• 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

Man, I feel slow-witted this morning!

So everyone is standing in a circle pointing to the person next in line and calling them a "racist".

Tell me again how this is helping us "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"?

Are there any "Chain-Breakers" in the house?
 
I think he as a white man, is better capable of pointing out racism than a latino woman.

How so? Sorry, Reverend, but his cursory conclusion that she is a racist isn't cutting it for me. And just because he's white? Give me a break.
 
How so? Sorry, Reverend, but his cursory conclusion that she is a racist isn't cutting it for me. And just because he's white? Give me a break.




"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," -Sotomayor, October 26, 2001.


Why did my statement about his whiteness bother you, moreso than Sotomayors statement?
 
"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," -Sotomayor, October 26, 2001.


Why did my statement about his whiteness bother you, moreso than Sotomayors statement?

Oh brother. The obsession with her statement is making me sick. Good bye.
 
Oh brother. The obsession with her statement is making me sick. Good bye.




Then you have no problem with my statement. Since I would like to think as a white male, I make better decisions than a latino woman.,
 
Oh brother. The obsession with her statement is making me sick. Good bye.

Does that mean you are obsessed with the Rev's statement ???
 
Then you have no problem with my statement. Since I would like to think as a white male, I make better decisions than a latino woman.,

I dunno. I didn't mean to be a poopy head to you. Sorry. :2wave:
 
those who are insisting the pending appointee is racist because the sc, by the narrowist of margins, refused to uphold a ruling in which she relied on legal precedent, would seem to instead prefer a judge who legislates from the bench. sotomayer refused to do that

the lower court rulings, the decisions upheld by sotomayer, hinged on adhering to the concept of "disparate impact"

the sc has now moved us away from that standard, creating new precedent to be followed

new haven did all of the right things
it made sure it did not discriminate by hiring a specialist to construct the exams in a way which would not confer a preference on minorities
but when it found that the test results still fell outside the "disparate impact" standards, new haven found that it could not (then) lawfully rely on the test results to effect the promotions. had it moved forward and done so, new haven would have been subject to a discrimination lawsuit by the minorities, who were not promoted because they did not score high enough on the tests to merit consideration. the concept of "disparate impact", however much the disparate impact could be found unintended, offered a (then) sound premise for a discrimination suit by the low scoring minority applicants, should the promotions been awarded to the high scoring majority applicants
new haven was caught in a classic catch 22
the law prevented the city from doing the right thing
and the sc has now revised the presedent so that reason can now prevail over "disparate impact"
in no way does that sc decision indicate that sotomayer was, or is, biased
what this matter does show is that sotomayer subscribes to the law when making her decisions
 
St. Louis had the exact same situation last year. White firefighters scored higher than black firefighters did on the captain exam. The city went to great lengths to insure the test was fair to all. The black firefighters union went to court, but a federal judge ruled that the test was not biased. The Fire Chief was black and refused to promote the white firefighters that scored highest on the exam. Of course, both sides were unhappy.

This logjam went on for six more months until the Mayor gave the chief an ultimatum to promote the firefighters that scored the highest on the test or else. The Chief refused, so the Mayor fired him.

I moved shortly thereafter, but as far as I know, the issue was settled.
 
St. Louis had the exact same situation last year. White firefighters scored higher than black firefighters did on the captain exam. The city went to great lengths to insure the test was fair to all. The black firefighters union went to court, but a federal judge ruled that the test was not biased. The Fire Chief was black and refused to promote the white firefighters that scored highest on the exam. Of course, both sides were unhappy.

This logjam went on for six more months until the Mayor gave the chief an ultimatum to promote the firefighters that scored the highest on the test or else. The Chief refused, so the Mayor fired him.

I moved shortly thereafter, but as far as I know, the issue was settled.




The Reason I am could not join the NYPD is because I wasn't a woman or a black man when I passed the exam in the 98%, they only had to score 68% to get ahead of me.


This was Dinkins.
 
The Reason I am could not join the NYPD is because I wasn't a woman or a black man when I passed the exam in the 98%, they only had to score 68% to get ahead of me.


This was Dinkins.

I don't think King's vision of a color blind society will ever come true.
 
That was a great post Justabubba!

I have read it a couple of times and let me tell you where I stumble. In your entire comprehensive summary of the case, I am unable to find the "beginning of the string". I can find no indication that anyone had any responsibility at any time.

