Comments for Sotomayor fireman ruling over-turned by SCOTUS »
Posted By k9kssr 6 months ago in NewsSCOTUS rules on New Haven firemen suit.
Read Full Story at bench.nationalreview.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 90
-
92%
k9kssr6 months 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%
Will13136 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that would probably be understating the number..
Reply
based on Supreme Court stats.. it should be around 75%..
of course you are aware that the Supreme Court overturns above 75% of the cases it decides to hear.. THEY DON'T HEAR THEM IF IT'S A WASTE OF THEIR TIME.. -
100%
bubba26 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sotomayor was not "wrong" about anything.
Reply
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/16185/
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, 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.
-
-
-
100%
TheRealizer6 months ago
-
78%
k9kssr6 months 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-
67%
Goppy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have a valid point.
Reply
I think America is divided on this issue.
I know I am.
Having witnessed fellow Southern Conservatives fight ... with extreme RAGE ... against the Civil Rights movement in the 60's ... I've long felt that some method of REVERSING the injustice and Moral Depravity of Racism and Bigotry against Black Americans was needed.
But, I think that America has made great strides ... which of course ... is in no small measure due to America being forced to accept Black Americans as fellow citizens with all the same rights as Old White Folk.
Perhaps it's time to set aside some of these measures - and celebrate that - for the most part - Mainstream America has finally come to grips with ... and overcome ... it's racist past.
Of course ... there will always be those ... like k9kssr ... who see ANY effort to right past wrongs as being RACIST.
One hears the anger and rage of this poster ... even typed on a monitor ... and realize that Racism is remains latent in many people still.
.
.-
50%
tanglang6 months ago
-
67%
Goppy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really?
Reply
WOW ... you really are an angry ... hate filled ... purposeful Liar.
Of course ... you get your information from racist white folks ... like Rush Limbaugh ... so I can understand where you come from.
The fact remains .. whether you like it or not ... that the core supporters of The Modern Republican Party have been culled from the ranks of heavily racist sections of America ... you know ... the RED States?
Check out my bio ... I have a map that identifies those areas of the nation who consistently support the Modern Republican party ... and their place in history.
.
Have fun!
:-)
.-
60%
tanglang6 months ago
-
57%
Goppy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
History is my evidence my friend.
Reply
LBJ signed on to the Civil Rights efforts in support of Martin Luther King's non-violent effort to help the Traditionally Conservative Red States of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and of course, north Florida.
For you to deny the history of Southern Dixie-Crats or that Segregationists ... led by Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans ... and were welcomed by the Republican party ... specifically for their rabid opposition to Civil Rights in America ... well ... you ARE a Liar ...
OR ....
You are profoundly ignorant of American history.
You are completely free to make your choice on that matter ... and I will defend to the death ... your right to choose either.
.
This is ... after all ... a free country ... thanks to the Civil Rights efforts of the 60's.
.-
-
-
-
100%
GehlLady6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I did. I was in school in the 60s when busing, (desegregation) started. I don't remember anyone that started the riots, threw the rocks, or was chased away from the schools to avoid being beaten asking or caring what political party the throwers or the duckers supported.
Reply
It was straight up black, white. It was ugly, it was horrific, it left too many lifelong scars on both black and white. Of course I'm talking of the kids, the ones who are always hurt first, and the worst, in every fight, regardless the cause.
Goppy, you are one of the worst kind of bigots on this specific issue, you crow over your map on your profile page. If I had to guess, I'd guess you were one of the 'throwers'. When I left the south and lived up north, I found rampant racism that shocked me. You see, as a southern white girl, I had thought that it was "a southern thang'.
I did some research over the years. It's not red/blue state, it's not north/south. Never has been. Not really. It's hate. Pure hate, and that, my friend, knows no political party, no mason-dixon line.
-
-
75%
aceofspades16 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tang - perhaps you don't know that the term "dixie-crat" refers to pre civil rights reform southern democrats, who had a stranglehold on southern politics until LBJ (a southern democrat) signed civil rights reforms into law & they defected in mass to the republican party.
Reply
The republicans until that time were personna non grata in the south since Lincoln was a republican.
The term dixie-crat does not deny any "truth", but rather, your saying it does belies the fact that you have any knowledge of history before you were born, and you are just parroting the ignorance of so many here.-
67%
tanglang6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes LBJ signed it into law after being force fed it by republicans. It was the dems who were against the bill from jump street.
