanish there. So which race will she bring into her decisions ? White or Ameircan Indian ?

Wonder if they will ask her during the hearing. I could just hear the senile old Robert Byrd ask "Miss Sotomayor are you a Colored Girl or are you one of them Injuns ?" . Anyhow could be interesting.
Click to expand...

Out there PC Land, Latino is a race. I don't agree with that notion either; kinda like saying that paint horses are a breed.
 
Good Evening All,

This is my first post and it will be a question. First though, I will say that I agree with today's USSC decision.

As I understand this case, New Haven threw out the test for fear of being sued. As a consequence of this decision, they were sued. So they had to defend themselves all of the way to the Supreme Court which must have cost alot of money. Here then is my question.

Had the city decided to certify the test and then invested all of the money that has been consumed in legal expenses in meaninful training and skill improvement for the members of the Fire Department, might not all of New Haven citizens been better served?

I must be missing something here so will appreciate any and all enlightenment.
 
atomsNvoid said:
Good Evening All,

This is my first post and it will be a question. First though, I will say that I agree with today's USSC decision.

As I understand this case, New Haven threw out the test for fear of being sued. As a consequence of this decision, they were sued. So they had to defend themselves all of the way to the Supreme Court which must have cost alot of money. Here then is my question.

Had the city decided to certify the test and then invested all of the money that has been consumed in legal expenses in meaninful training and skill improvement for the members of the Fire Department, might not all of New Haven citizens been better served?

I must be missing something here so will appreciate any and all enlightenment.
Click to expand...


Well if the Elm City fathers did what you said and used the money they did not spend on law suits but instead on training and if they used all of that money on the Black firefighters they would get sued again by he White firefighters. If they used it on the Whites the Blacks would sue. If they distibuted the training among all races the Blacks would sue since New Haven would be accused of not suporting afirmative action.

This firefigher thing is a hot issue. !!
 
Last edited:
F107HyperSabr said:
Well if the Elm City fathers did what you said and used the money they did not spend on law suits but instead on training and if they used all of that money on the Black firefighters they would get sued again by he White firefighters. If they used it on the Whites the Blacks would sue. If they distibuted the training among all races the Blacks would sue since New Haven would be accused of not suporting afirmative action.

This firefigher thing is a hot issue. !!
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying HyperSabr and regretfully, I am reasonably confident that you are correct. I think that what concerns me is how apathetically the certainty of what you say is accepted as just "the way things are".

To be sure "This firefighter thing is a hot issue." and what we all know is that the certain way to elevate this or any other issue to the status of "hot issue" is to bring a legal suit. Is this, however, the expectation of the governed each time they express their consent to be governed by their vote? I would hope not. I would hope that their expectation is to have conflicts within the community resolved through wise leadership not litigation.
 
atomsNvoid said:
I understand what you are saying HyperSabr and regretfully, I am reasonably confident that you are correct. I think that what concerns me is how apathetically the certainty of what you say is accepted as just "the way things are".

To be sure "This firefighter thing is a hot issue." and what we all know is that the certain way to elevate this or any other issue to the status of "hot issue" is to bring a legal suit. Is this, however, the expectation of the governed each time they express their consent to be governed by their vote? I would hope not. I would hope that their expectation is to have conflicts within the community resolved through wise leadership not litigation.
Click to expand...

Well I guess if war is the child of a failure of diplomacy I guess litigation can be viewed as a failure of leadership to negotiate or a failure of negotiations.
My feeling is that this issue just may be more of a battle between institutionalized /entrenched affirmative action vs reason and common sense which in turn is fighting afirmative action which has outlived it's purpose.

I also hate to see useless litigative action but there are times such as this when the continuation of a cure for past wrong contunues longer than necessary and in itself creates an new/opoosite wrong litigation may be the only recoursr of the newly wronged.

ps I welcome you aboard even though I am rather new here myself. You appear to be an intelligent debater sounds as if you will add good stuff here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
My question, in light of this decision, is whether Sotomayor made her ruling colored by emotion rather than by the law. If this is the case, then she should not be confirmed.
Click to expand...

The four justices in the minority adopted the panel's reasoning, so this didn't indicate that they were out of the mainstream. Whether you think it was based on emotion rather than law depends on your position.

celticlord said:
I am more interested in her explanation of why she sought to dispose of the matter with a perfunctory summary opinion that ignored every issue in the case.

That is her most grievous error in the Ricci case--that she utterly failed to do what appellate judges are supposed to do: interpret the law.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Just think, if she was already confirmed, it would have been the other way.


Scary.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't have. She would have replaced Breyer, who held the exact same position as her. It still would have been 5-4.

chevydriver1123 said:
Good ruling, this should sink her confirmation and Obama will be forced to pick a centrist judge.
Click to expand...

