The Ricci case

[heckofajobbrownie]

Since it's being talked about a lot, does anyone care to weigh in on what they think is the problem with Sotomayor's decision in this case?

[Westside Steve]

Here's a rule of thumb.

 

 

Take this or any situation like it and reverse the races and ask yourself if it's fine by you.

If it isn't it probably needs a second look.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ege__96703.html

 

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

This case was doomed by an activist judge.

 

proof she is not qualified and should be sent to traffic court.

 

I always held this opinion about judges like Sonia Sotomayor, they couldn't cut it in the real world by earning money as a lawyer so they got a job working for the government.

 

2 things that are a must in this world to be able to make it.

 

1) get a Banker you can Trust

2) get a Lawyer you can Trust

 

Reason: They are both professional thiefs and will steel your money legally.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Huh? She worked in private practice for years, quickly earning her way to partner in her firm.

 

But that's okay. Don't let facts get in the way. Or in T's case, reality.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what was wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case.

[calfoxwc]

I'm still waiting to find out why you are in denial.

 

Steve already posted it.

 

Here, let me REITERATE in my own words:

 

Ricci was discriminated against. So were the white takers of the test, too.

 

But Ricci was the object of discrimination because he was DYSLEXIC. NOT because

 

of the color of his skin.

 

The gov. failed to properly administer the test, imho, by presenting the test in written form.

 

In special education classes, those students who might be dyslexic, or simply have the inability

 

to comprehend what they read, or can't see, have the tests READ to them.

 

If Ricci had had the test READ to him, and he did not pass, it is acceptable to me, that he

 

did not know the information, and no discrimination took place.

 

But, the white firefighters, who DID PASS the written test, most certainly WERE discriminated against also,

 

in empathy for the plight of Ricci, who was DYSLEXIC. The discrimination against them is based on

 

NOT being dyslexic, and lefthandedly, politically, perhaps, because they were white, but we don't know...

 

but in retrospect, Sotomayor's dispisition towards supporting minorities, it's not a bad guess...

 

This is an excellent indication that Sotomayor does not have the integrity, nor the temperament, nor

 

the brilliance to appraise issues in a comphrensive appraisal. Her decision was strictly linear.

 

The proper decision is to reward the white firefighters with promotion, after Ricci was administered the test

 

orally, then when Ricci passed, all get promoted. All firefighters were wronged.

 

This is the problem. In empathy for one with a learning disability, the white firefighters were also discriminated against.

 

Now, I'm no judge at all, but can anyone find fault with my decision?

 

And, if , legitimately, no fault is found with my decision, doesn't that certainly reflect on Sotomayor's

 

lack of qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land?

 

Let's test it logically:

 

If you support Sotomayor's decision, would you still support it if Ricci had been a white firefighter, and

 

the rest of the firefighters were black?

 

In either case, MY solution is still valid, and I'm not a legal beagle nor a judge.

 

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what was wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case.

 

 

Hey how about you sum it up in and tell us why it's proper and just and how those who complain are partisan hacks.

 

But shall we say your game is transparent.

 

Get someone to write an opinion pick a part of it, rephrase that part and scream bloody murder.

 

C'mon counselor

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You had a general, two-line statement and then posted someone else's opinion. What's wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case?

[ballpeen]

You had a general, two-line statement and then posted someone else's opinion. What's wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case?

 

Basically it says the test wasn't dumbed down enough for the dumbist segment of our society.

 

It would be interesting to see the actual test to see what it contained that was ruled to have put people at a cultural disadvantage. Maybe it contained 20 questions dealing with the greats of polka music.

[Westside Steve]

You had a general, two-line statement and then posted someone else's opinion. What's wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case?

 

C'mon legal scholar.

Tell us.

We'll see if we agree.

WSS

[Mr. T]

Huh? She worked in private practice for years, quickly earning her way to partner in her firm.