The test designers have no responsibility. The test givers have no responsibility. The test takers have no responsibility. The city elders have no responsibility. Neither the trial nor appealate courts have any responsibility. It is not until you get to the Supreme Court that anyone takes any responsibility and all they say is: "You can't do it this way."

Is this really the way the system is intended to work? And if the answer to that question is "Yes" then I ask is this the system to which we all choose to give our affirmative consent?
 
The Supreme Court has brought justice to New Haven. I will say that I do not understand how an exam can be disciminatory in the first place. In Louisville, for example, the test for the police department gives preferential points to women, blacks, and latinos up front so that they score better on teh exams. The city claims this is fair, but to me such practice is discriminatory in itself, as it assumes that these groups are not as intelligent as the white male, who must score all the points on his own.

Sotomayor claimed that she was simply upholding the lower court as they had followed the law. I believe that she could have indeed prevented the Supreme Court from having to make the right decision, but many are on the affirmitive action bandwagon that has turned into reverse discrimination.
 
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.

This is why there should be litmus test for allowing someone to be a judge. If they are going to ignore a discrimination because of the plaintiff's skin color then that judge is no better than some judge in the past who did the same thing because of skin color. Why do we allow these racist to be judges? I am so sick and tired of racial discrimination being called "revere discrimination", it is not reverse discrimination it is racial discrimination. Why the **** do a lot of people play along with the reverse discrimination label?
 
Try reading slower. There's only ten words.

Its not about reading comprehension, its because it makes no senses.

aps asked the question because that quote has been used in thread after thread after thread about the Judge. That makes sense. One could assume that someone or a group of people bringing up something over and over again could be "obsessed with it".

That said, aps commenting on a single comment made a single time in a single thread can not be in any way "obsessing".

You tried to be a smart ass and failed, miserably, because your smart ass response didn't make sense.

This is why there should be litmus test for allowing someone to be a judge. If they are going to ignore a discrimination because of the plaintiff's skin color then that judge is no better than some judge in the past who did the same thing because of skin color. Why do we allow these racist to be judges? I am so sick and tired of racial discrimination being called "revere discrimination", it is not reverse discrimination it is racial discrimination. Why the **** do a lot of people play along with the reverse discrimination label?

So are you saying that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are unquestionably racist simply because of their decision on this?
 
I don't think King's vision of a color blind society will ever come true.

I would love to believe that this perspective is a little too pessimistic, Gill, but there are times when I grow faint-of-heart.

I grew up in a border state during the 50's so from that perspective, I am proud of the progress our citizens have achieved.

My fear, however, is that in all the good faith efforts to address the systemic racial issues that have plagued our country from the beginning, we have taken the easy path and elevated "victimhood" to a fine art form and a social virtue. We have evolved to a state where everyone can rest comfortably in the confidence that they are the biggest victims. And we have politicians and a legal system that is more than eager to cater to this clientele.

I do wish that we, as citizens, could shake ourselves from this slumber and begin again to climb out of this self-destructive morass. The only leverage we have is our voice and vote.
 
So are you saying that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are unquestionably racist simply because of their decision on this?

The firefighters discriminated against because of race and those 4 justices apparently felt that racist policies are a good thing. Either they are racist because why else would you support racist policies or they are hypocrites who claim to be against racist policies while supporting and allowing racist policies for other groups.

This is real actual definition of racism(not some crock **** liberal racist apologist definition)


American Heritage Dictionary

racism-

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are unquestionably racist simply because of their decision on this?

I do not think that those justices are necessarily racist, but so inundated with Affirmative Action, and the thought that if only white men are promoted, then something racist is going on. There should be no special play for any race. If we are all equal then we should start on an equal playing field and let merit take us where it will. Otherwise you promote incompotent people based on race, and this does nothing than bring the whole establishment, business, government down.

For the judges to rule that New Haven acted within the law on a policy that discarded one group in the favor of the other groups, is in of itself contradictory and faulty logic. Let's take away the crutch and allow all people to fairly compete, that is tru integration and equality.
 
The firefighters discriminated against because of race and those 4 justices apparently felt that racist policies are a good thing. Either they are racist because why else would you support racist policies or they are hypocrites who claim to be against racist policies while supporting and allowing racist policies for other groups.

This is real actual definition of racism(not some crock **** liberal racist apologist definition)


American Heritage Dictionary

racism-

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So even assuming that is correct....

You're saying a single racist action makes on a "racist"?
 
Back
Top Bottom