Sotomayor hearings begin

[murra]

This thread is hilarious...

[DC Tom]

This thread is hilarious...

 

I particularly like Bishop Hedd's counterpoint to Bishop Hedd's posts...

[blzrul]

What I didn't realize was all this fuss over the firefighter lawsuit - which I actually think ended up the right way, meaning I think Sotomayor's ruling was wrong - one of the guys involved is actually dsylexic and used that "disability" to get preferential treatment. You really can't have it both ways, guy....

 

I did my EMT training with a guy like that. He was SO skilled...but he was either dyslexic or just plain out had panic attacks when faced with a written test. He aced all the practicals of course but flunked the written. So it was agreed that he would be allowed to take the test verbally.

 

So - was that fair to the rest of us? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that failing this guy would have been a loss to the community because he was good. BUT arguably it's easier to pass a test when you can discuss your answers and clarify them.

 

It's never black or white.

[K-9]

Of course, it's the news-worthy decisions that, being controversial, are most likely to be "smacked down". Or...they're newsworthy BECAUSE they're smacked down.

 

Her confirmation is pretty much a foregone conclusion, though, unless something really stupid happens (and frankly, I think she could offer Texas back to Mexico, and still get confirmed). The hearings are nothing more than opportunities for press time for the Congresscritters.

 

I read somewhere some time ago that something like 80% of ALL cases that reach the SC from the Appellate are 'smacked' down. Not sure if that's accurate or of where I read it but if true, it's interesting. And to me, a pretty good indication that the system is working. Flawed though it may be, it's STILL the best ever.

[Alaska Darin]

What I didn't realize was all this fuss over the firefighter lawsuit - which I actually think ended up the right way, meaning I think Sotomayor's ruling was wrong - one of the guys involved is actually dsylexic and used that "disability" to get preferential treatment. You really can't have it both ways, guy....

 

I did my EMT training with a guy like that. He was SO skilled...but he was either dyslexic or just plain out had panic attacks when faced with a written test. He aced all the practicals of course but flunked the written. So it was agreed that he would be allowed to take the test verbally.

 

So - was that fair to the rest of us? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that failing this guy would have been a loss to the community because he was good. BUT arguably it's easier to pass a test when you can discuss your answers and clarify them.

 

It's never black or white.

I think sometimes it is "black and white". In this instance, the rules were in place and everyone abided by them except the city. When everyone knows the rules going in, it simply isn't fair or reasonable to change (or in this case disqualify) them because you didn't get the perfect result. Life is rarely perfect.

 

Sotomayor's ruling was patently wrong and the fact that 4 Supreme Court justices played partisan politics with the decision is even more disgusting. People do have the right to be promoted when they fulfill every requirement put in place, regardless of any race/creed/color/religion. To state otherwise is ludicrous.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with people being allowed to take the same test in a different manner (auditory versus read, as your example states) and doubt there is even a slight advantage. People simply learn and process information differently and shouldn't be penalized for that.

 

What is wrong is when they arbitrarily change or disqualify results to fit a twisted ideology. These are not school children competing on a playground. These are adults who have plenty of both job and life experience and this decision removed both merit and sense from the process. Sonya Sotomayor should be ashamed of herself.

[StupidNation]

5-4 is hardly a smack down. Something like 7-2, as in Roe vs Wade, is a smack down.

 

Good point, just like those darkies weren't people either by 7-2. (Edit: in case you didn't know Dred Scott lost by 7-2)

 

Wait...

 

Saying that certain classes of people have no rights by a vote of 7-2.... Nah, you'll never get it.

[PastaJoe]

I think sometimes it is "black and white". In this instance, the rules were in place and everyone abided by them except the city. When everyone knows the rules going in, it simply isn't fair or reasonable to change (or in this case disqualify) them because you didn't get the perfect result. Life is rarely perfect.

 

Sotomayor's ruling was patently wrong and the fact that 4 Supreme Court justices played partisan politics with the decision is even more disgusting. People do have the right to be promoted when they fulfill every requirement put in place, regardless of any race/creed/color/religion. To state otherwise is ludicrous.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with people being allowed to take the same test in a different manner (auditory versus read, as your example states) and doubt there is even a slight advantage. People simply learn and process information differently and shouldn't be penalized for that.

 

What is wrong is when they arbitrarily change or disqualify results to fit a twisted ideology. These are not school children competing on a playground. These are adults who have plenty of both job and life experience and this decision removed both merit and sense from the process. Sonya Sotomayor should be ashamed of herself.