 

But that's okay. Don't let facts get in the way. Or in T's case, reality.

 

 

She practiced law for 8 years and has been a judge since 1992 thats 17 years. Yeah I will say she couldn't hack it as lawyer.

 

She more than likely wanted to become an activist judge when she couldn't get the rulings in court the way she saw it.

 

[

b]Controversial Positions and Statements[/b]

 

• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.

 

• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.

 

• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

• Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George Bush, but it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, who recommended her to Bush.

 

• In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spri...2252005clerk.rm]

 

• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

 

"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....

 

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

 

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice 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. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [u.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

 

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

 

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009

 

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

 

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

 

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

 

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

 

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

 

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

 

• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)

 

• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

 

• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

 

• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

 

• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

 

• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

 

• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

 

Other Notable Cases

 

 

• Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)

 

• Major League Baseball Strike: As a district court judge, Sotomayor issued an injunction against team owners for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act during collective bargaining negotiations with the MLB players association. The owners had sought to end the system of free agency and salary arbitration and imposed a lock-out against players as negotiations began to break down. The ruling ended the longest baseball strike in history. National Labor Relations Board vs. Major League Baseball, 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)

[heckofajobbrownie]

Still waiting.

 

A few of you are already on record saying that you oppose her in part because of her decision in the Ricci case. What's wrong with her decision in the Ricci case?

[Westside Steve]

Still waiting.

 

So are we.

Can't do it?

Above your vaunted legal expertise?

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't have any legal expertise, and I haven't said anything yet about the Ricci case, or how I feel about it. You, and a couple other people, had an opinion on it on the day she was nominated. You uttered:

 

"As to the Rcici case puniushing 21st century whites for old societal "ills" is not a good way to ease whatever effects of "racism" exist but it does strengthen the base.

A different and more lenienbt set of laws for black people shouldn't be the goal of the supreme court.

IMO."

 

So it seems you've made a determination already. So what's wrong with her decision in the Ricci case?

[calfoxwc]

Heck, I answered your question, and now you are continuing to ask the question like it wasn't answered.

 

Either address the answer, or quit asking.

 

Or, you just want your thread to continue to be bumped because it

 

makes your high chair spin faster.

 

I answered in ernest, how about an ernest response:

********************************************

 

I'm still waiting to find out why you are in denial.

 

Steve already posted it.

 

Here, let me REITERATE in my own words:

 

Ricci was discriminated against. So were the white takers of the test, too.

 

But Ricci was the object of discrimination because he was DYSLEXIC. NOT because

 

of the color of his skin.

 

The gov. failed to properly administer the test, imho, by presenting the test in written form.

 

In special education classes, those students who might be dyslexic, or simply have the inability

 

to comprehend what they read, or can't see, have the tests READ to them.

 

If Ricci had had the test READ to him, and he did not pass, it is acceptable to me, that he

 

did not know the information, and no discrimination took place.

 

But, the white firefighters, who DID PASS the written test, most certainly WERE discriminated against also,

 

in empathy for the plight of Ricci, who was DYSLEXIC. The discrimination against them is based on

 

NOT being dyslexic, and lefthandedly, politically, perhaps, because they were white, but we don't know...

 

but in retrospect, Sotomayor's dispisition towards supporting minorities, it's not a bad guess...

 

This is an excellent indication that Sotomayor does not have the integrity, nor the temperament, nor

 

the brilliance to appraise issues in a comphrensive appraisal. Her decision was strictly linear.

 

The proper decision is to reward the white firefighters with promotion, after Ricci was administered the test

 

orally, then when Ricci passed, all get promoted. All firefighters were wronged.

 

This is the problem. In empathy for one with a learning disability, the white firefighters were also discriminated against.

 

Now, I'm no judge at all, but can anyone find fault with my decision?

 

And, if , legitimately, no fault is found with my decision, doesn't that certainly reflect on Sotomayor's

 

lack of qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land?

