Political Forums

NotHereForLong · 06-06-2009, 04:48 AM

I've read a little about the case. It's about whether a city has a legal right to nullify and reformulate it's own firefighter test if it thinks the test may illegally discriminate by race. What the case comes down to is whether or not the city had a good enough reason to determine that their original test might be discriminatory. I've read that the law places the bar pretty low/ presumes discrimination whenever a test causes a disparate impact on minorities. I don't have an education in law. But i have to wonder, are you objecting to her ruling because you don't like her conclusion or because you find it legally flawed? The fact that a previous court had made the same ruling and Sotomayor's three judge panel unanimously upheld it suggests to me that the latter isn't true. If the supreme court's liberals also agree with her ruling, i'd take that as further evidence that her decision is legally justifiable.

However, you say that if the liberals on the Supreme Court agree with her, then they're racists too. That says a lot about you. If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

As for the 2nd amendment, your own links state that a panel of conservative judges reached the same decision that she did.

Grouch · 06-06-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally stated by NotHereForLong

However, you say that if the liberals on the Supreme Court agree with her, then they're racists too. That says a lot about you. If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

Yes, its says that I am for equality. Not for giving assistance or special treatment educated grown adult who are an minority because they can’t perform on a standardized test.

Quote:

Originally stated by NotHereForLong

As for the 2nd amendment, your own links state that a panel of conservative judges reached the same decision that she did.

Yes there are conservative judges on it who chose to uphold an unconstitutional law. Good think they aren’t nominated for the Supreme Court right.

g-man · 06-06-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by Sabz5150

Conservative to English translation: I don't like the law because it conflicts with my faith, therefore the law is wrong.

Wrong again. It has more to do with my belief in the people speaking and the government listening.

g-man · 06-06-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by Sabz5150

She is good because she has job experience.

Yes, she has job experience. One of her exceptional experiences is to deny the appeal of a dyslexic firefighter who went through great personal efforts to pass the test to achieve a promotion and was not promoted because no black candidates for the promotion could pass the test. Thus, no one was promoted.
That with her proclamation of superiority based on her heritage over white men disqualifies her.

Sabz5150 · 06-08-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by g-man

Wrong again. It has more to do with my belief in the people speaking and the government listening.

Roe v. Wade

Shall we go through it again?

Sabz5150 · 06-08-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by g-man

Yes, she has job experience. One of her exceptional experiences is to deny the appeal of a dyslexic firefighter who went through great personal efforts to pass the test to achieve a promotion and was not promoted because no black candidates for the promotion could pass the test. Thus, no one was promoted.
That with her proclamation of superiority based on her heritage over white men disqualifies her.

Did she follow the law in her judgment? Did her judgment follow the letter of the law in that case? Regardless of how you feel about the law and/or the ruling, did it adhere to the laws by which the case was brought about?

Research and think carefully. You can't have this both ways, hate to tell you that.

Sabz5150 · 06-08-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by NotHereForLong

If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

Jones received death threats after Dover.

06-06-2009, 04:48 AM	#28
NotHereForLong Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 102	Re: Sotomayor I've read a little about the case. It's about whether a city has a legal right to nullify and reformulate it's own firefighter test if it thinks the test may illegally discriminate by race. What the case comes down to is whether or not the city had a good enough reason to determine that their original test might be discriminatory. I've read that the law places the bar pretty low/ presumes discrimination whenever a test causes a disparate impact on minorities. I don't have an education in law. But i have to wonder, are you objecting to her ruling because you don't like her conclusion or because you find it legally flawed? The fact that a previous court had made the same ruling and Sotomayor's three judge panel unanimously upheld it suggests to me that the latter isn't true. If the supreme court's liberals also agree with her ruling, i'd take that as further evidence that her decision is legally justifiable. However, you say that if the liberals on the Supreme Court agree with her, then they're racists too. That says a lot about you. If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character. As for the 2nd amendment, your own links state that a panel of conservative judges reached the same decision that she did.