Why would this sink her? She had the same position as the minority.

aps said:
What a fascinating scenario that would have been. If it was a tie.....RightatNYU, remind me, the appeals court decision then stands, yes? (I'm too lazy to look it up.)
Click to expand...

If the SC deadlocks, the lower court's ruling stands, though it wouldn't have mattered here because it would have been 5-3.

MrVicchio said:
Why do you people ignore the more interesting bit here.

The SCOTUS issue long and lengthy opinions on this issue.

Sotomayor issued less then a paragraph. Her worth was proven by this case, she's a minor league lightweight compared to what is required of a Justice.
Click to expand...

The fact that the panel issued a summary order doesn't indicate that she was a lightweight.

The silenced majority said:
Funny, I thought the title should have read: Justices side with civil rights in the firefighter bias case"
Click to expand...

I thought it was strange how every single headline I've seen makes it sound like the court is a bunch of white supremacists.
 
aps said:
I hope they ask Sotomayor what she thinks about this reversal because I am curious how she reacts when she's reversed.

No surprise about the 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the swing vote.
Click to expand...

This decision proves Sotomeyer is a racist. It validates the theory that Sotomeyer's racist ideology made her decision.

I would say all of her cases needed to be re-opened and examined.
 
danarhea said:
My question, in light of this decision, is whether Sotomayor made her ruling colored by emotion rather than by the law. If this is the case, then she should not be confirmed.
Click to expand...

Sotomayor is a racist. This fact alone should prevent her from being confirmed.
 
Vader said:
This decision proves Sotomeyer is a racist. It validates the theory that Sotomeyer's racist ideology made her decision.

I would say all of her cases needed to be re-opened and examined.
Click to expand...

By that same logic, every decision ever handed down by Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Pooler, or Sack needs to be re-opened and examined.
 
Ethereal said:
You couldn't arrive at that conclusion on your own?
Click to expand...

I did arrive at that conclusion ... when Sotomayor ruled against those firefighters.

The SCOTUS just validated my claim.
 
RightinNYC said:
By that same logic, every decision ever handed down by Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Pooler, or Sack needs to be re-opened and examined.
Click to expand...

....

Yeah ... that is sort of a valid point.

Even I have to admit you're making sense there.

Oh well.

Sotomayor got slapped across the face by the SCOTUS. I suppose that is enough.... for now!
 
Vader said:
I did arrive at that conclusion ... when Sotomayor ruled against those firefighters.

The SCOTUS just validated my claim.
Click to expand...

So, the SCOTUS can validate an individual's opinion by mere virtue of its opinion? Do you know what "an appeal to authority" is?
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Does amyone know what race she is ? I heard her labled as a Latina but Latino is not a race. She looks sort of whitetish. She has a touch of probably American Native Indian and I am sure there is Spanish there. So which race will she bring into her decisions ? White or Ameircan Indian ?

Wonder if they will ask her during the hearing. I could just hear the senile old Robert Byrd ask "Miss Sotomayor are you a Colored Girl or are you one of them Injuns ?" . Anyhow could be interesting.
Click to expand...

Puerto Rican.
 
atomsNvoid said:
Good Evening All,

This is my first post and it will be a question. First though, I will say that I agree with today's USSC decision.

As I understand this case, New Haven threw out the test for fear of being sued. As a consequence of this decision, they were sued. So they had to defend themselves all of the way to the Supreme Court which must have cost alot of money. Here then is my question.

Had the city decided to certify the test and then invested all of the money that has been consumed in legal expenses in meaninful training and skill improvement for the members of the Fire Department, might not all of New Haven citizens been better served?

I must be missing something here so will appreciate any and all enlightenment.
Click to expand...

The fault lies in two places.

The cowards at New Haven that caved in.

The EEOC rules that claim, without any proof, that tests which demonstrate a distinct racial division in the results must in themselves be racially biased tests.

Fact of the matter is, the test was for Fire Chief, and the rules of nature don't recognize any racially biased phycical laws governing fires. The 100% of the blacks failing that test failed that test for one reason, and one reason only.

They didn't study enough.

If there's a racial matter here, it's a question of why none of the black applicants bothered to study enough to pass the test.

And the city of New Haven has no control over how long and how well it's test applicants study, and hence bore no fault for the results of the test.

The city of New Haven is at fault because it simply failed to have the balls to stand up the overpowerful, majorly racist, left-wing political interest groups that make their living painting everyone with money a racist if they can get away with it.

Sotomayor was clearly a racist, and it is good that she was overturned in this case.
 
RightinNYC said:
I thought it was strange how every single headline I've seen makes it sound like the court is a bunch of white supremacists.
Click to expand...

The lap-dog left-wing media is laying the groundwork for the next nominee, who might get to replace an honest, constitutionalist jurist, and failing that, they're greasing the skids to make it easier to slip in the next ultra-liberal, by continually depicting the court as extremely conservative and in dire need of "balance".

Your side plays a nasty game and always keeps an eye to the long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom