Sotomayor fireman ruling over-turned by SCOTUS »
Posted By k9kssr 4 months, 1 week ago in NewsSCOTUS rules on New Haven firemen suit.
Read Full Story at bench.nationalreview.com »
991 Views Share Story 90 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 90 (view all)
-
92%
k9kssr4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/29/cn...
Reply
A majority of respondants in this poll feel like the white firefighters were discriminated against in Sotomayor's ruling in the lower court. -
-
100%
TheRealizer4 months, 1 week ago
-
78%
k9kssr4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really don't think it will make a difference in her confirmation. This case has been talked about and talked about and people have already made up their mind whether she was a racist or not before the SC ruled. It just validates some people's opinion of her.
Reply
-
-
71%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Legal experts today said that the Sotomayor ruling for that case was correct, because she followed the current laws regarding discrimination and affirmative action.
Reply
When the Supreme Court announced their ruling, they have in effect CHANGED the law. FUTURE cases that are similar will now more likely receive similar rulings (as SCOTUS) because of the LEGAL precedent that the Supreme Court has set.
Sotomayor did nothing wrong regarding her judicial opinion/ruling of that case.-
-
-
83%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THIS is WHAT I am talking about! Sheesh .....
Reply
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap...
Still, the 5-4 decision, which was not unexpected on a court whose conservative majority has recently moved to narrow measures meant to combat racial discrimination, is hardly a clear-cut rebuke to Sotomayor.
Sotomayor's supporters noted that the appeals court decision followed well-established legal precedents — something conservatives routinely say judges should do. They also pointed out that she did not actually write the appeals court decision but was rather one member of a three-judge panel that rejected the white firefighters' claim of discrimination. -
71%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And HERE .....
Reply
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/16185/
The concern in New Haven did not want to select from only among those who performed well on the test because that group, the city believed, was unrepresentative of the department and the city. New Haven believed it could scrap the test and start its assessment process over again. This was in keeping with precedent in many communities all over the country in recent years.
Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
John Glasletter, a spokesman for People for the American Way, told the World that “opponents of Judge Sotomayor have gone to great lengths to use the ruling of her panel against her, and they will ramp up their efforts with the Supreme Court overruling her Second Circuit Court.
He noted that “Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by longstanding precedent and federal law. They applied the law without regard to their personal views and unanimously affirmed the district court ruling and the full 2nd circuit backed them up.
“In other words,” Glasletter said, "Sotomayor is anything but an outlier. She and the seven other federal judges who decided the case at the district and circuit levels were unanimous in determining that precedent and federal law required rejection of the suits.”
The Supreme Court decision today, observers note, upends decades of settled law and, at the same time, undermines civil rights law and affirmative action.
Glasletter said it is the height of hypocrisy and opportunism for Sotomayor’s so-called ‘strict constructionist’ critics to condemn her for judicial activism when she was being conservative with that ruling.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fireprep.com/fireman_reading_comprehens...
Reply -
50%
k9kssr4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goopy,
Reply
Hon.....you may think you are being clever, or witty, or even insulting with your little zingers, but claiming to hear anger and rage through a computer monitor just makes you appear paranoid and psychotic. Bless your heart, I guess you think your posts are fresh and original, but frankly they're getting a little repetitive. I really like you, but calling people, whom you have no personal knowledge of, names like racist and liar is not really appropriate behavior for a rational adult.
You're giving democrats a really bad name and they don't need that.-
80%
Goppy4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Dearie ... where should I start?
Reply
You mean to tell me that ... you CANNOT read emotion into the written word?
Why ... this is quite an astonishing admission on your part ... and completely discredits the entire notion of the written word!
Just think ... when Juiius Caesar said: "Et tu, Brute?" ... that expresses no more emotion than ... "The sky is blue"?
Why ... this is remarkable!
So, when my fellow Christian Conservatives call other Propeller members every name and insult ... such as ... as I've been called many times ... "ass" ... I should assume the person launching this comment is joyful and gay?
Come on, k9kssr ... get real.
.
BTW: (For you, k9kssr ... that means, "Even you, Brutus?")
And ... I'd like to add ... if you think my posts are 'a little repetitive' ... can you imagine how your own tired ... pathetic ... whining about Obama has become?
.