 

Let's test it logically:

 

If you support Sotomayor's decision, would you still support it if Ricci had been a white firefighter, and

 

the rest of the firefighters were black?

 

In either case, MY solution is still valid, and I'm not a legal beagle nor a judge.

[Westside Steve]

I don't have any legal expertise, and I haven't said anything yet about the Ricci case, or how I feel about it. You, and a couple other people, had an opinion on it on the day she was nominated. You uttered:

 

"As to the Rcici case puniushing 21st century whites for old societal "ills" is not a good way to ease whatever effects of "racism" exist but it does strengthen the base.

A different and more lenienbt set of laws for black people shouldn't be the goal of the supreme court.

IMO."

 

So it seems you've made a determination already. So what's wrong with her decision in the Ricci case?

 

Sprry Heck.

Do you take issue with anything I said (besides the typos) and if so why would you?

 

Which statment outraged you? Explain if you will.

BTW ytou were bragging about being the legal expert among we commoners.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Where did I brag about my legal expertise?

 

And why can't you answer a simple question? Is it because there's nothing behind your opinion to explain?

[Westside Steve]

Where did I brag about my legal expertise?

 

And why can't you answer a simple question? Is it because there's nothing behind your opinion to explain?

 

 

Dunno professor.

I'm just a common citizen not a legal scholar.

Why can't you if you're so smucking fart.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Man, your batting average on charges leveled against me is painfully low, so much so that you'd think you'd stop making an ass out of yourself. You throw out one after the other - "You reworded what I said!" "You mischaracterized me!" "You're a party hack - no, you're a corporate hack!" "You bragged about being a legal scholar!" Each easier to refute than the next.

 

So let's put that aside for a second and get back to the issue at hand - what's your problem with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case?

[calfoxwc]

So, Heck, I answered your question, one you apparently thought wouldn't happen,

 

and now the entire board can see you run and hide.

 

You are interested in belittling Steve, asking questions repeatedly, challenging

 

for an answer, and I answered.

 

Perhaps you don't want to admit it, but it's a serious response - the type of response

 

you allegedly want, with the emphasis, apparently, on "allegedly".

 

Same old thing. Insist on answers to your questions instead of answering them, whine about

 

wanting serious conversation, then when you get it, and you can't handle it, you bail and start

 

all over again with arguing for argument's sake.

 

Heck, the entire board can see that I answered your "waiting" for an answer.

 

And, so far, the entire board, not missing anyone, can see I answered it, sincerely.

 

And you are ignoring it because...........?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Because I generally don't read your posts.

[Westside Steve]

Man, your batting average on charges leveled against me is painfully low, so much so that you'd think you'd stop making an ass out of yourself. You throw out one after the other - "You reworded what I said!" "You mischaracterized me!" "You're a party hack - no, you're a corporate hack!" "You bragged about being a legal scholar!" Each easier to refute than the next.

 

Man you really have nothing right?

 

So let's put that aside for a second and get back to the issue at hand - what's your problem with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case?

 

 

OK Heck.

Nothing.

That bastard deserved to be punished.

How dare he work so hard for a reward opportunity promised by the city?

He obviously took unfar advantage of the situation and exploited a protected class of American citizens.

 

And the name is Ricci?

Hmmmm sounds Eye talian to me.

Maybe this wiill hand Columbus and his ilk a well earned comeuppance.

 

Viva Sotomayor.

 

Now it's your turn.

Actually it's time for another refusal to answer isn'[t it?

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

Since it's being talked about a lot, does anyone care to weigh in on what they think is the problem with Sotomayor's decision in this case?

 

I think her decision sucks because there was no determination made on the "racial equality" of the test (whatever that really is). Her decision was made on an assumption (that the test must have contained an element of inequality for all 19 to fail). I can just as easily assume that all 19 black firefighters were idiots (or ill-prepared, if it helps you sleep better at night).

