Souter to retire from Supreme Court

[Rex Kickass]

The New Haven case.

 

The New Haven case was a pure example of judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The 3-0 decision of which Sotomayor was only one vote, dealt solely with the fact that the city was trying to deal with federal law as it was written and not as you may perceive it to be.

 

The truth is that current federal employment laws that municipalities have to follow don't allow cities to promote or hire based on tests that primarily favor one race or another. The court's view was that since nobody was promoted as a result of a test that under federal law would be viewed as flawed because the city was taking steps to avoid liability in this case, that this case shouldn't have been brought up.

 

This unsigned decision was made on extremely narrow basis of the law. For all the talk about "activist judges" around here by conservatives, you'd think there'd be more respect for decisions made that apply the law, not create new policies.

[Texsox]

Well, if I ever end up in court I will demand a judge that is Irish/German, from the southside of chicago, has an advanced degree in the mathematical sciences, and roots for the White Sox. No one else can understand my struggle.

 

 

well played.

 

Everyone has struggles. I believe there are a shared amount, based on us living in the same environment. Then there are the additional struggles based on our unique attributes. No doubt in my mind that when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s the struggles for minorities were far greater than any advantages that were being written into law.

 

I also believe, at some theoretical point in time, the advantages being written into law, and people's changing attitudes, will balance, or in fact, create a disadvantage for majorities. Some will argue we are already at that point. I'll only say there are still many "firsts" left to go. In 2009 we are still talking about a first on the Supreme Court.

[Balta1701]

Gwen Ifill gives the counter-point this morning on ABC:

"I always try to take arguments like this and turn them on their heads. And I never hear people say that for a white male that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness, and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative.

 

"It's only considered to be a negative when ethnicity is involved, or race is involved, or gender is involved."

 

[Cknolls]

Maybe he was abused by a hispanic woman as a child.

 

Whatever, someone says something that hateful, they deserve to simply be ignored by thinking people.

 

 

And yet you guys love to talk about him. He obviously feels he needs to say outrageous stuff to try to be relevant. Like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, ignore them and they will go away.

[Cknolls]

The New Haven case was a pure example of judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The 3-0 decision of which Sotomayor was only one vote, dealt solely with the fact that the city was trying to deal with federal law as it was written and not as you may perceive it to be.

 

The truth is that current federal employment laws that municipalities have to follow don't allow cities to promote or hire based on tests that primarily favor one race or another. The court's view was that since nobody was promoted as a result of a test that under federal law would be viewed as flawed because the city was taking steps to avoid liability in this case, that this case shouldn't have been brought up.

 

This unsigned decision was made on extremely narrow basis of the law. For all the talk about "activist judges" around here by conservatives, you'd think there'd be more respect for decisions made that apply the law, not create new policies.

 

 

Either a person knows the material or not. It says a lot when you have to grade on a curve to promote one person over another. What happens when a city promotes a person and their inexperience or lack of brains causes someone to lose their life? But at least we had the person we wanted in the position whether they know their job or not.

[Rex Kickass]

Either a person knows the material or not. It says a lot when you have to grade on a curve to promote one person over another. What happens when a city promotes a person and their inexperience or lack of brains causes someone to lose their life? But at least we had the person we wanted in the position whether they know their job or not.

 

But had the appeals case heard this suit, and overturned it - it would be the definition of judicial activism. The three judge panel decided not to overturn the case (which every court had previously ruled the same way) because it was clear to the court that the city of New Haven did everything prudently and correctly under the auspices of federal law.

 

If the court's job is not to legislate and create policy, then what is the problem with the ruling that Sotomayor was one third of?

[BigSqwert]

via Sullivan

 

It took about, oh, under one minute to do a Google search and come up with Judge Sotomayor's dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143.

 

The plaintiff, Pappas, was fired by the NYPD when it was discovered that Pappas had regularly (but anonymously and on his own private time) distributed racist and anti-semitic pamphlets of the David Duke variety. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals voted to affirm the NYPD's actions but Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that Pappas's first amendment rights were not vitiated merely because he had unpopular views.

 

There are two critical points to take from this. The first, and most important point to consider, is that here we have a judge, accused of entho-centric racism, dissenting on behalf of a white male police officer accused of distributing racist pamphlets. This is outside the Limbaugh/Rove/Hannity nattering nabob narrative and so has to be ignored by much of the MSM.

 

The second point is the fact that despite the fact that his material is so readily available at the click of a Google button, so many people rely on ideologues to filter the information they take in and who treat that information as fact (which it is not) rather than advocacy (which it is). It is a sad pathetic sign of the times.

[NorthSideSox72]

And yet you guys love to talk about him. He obviously feels he needs to say outrageous stuff to try to be relevant. Like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, ignore them and they will go away.

I love to talk about him? I think this may be the first time I have ever even discussed G Gordon Liddy in here.

 

[EvilMonkey]

The New Haven case was a pure example of judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The 3-0 decision of which Sotomayor was only one vote, dealt solely with the fact that the city was trying to deal with federal law as it was written and not as you may perceive it to be.