 

Interesting that you support an activist court when it suits your needs. The way conservatives talk about the firefighter case makes it sound like Sotomayor was the lone judge who made the original ruling for New Haven, and I'll bet alot of people who are arguing about it believe that without looking at the facts. The fact is that the case was decided by a district court. It then went to the Second Circuit court, of which she is one of the members who upheld the lower court ruling based on precedent. The conservative members of the Supreme Court ruled against precedent in reversing the ruling, thus taking on the activist role that conservatives always complain about.

[finknottle]

I did my EMT training with a guy like that. He was SO skilled...but he was either dyslexic or just plain out had panic attacks when faced with a written test. He aced all the practicals of course but flunked the written. So it was agreed that he would be allowed to take the test verbally.

 

So - was that fair to the rest of us? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that failing this guy would have been a loss to the community because he was good. BUT arguably it's easier to pass a test when you can discuss your answers and clarify them.

 

I dunno - were accomidations made to him so that he could compete on a level playing field, or were the outcomes voided until a dyslexic passed? That's the crux of the matter. Do we as a society mandate equal opportunity, or equality in outcome?

[Keukasmallies]

Sonia Sotomayor--love her or hate her--must be totally nonplussed being questioned by newly-seated Senator Frankbooben. He certainly takes office bearing an impressive list of legislative accomplishments and a long history of senatorial task maturity.

 

AArrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[DC Tom]

Sonia Sotomayor--love her or hate her--must be totally nonplussed being questioned by newly-seated Senator Frankbooben. He certainly takes office bearing an impressive list of legislative accomplishments and a long history of senatorial task maturity.

 

AArrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

Were I in her position, I'd immediately start quoting Stuart Smalley at him.

 

"Ms. Sotomayor, what are your qualifications for the Supreme Court?"

 

"Well, Senator Franken, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"

[Alaska Darin]

Interesting that you support an activist court when it suits your needs. The way conservatives talk about the firefighter case makes it sound like Sotomayor was the lone judge who made the original ruling for New Haven, and I'll bet alot of people who are arguing about it believe that without looking at the facts. The fact is that the case was decided by a district court. It then went to the Second Circuit court, of which she is one of the members who upheld the lower court ruling based on precedent. The conservative members of the Supreme Court ruled against precedent in reversing the ruling, thus taking on the activist role that conservatives always complain about.

"Activist Court" isn't one of my mantras, nor am I a "conservative" as you use the word. I'm pretty convinced that Congress critters created that "argument" to pass the buck from their incompetent lawmaking. If you continually pass laws that require legal interpretation, you're going to have judges deciding the direction. It's been the case since this country was founded.

 

"Holding up a ruling based on precedent" is a garbage excuse that can only exist in the legal profession. It's also one of the cornerstones of why our democracy continues to erode.

 

I can only imagine what a blindly pro-labor idiot like yourself would do if big company "management" arbitrarily decided to throw out their promotion system because only union folks passed their test and then the Supreme Court decided 5-4 against you along partisan political lines.

[Erik]

C'Mon guys...let's all just calm down and go do that crack cocaine thing...

[PastaJoe]

"Activist Court" isn't one of my mantras, nor am I a "conservative" as you use the word. I'm pretty convinced that Congress critters created that "argument" to pass the buck from their incompetent lawmaking. If you continually pass laws that require legal interpretation, you're going to have judges deciding the direction. It's been the case since this country was founded.

 

"Holding up a ruling based on precedent" is a garbage excuse that can only exist in the legal profession. It's also one of the cornerstones of why our democracy continues to erode.

 

I can only imagine what a blindly pro-labor idiot like yourself would do if big company "management" arbitrarily decided to throw out their promotion system because only union folks passed their test and then the Supreme Court decided 5-4 against you along partisan political lines.

 

Not a good analogy because unions have contracts which specifically spell out the rules, while salaried personnel have to rely on some general guidelines that are open to interpretation by the company management. If a union member applies for a salaried position, they have to abide by the rules that apply to salaried positions.

 

More facts on the firefighter case are that this was the first time that this test was given, it was weighed to count more than other considerations like interviews, and the results of this new test was that it disproportionately disqualified black applicants compared to the historical numbers of black applicants that passed the old testing methods. So New Haven had good reason and were within their rights to throw out this new test after it showed that it wasn't consistent with previous tests. The district court, as well as Sotomayor's court, may have felt empathy for those who did best on the test, but used the law and precedent to decide the case, not empathy. It was the 5 most conservative judges on the Supreme Court who used their empathy to go against previous similar rulings and change the standard. But at the time Sotomayor had to make a judgement, it was not the standard. So if you don't want judges to change the standards by their rulings and legislate from the bench, then you can't fault Sotomayor; she followed the legal standard.