 

 

This is what bothers me about Soto:

 

It would be merely a gaffe if it weren't for her smug, half-assed apology she farted out after what should be the worst thing any judge could ever say, but nobody seems to give a shit anymore, so fcuk-it. I'll be here waiting on my Ex-ca-lade.

[calfoxwc]

Because I generally don't read your posts. Heck

*****************************************

 

Baloney.

 

Seriously, do you think anybody on this entire board thinks you don't read my posts,

 

 

after all the sniping you've done at Steve and I and....anybody who disagrees with your

 

 

poorly supported pablum?

 

 

If you can't ridicule a person's opinion, and they decide to seriously respond to your request for an explanation

 

 

why Sotomayor was wrong in her? Ricci decision... (wasn't signed, wonder why, eh?), all of a sudden,

 

 

you don't read the post?

 

 

Gee Heck - I challenge you to find fault with my criticism of her ruling in the Ricci decision. I answered your

 

challenge - you read just enough to answer my questioning your total lack of response.

 

And yet, you say you didn't read my legit response that immediately followed?

 

Duuuude - seriously - nobody on this entire board can say I wasn't legit in my response.

 

I'll repost it again for your convenience: (and anyone else on the board is welcome to

 

find fault with my analysis of what was wrong with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case).

 

**************************************

 

Ricci was discriminated against. So were the white takers of the test, too.

 

But Ricci was the object of discrimination because he was DYSLEXIC. NOT because

 

of the color of his skin.

 

The gov. failed to properly administer the test, imho, by presenting the test in written form.

 

In special education classes, those students who might be dyslexic, or simply have the inability

 

to comprehend what they read, or can't see, have the tests READ to them.

 

If Ricci had had the test READ to him, and he did not pass, it is acceptable to me, that he

 

did not know the information, and no discrimination took place.

 

But, the white firefighters, who DID PASS the written test, most certainly WERE discriminated against also,

 

in empathy for the plight of Ricci, who was DYSLEXIC. The discrimination against them is based on

 

NOT being dyslexic, and lefthandedly, politically, perhaps, because they were white, but we don't know...

 

but in retrospect, Sotomayor's dispisition towards supporting minorities, it's not a bad guess...

 

This is an excellent indication that Sotomayor does not have the integrity, nor the temperament, nor

 

the brilliance to appraise issues in a comphrensive appraisal. Her decision was strictly linear.

 

The proper decision is to reward the white firefighters with promotion, after Ricci was administered the test

 

orally, then when Ricci passed, all get promoted. All firefighters were wronged.

 

This is the problem. In empathy for one with a learning disability, the white firefighters were also discriminated against.

 

Now, I'm no judge at all, but can anyone find fault with my decision?

 

And, if , legitimately, no fault is found with my decision, doesn't that certainly reflect on Sotomayor's

 

lack of qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land?

 

Let's test it logically:

 

If you support Sotomayor's decision, would you still support it if Ricci had been a white firefighter, and

 

the rest of the firefighters were black?

 

In either case, MY solution is still valid, and I'm not a legal beagle nor a judge.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Nothing.

That bastard deserved to be punished.

How dare he work so hard for a reward opportunity promised by the city?

He obviously took unfar advantage of the situation and exploited a protected class of American citizens.

 

And the name is Ricci?

Hmmmm sounds Eye talian to me.

Maybe this wiill hand Columbus and his ilk a well earned comeuppance.

 

Viva Sotomayor.

 

Now it's your turn.

Actually it's time for another refusal to answer isn'[t it?

WSS

 

And this is my point exactly. You guys are mad at the outcome of the Ricci case, because you feel he got screwed. And clearly, he did. But figuring out who got screwed is not what Sotomayor's job is. It's her job to apply the law.

 

Yes, here you guys are whining about "judicial activism" and judges "who legislate from the bench", and you're angry because Sotomayor didn't go against what the law said and fix this injustice. In other words, you're mad because she wasn't activist enough.