 

The truth is that current federal employment laws that municipalities have to follow don't allow cities to promote or hire based on tests that primarily favor one race or another. The court's view was that since nobody was promoted as a result of a test that under federal law would be viewed as flawed because the city was taking steps to avoid liability in this case, that this case shouldn't have been brought up.

 

This unsigned decision was made on extremely narrow basis of the law. For all the talk about "activist judges" around here by conservatives, you'd think there'd be more respect for decisions made that apply the law, not create new policies.

Except that THIS town paid big bucks to a company for a test that would be race neutral and pass any challenges. What happened is that they chickened out when they saw the results, instead of defending the test and the test takers. People are supposed to get equal opportunity, not equal results.

 

 

http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm

New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.

 

IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors.

[lostfan]

How the hell do you design a test to be race-neutral?

 

I assert that this post is completely free of any racial bias.

[EvilMonkey]

How the hell do you design a test to be race-neutral?

 

I assert that this post is completely free of any racial bias.

How do you design one that isn't? unless they start throwing around slang that one racial or ethnic group may not know about, how hard is it to make up questions regarding firefighting that are race neutral? Again, equal outcome cannot be legislated without f***ing over someone else. Equal opportunity, sure. Outcome, no.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

How do you design one that isn't? unless they start throwing around slang that one racial or ethnic group may not know about, how hard is it to make up questions regarding firefighting that are race neutral? Again, equal outcome cannot be legislated without f***ing over someone else. Equal opportunity, sure. Outcome, no.

? I still don't see it. You write a test in standard English don't you? You either can speak and read in English, or you can't. I could see this as an issue if we were talking about immigrants, but that's not the case here.

 

I hereby declare this post free of any racial bias.

[bmags]

? I still don't see it. You write a test in standard English don't you? You either can speak and read in English, or you can't. I could see this as an issue if we were talking about immigrants, but that's not the case here.

 

I hereby declare this post free of any racial bias.

 

There have been many, many studies showing that standardized test scores are affected by writing the tests in a culturally relevant way. It's part of the reason NCLB allowed states to create their own tests.

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS overturns New Haven case 5-4.

[lostfan]

No surprise there.

 

You know, for all the b****ing about the original decision, as a federal judge, Sotomayor didn't have the authority/right to make any other decision, regardless of whether she thought the law was fair or not.

[Rex Kickass]

No surprise there.

 

You know, for all the b****ing about the original decision, as a federal judge, Sotomayor didn't have the authority/right to make any other decision, regardless of whether she thought the law was fair or not.

 

Activist judges making new law over decades of precedent!

 

Oh wait, its a Democratic administration now? Sorry, I forgot for a second.

 

Wholly appropriate decision to overturn every other court's decision in this case - and paring down liberal reverse racist discrimination policy!

[kapkomet]

"Conservative" viewpoints are always wrong. Always.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

"Conservative" viewpoints are always wrong. Always.

And "liberal" viewpoints by judges always makes them Activists. Always.

 

[Rex Kickass]

"Conservative" viewpoints are always wrong. Always.

 

I don't think that the ruling was necessarily wrong. Although it was an activist decision.

[lostfan]

I don't think that the ruling was necessarily wrong. Although it was an activist decision.

Seriously though, the beef on this was over what was "fair" rather than what the law said (and for the record, I thought it was fair, and I have no problem with the SCOTUS's ruling per se). But if a liberal does that, it's a horrible thing, activists out to destroy the Constitution (actual legitimate Constitutional basis of a decision notwithstanding). If a conservative does it, like what just happened, then it's justice being served and our immortal Constitution's values being upheld. The term "judicial activist" is Orwellian bulls***.

Edited June 29, 2009 by lostfan

[Rex Kickass]

Seriously though, the beef on this was over what was "fair" rather than what the law said (and for the record, I thought it was fair, and I have no problem with the SCOTUS's ruling per se). But if a liberal does that, it's a horrible thing, activists out to destroy the Constitution (actual legitimate Constitutional basis of a decision notwithstanding). If a conservative does it, like what just happened, then it's justice being served and our immortal Constitution's values being upheld. The term "judicial activist" is Orwellian bulls***.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with responsible judicial activism. And this is responsible judicial activism, in my opinion. But this is absolutely a case of the Supreme Court creating policy instead of enforcing laws. And that's not necessarily always a bad thing either.

[kapkomet]

And "liberal" viewpoints by judges always makes them Activists. Always.

No, it makes them "right". Always.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Activist judges making new law over decades of precedent!

 

Oh wait, its a Democratic administration now? Sorry, I forgot for a second.

 

Wholly appropriate decision to overturn every other court's decision in this case - and paring down liberal reverse racist discrimination policy!

I thought the law said "No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race."

[Rex Kickass]

I thought the law said "No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race."

 

If it had been that simple, this would have never gone to court. There are a series of federal laws that a city has to navigate to hire and promote people. Basically, in this case, the city decided that the only way to not discriminate in some way is to promote nobody.

[lostfan]

If it had been that simple, this would have never gone to court.

ding ding ding ding ding

 

And that's not all. Tell him what else he's won, Jim!

 

The same can be said of every case that has ever come before the Supreme Court. If a case has a cut-and-dry answer that you can just cite the Constitution for then any idiot judge can call that one.

Edited June 30, 2009 by lostfan