Reply
You are also incorrect in the rest of your comment. Look at Robert Byrd. Look how David Duke continued to try and run as an R even though the RNC told him to F off. Basically, I can call myself a 60' tall purple turtle bird all day long and it doesn't make it true.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
nostalgia6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PSST
Reply
Shouldn't "Having witnessed fellow Southern Conservatives fight ... with extreme RAGE ... against the Civil Rights movement in the 60's" actually read:
"Having witnessed fellow Southern Democrats fight ... with extreme RAGE ... against the Civil Rights movement in the 60's "-
50%
Goppy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah ... go ahead ... try using that.
Reply
LOL!!!
Hey nostalgia ... I've been meaning to ask you --- are you the lady in the center of this photo?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-29-Lit...
.-
60%
nostalgia6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 1950's in Little Rock? - that would have been a Democrat
Reply
LOL certainly not a political party anyone would associate with me- perhaps a relative of Bill Clinton's?
Here you go Goppy. This explains your mental instability
Did you miss the story?
Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys!
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/29/attack-o...
-
-
67%
Ratskii6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um nostalgia, tanglang,
Reply
Read up on your history, please. Up until 1948 there is some truth to idea that the democratic party was fairly racist (though pre 1948 republicans made no major efforts to combat racism (after Lincoln and the other Johnson that is) either.
Than Harry S. Truman read about black soldiers being attacked and discriminated against after they came home from defending our country in WWII. Though he had grown up in a household that supported segregation he was outraged by this treatment of our soldiers and supported the first civil rights laws since the 19th century. At the 1948 democratic nominating convention, Hubert H Humphrey gave a fiery speech in support of civil rights. After that, the democrats became the party of civil and minority rights and the republicans became the party that supported states rights (read pro-segregation).
You two are ignorant, but it's never to late to begin learning.
-
-
-
-
-
71%
bubba26 months 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.-
-
-
75%
Goppy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bubba is saying that there are other opinions on this divided case.
Reply
And in fact, the Supreme Court was divided 5 to 4.
I realize you would like everything tied up in a neat little black and white package ... but the reality of it is ... such certainty rarely happens.
.
Well ... except for the certainty that Modern Republicanism is a Morally Vacant Ideology ... and totally removed from Traditional Conservative Values.
.-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, starts on page 55 here:
Reply
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-14...
Can you tell me where you think it says Judge Sotomayor was wrong?
-
-
-
-
-
100%
bubba26 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am NOT disputing the SCOTUS decision - not at all.
Reply
What I AM saying is there are legal experts who are NOTING that Sotomayor's ruling was TRUE to the laws. But the SCOTUS ruling CHANGES those laws and sets a precedent that was NOT available before today's ruling.
Do you "get it"?
-
-
83%
bubba26 months 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%
bubba26 months 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.-
67%
djn3nunez36 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good job Bubba. Sotomayor and the two other judges on the panel were following the previous precedent. tThe Supreme court just set a new precedent with it's 5/4 rulling. It should have little effect on her confirmation, except giving the pseudo-cons more time to stall.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fireprep.com/fireman_reading_comprehens...
Reply -
-
50%
k9kssr6 months 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%
Goppy6 months 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. -
-
50%
k9kssr6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From Goopy: "Of course ... there will always be those ... like k9kssr ... who see ANY effort to right past wrongs as being RACIST.
Reply
One hears the anger and rage of this poster ... even typed on a monitor ... and realize that Racism is remains latent in many people still."
There it is Ace, in black and white. It's right up above on this thread. No private meeting, he just publically called me a racist.-
75%
aceofspades16 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dogkisser - as usual, prop did not open all comments & replies, so I did not see Goppy's reply to you before I made a comment. However, when you speak of rage & anger in one's posts, you seem to have been doing a pretty good job of doing precisely that in many of your comments
Reply -
-
-
-
-
100%
nostalgia6 months 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%
Goppy6 months 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%
GehlLady6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we're talking about racism ... and how it's expressed through the Ideology of the Modern Republican."
Reply
NO, that's just you Goppy. The rest of us were debating Sotomayor and the firemen, white and hispanic, and whether or not it was racism in her ruling.
For the record, I don't think she was being racist, I believe the precedents she and the other 2 judges followed were, in an unintended way.
The SCOTUS got it right. I see it as another step in the progress and healing of us all, black and white.
-
-
-
-
100%
tchef6 months 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%
gwhiddon6 months 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%
Goppy6 months 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
trmnatr26 months 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%
lloydm656 months 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%
mrlecher6 months 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%
JohnGault6 months 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%
automan9096 months 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%
fjgalt6 months 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."
loading ...
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.