 

You don't seem to be the least bit interested in what the law says, or her interpretation of it, or her expression of sympathy for Ricci and the other plaintiffs. Her decision was that the city of New Haven, whether or not she personally agreed with the policy, was allowed/required to throw out those tests because they were in violation of the law as it's written.

 

Now, you can disagree with her conclusion, but I don't really imagine that you guys are going to make the case that Sotomayor is misreading the disparate-impact clause in Title VII of the Civil Right Act. You're simply mad at the outcome.

 

Except that's not how the system works, nor is it how she should be judged. And in order to make anything more than a political case against Sotomayor, you'd have to show that she interpreted the law wrong.

 

But you guys don't. You just complain that a white guy got screwed and you hate that, and so you hate the judge who sided with the city, whether or not that's what the law required.

 

 

Or take a look at Sotomayor's history in cases where racial discrimination was alleged:

 

"Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

 

...Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.

 

...So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1."

 

Does this sound like a woman who does her job and interprets the law, or does it sound like the cartoon characterization you and others have decided to run with, despite really having no idea what you're talking about - that Sotomayor is a racist judicial activist who uses her job to pull for minorities because she sympathizes with them?

 

It certainly doesn't look that way, does it?

 

 

...So now what's your problem with Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case? Anyone?

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for me, I don't feel I'm particularly qualified to go through her cases and weigh the merits of her arguments, as I don't have a law degree. I'd differ to people who have expertise in this area, and whose opinions I trust.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's another look at her record in all cases involving race:

 

"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decision-making."

 

[calfoxwc]

I say again, you keep asking, and I'm answering yet again.

 

I won't change my answer so you can make mincemeat of it.

 

You'll have to address it as I seriously wrote it.

 

As long as you keep asking, I'll keep answering, and I'll happily wait

 

for a legit response by you after you critique my response.

*******************************************

Ricci was discriminated against. So were the white takers of the test, too.

 

But Ricci was the object of discrimination because he was DYSLEXIC. NOT because

 

of the color of his skin.

 

The gov. failed to properly administer the test, imho, by presenting the test in written form.

 

In special education classes, those students who might be dyslexic, or simply have the inability

 

to comprehend what they read, or can't see, have the tests READ to them.

 

If Ricci had had the test READ to him, and he did not pass, it is acceptable to me, that he

 

did not know the information, and no discrimination took place.

 

But, the white firefighters, who DID PASS the written test, most certainly WERE discriminated against also,

 

in empathy for the plight of Ricci, who was DYSLEXIC. The discrimination against them is based on

 

NOT being dyslexic, and lefthandedly, politically, perhaps, because they were white, but we don't know...

 

but in retrospect, Sotomayor's dispisition towards supporting minorities, it's not a bad guess...

 

This is an excellent indication that Sotomayor does not have the integrity, nor the temperament, nor

 

the brilliance to appraise issues in a comphrensive appraisal. Her decision was strictly linear.

 

The proper decision is to reward the white firefighters with promotion, after Ricci was administered the test

 

orally, then when Ricci passed, all get promoted. All firefighters were wronged.

 

This is the problem. In empathy for one with a learning disability, the white firefighters were also discriminated against.

 

Now, I'm no judge at all, but can anyone find fault with my decision?

 

And, if , legitimately, no fault is found with my decision, doesn't that certainly reflect on Sotomayor's

 

lack of qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land?

 

Let's test it logically:

 

If you support Sotomayor's decision, would you still support it if Ricci had been a white firefighter, and

 

the rest of the firefighters were black?

 

In either case, MY solution is still valid, and I'm not a legal beagle nor a judge.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, my response was to you as well. You're not addressing what the law is, what it says, or even seem to be aware of it. Your critique isn't of Sotomayor. It's of something else. You don't have an opinion on what Sotomayor did. You simply have an opinion that's irrelevant to any discussion of the Ricci case.