LOL. -
-
-
100%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why does article after article refer to the "white" firefighters
Reply
Two of the firefighters are Hispanic - aren't they minorities?
One of the firefighters is dyslexic. He hired a special tutor to help him study. Wouldn't he be in a protected class - disabled?-
PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned
-
50%
Goppy4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know, Petesake ... it sounds as if you are whining.
Reply
Oh oh ... this is going to 'get under the skin' of k9kssr!
LOL.
But seriously ... I find some real depravity behind your comment.
Some real depravity.
Now granted ... you are simply expressing the fundamental 'values' of the Modern Republican.
I get that, Petesake.
But ... what I REALLY have a problem with ... is the fact that you aren't recognizing the NEW target of Modern Republican Racism in America today ... Latinos.
I cannot tell you how often I've read livid anger directed at Mexican immigrants from my fellow Christian Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.
Please don't deny that this is a regular ritual that Modern Republicans engage in.
Let's all be frank and open ... one of the major expressions of Modern Republicanism is Xenophobia.
.
How do you think it was so easy for Bush2 to invade Iraq? ... THEY WERE MUSLIM!
.
See?
.
-
-
100%
tchef4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with this decision. I don't think it's a good idea to lower our standards of performance just because we are afraid we will exclude a minority. I remember when I was young growing up outside of Milwaukee WI in the 70's and at that time women wanted to join the firefighters but couldn't pass the physical test. I can't remember if they allowed them to or not but I do remember the case did go to court. The point is by lowering these standards we create unsafe conditions for the other firefighters as well as the public in general.
Reply -
36%
gwhiddon4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Petesake,
Reply
I've had run ins with this fool over and over. I just had to pull his chain - he gets so irrational.
What I find funny is some of these people don't realize the number of people in the general population who read these stories who DON'T comment on articles here. I'd love to hear their opinions on people like Goppy.-
50%
Goppy4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have?
Reply
Mostly, I only recall me pointing out that your livid expressions of hatred for our Government ... for Democracy ... and especially your hatred of a National Health Care plan ... were inconsistent with your entire life.
I mean, given that ... if Government HADN'T spent money on YOU ... you wouldn't even have a career!
Plus ... while you rant against Government provided health care ... you don't have to worry about health care yourself ... because YOU belong to a Government provided Health Care plan.
See?
That's really only ever been my contention with you.
If there IS any IRRATIONALITY there, my friend ... it seems to reside with you.
.
.
-
-
-
Neutral
trmnatr24 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
even though i agree with their decision,there were four judges who ruled against it. so the decision was won by just one vote.she will be considered a liberal judge,but that could change as it has in the past.she will be confirmed,no one doubts that.
Reply -
75%
lloydm654 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy,Are we talking legal immigrants who stood in line done all the paper work,learned enough English to qualify,and want to be Americans. As they were standing in line with pride,and integrity the illegals were stealing the rewards of the honest imagrant.I am a republican,and I am against illegals living in my country,no matter where they come.I know many democrats who concur.
Reply -
43%
mrlecher4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looks like the 5 Bushbot appointees were "legislating from the bench" again. They completely rewrote Title VII of the FEDERAL LAW. Yes, it was a bad law, however, isn't it the Repugs contention that the courts are NOT to rewrite any laws? It would be up to the Congress to change the law.
Reply
Repugs = Flaming Hypocrites.-
-
50%
JohnGault4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks GW.
Reply
"They completely rewrote Title VII of the FEDERAL LAW"
Title VII is in direct contradiction to the 14th amendment. EQUAL protection under the law. What is scary is that this was a 5-4 decision instead of a 9-0 which is should have been. Even Ginsberg agreed there was no evidence that this test was biased, but FELT
[Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.
"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.]
There should be only one directive. Select the best people.
To answer some of the questions that people brought up, this test was examined for biased before it was given.
-
-
33%
automan9094 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sonya not only got this one wrong, she got overturned 6 out of the 7 times that her cases went to the Supreme Court.
Reply
That alone shows that she is the wrong person for the job.
She doesn't make her decisions based on our Constitution, which is what she is supposed to do. -
100%
fjgalt4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since judges swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, the Supreme Court precedent set in 1803 in the case of Marbury vs. Madison should apply.
Reply
"The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable."
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House
Afghanistan government says foreign officials are interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.