Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor;

[nowhereman 1]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

There's an important entry in the article... the deciding factor is whether or not the test discriminates against a certain group and/or gives an advantage to another group & the majority decision was that the test did not discriminate in that way.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

Edited June 30, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

There's an important entry in the article... the deciding factor is whether or not the test discriminates against a certain group and/or gives an advantage to another group & the majority decision was that the test did not discriminate in that way.

Indeed, but obviously it wasn't definitive, hence the split decision. It's totally understandable and certainly doesn't make Sotomajor look like an idiot or more importantly a bigot although I am sure it's easy to be persuaded that way.

[Peikko 1,575]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

It was a 'heads we win, tails you lose' decision by the city. As I said, in my opinion it was the right call but there, the Supreme Court has overturned it. That's what they are there for

[_Simpson_ 250]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

It was a 'heads we win, tails you lose' decision by the city. As I said, in my opinion it was the right call but there, the Supreme Court has overturned it. That's what they are there for

Fair enough, your entitled to your opinion even if it sucks big time.

Edited June 30, 2009 by looking_up

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

It was a 'heads we win, tails you lose' decision by the city. As I said, in my opinion it was the right call but there, the Supreme Court has overturned it. That's what they are there for

Fair enough, your entitled to your opinion even if it sucks big time.

Apparently madame cleo's opinion only sucks 5/9th's of the time... And her opinion this decision hardly paint's Sotomeyer as a hack or a putz is spot on.

Had the issue been more clearly legal as opposed to political, and at least one or more liberal judges had joined the majority, then you might have some sort of an argument...

[Immigrant2009 0]

I think it might be a sign from the current Judges that they don't her to be her coutnerpart.

[GaryC 7]

Race should not play a part in any hiring decision, period. It should be against the law to even ask a persons race on an application. IMO the only time race should be asked is in a census.

[justashooter 430]

no surprise here. she is a racist and has just been handed her hat. if she is appointed, she will be a lame duck laughingstock, as is fitting for one with her lack of judicial accumen.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

It was a 'heads we win, tails you lose' decision by the city. As I said, in my opinion it was the right call but there, the Supreme Court has overturned it. That's what they are there for

Fair enough, your entitled to your opinion even if it sucks big time.

Apparently madame cleo's opinion only sucks 5/9th's of the time... And her opinion this decision hardly paint's Sotomeyer as a hack or a putz is spot on.

Had the issue been more clearly legal as opposed to political, and at least one or more liberal judges had joined the majority, then you might have some sort of an argument...

5/9ths of the time eh, so that means a majority of the time she sucks ... how could you! No need to get all serious I was kidding for the most part hence the devil emoticon. I dont agree with her on this but I was in now way making a personal attack.

Edited June 30, 2009 by looking_up

[Pooky 3,929]

Agree? Abide by it of course. I do not have enough information to agree or disagree but that the decision was a 4/5 split surely tells us that there is still contention. I think that's naturally given the nature of this type of testing and the nature of people's decisions to sue.

For what it's worth, I think the city originally made a good call, it's very expensive for a city to be at the wrong end of a discrimination law suit.

Did they really(make a good call)? I understand the cities worries but if its wrong its wrong, its seems they were qualified for the promotion and there for shouldn't be punished for not being a minority.

It was a 'heads we win, tails you lose' decision by the city. As I said, in my opinion it was the right call but there, the Supreme Court has overturned it. That's what they are there for

It is very expensive to be at the wrong end of a discrimination suit. Trouble is, that is exactly where the city ended up. Their mistake was thinking that discrimination was limited to races other than Caucasian. They forgot one of the main ideals of the US law system - that everyone has equal rights under the law. In seeking to protect itself from accusations of discrimination from minorities, the city left itself wide open to the same from the firefighters themselves.

As for Judge Sotomayor, the main plank of the criticism against her and the other Appeals Court judges is that they did not look at the case in detail, something of a luxury the Supreme Court cannot afford.

I note with interest that because the Supreme Court was divided 5 to 4, some people are accusing the "Conservatives" on the Court of voting on party lines. Why not say the same about the non-Conservatives. Or, in this case, why not emphasize the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be about Law, not politics, and the justices themselves need to understand that the Law is their master here, not the politicians. The sooner the justices prove their independence from political "leaning" - don't get me wrong, many have in the past - the happier I'll be.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Sotomeyer over ruled 5-4 along lib/conservative lines? Shocking!

Good thing con supremes only vote based on legality and not along political lines!

or that liberal judges vote against white people all the time.

[nowhereman 1]

no surprise here. she is a racist and has just been handed her hat. if she is appointed, she will be a lame duck laughingstock, as is fitting for one with her lack of judicial accumen.

You can't say someone is a racist merely because they support affirmative action. You can certainly disagree with affirmative action but to label someone who supports it as racist is just plain wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<shrugs>> She was overruled by a slim majority. So what?

[HAL 9000 96]

<<shrugs>> She was overruled by a slim majority. So what?

Poor white people... suffering so much at the hands of activist, liberal, female, latina judges.

This isn't the first time people try to play politics out of race issues, and it is likely, and unfortunately, won't be the last time.

I agree with GaryC above too. Race has got to be finally tucked away as a determining factor in setting social, political, judicial, etc decisions. This should be extended to everything, including ensuring HR decisions are such, and that SELECTION CRITERIA do not bias on race as well.

I guess that would shut the racist side of arguments down as well until they could try to make scapegoats of other issues, try as they may.