Ann Coulter: 'Sotomayor Even Crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[justashooter 430]

[several Coulter torpedoes score solid hits in this article.]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102751

So much for wise Latinas

Ann Coulter: Ricci decision shows 'Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth

Bader Ginsburg'

Posted: July 01, 2009

6:18 pm Eastern

By Ann Coulter

With the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we

can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader

Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out

the results of a firefighters' test – which had been expressly designed

to be race-neutral – because only whites and Hispanics scored high

enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test

did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied

promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race

discrimination.

Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky,

unsigned opinion – the judicial equivalent of "talk to the hand." She

upheld the city's race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen

on the grounds that the test had a "disparate impact" on blacks, meaning

that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city – and by Sotomayor's

opinion – as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks

who were not promoted.

That's a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong – whatever

"wrong" means in any given context of professions, populations,

applicants, workers, etc. – is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is

grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against

disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

KKK's first targets were Republicans – read how Democrats started group

in "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White"

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under

Sotomayor's ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making

hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the

Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion

clinics by threatening to sue them? There's no question but that

abortion clinics have a "disparate impact" on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic

firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test

results alone give the government a green light to engage in race

discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly

stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based

on a statistical disparity alone."

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the

lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For

Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor's talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice

Ginsburg's prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from

having to explain why quotas aren't quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Liberals desperately want race quotas – as long as quotas never come to

their offices.

But they can't say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours

straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is

paying attention, they announce: So we're all agreed – we will have

racial quotas.

Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg

said: "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a

questionable practice, to say the least." Liberals prefer a more

objective test, such as race.

Isn't excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she

is? It's curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well

on tests find them so irrelevant to other people's jobs.

In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst

possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if

your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed

that courts have found that a fire officer's job "involves complex

behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions

under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities – none of which

is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test."

So does a lawyer's job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no

"interpersonal skills" get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the

basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests,

from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying

the "disparate impact" of legal exams: She never hired a single black

law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an

appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a

state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do

not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)

But liberals think other people's jobs are a joke, so the testing must

also be a joke. That is – other than their preferred test: "Is the

applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?"

There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so

there is no test that can't be derided by the race-mongers. Which is

exactly the point. Get rid of all tests – except for lawyers who

graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth

Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other

people's jobs without limit.

As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big

point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None

adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove

discrimination.

This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life

experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

[several Coulter torpedoes score solid hits in this article.]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102751

So much for wise Latinas

Ann Coulter: Ricci decision shows 'Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth

Bader Ginsburg'

Posted: July 01, 2009

6:18 pm Eastern

By Ann Coulter

With the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we

can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader

Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out

the results of a firefighters' test – which had been expressly designed

to be race-neutral – because only whites and Hispanics scored high

enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test

did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied

promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race

discrimination.

Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky,

unsigned opinion – the judicial equivalent of "talk to the hand." She

upheld the city's race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen

on the grounds that the test had a "disparate impact" on blacks, meaning

that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city – and by Sotomayor's

opinion – as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks

who were not promoted.

That's a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong – whatever

"wrong" means in any given context of professions, populations,

applicants, workers, etc. – is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is

grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against

disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

KKK's first targets were Republicans – read how Democrats started group

in "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White"

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under

Sotomayor's ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making

hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the

Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion

clinics by threatening to sue them? There's no question but that

abortion clinics have a "disparate impact" on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic

firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test

results alone give the government a green light to engage in race

discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly

stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based

on a statistical disparity alone."

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the

lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For

Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor's talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice

Ginsburg's prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from

having to explain why quotas aren't quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Liberals desperately want race quotas – as long as quotas never come to

their offices.

But they can't say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours

straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is

paying attention, they announce: So we're all agreed – we will have

racial quotas.

Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg

said: "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a

questionable practice, to say the least." Liberals prefer a more

objective test, such as race.

Isn't excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she

is? It's curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well

on tests find them so irrelevant to other people's jobs.

In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst

possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if

your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed

that courts have found that a fire officer's job "involves complex

behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions

under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities – none of which

is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test."

So does a lawyer's job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no

"interpersonal skills" get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the

basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests,

from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying

the "disparate impact" of legal exams: She never hired a single black

law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an

appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a

state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do

not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)

But liberals think other people's jobs are a joke, so the testing must

also be a joke. That is – other than their preferred test: "Is the

applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?"

There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so

there is no test that can't be derided by the race-mongers. Which is

exactly the point. Get rid of all tests – except for lawyers who

graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth

Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other

people's jobs without limit.

As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big

point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None

adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove

discrimination.

This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life

experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.

Dude, you can feed it to them all day long. It aint gonna do no good till they "FEEL" it.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test

results alone give the government a green light to engage in race

discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly

stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based

on a statistical disparity alone."

that says it all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ann Coulter, World Nut Daily - now that says it all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Coulter always adds something to a discussion, doesn't she.

Stupid bint.

[nowhereman 1]

Coulter says stupid stuff on a daily basis, so for her to call someone crazy it's pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

For Ginsburg aka Snoozeburg to be insane, it would need to be certified that she was AWAKE when she voted on a decision

[Niels Bohr 72]

I don't believe all democrats are correct people. I don't believe all republican are correct people.

I do know Ann Coulter is an extremist. From a reasonable and sensible perspective, Ann Coulter possess none of these attributes. She and Laura Ingraham can organize their own war against America. For, when a Dem is in office, they attack them regardless if their policy is sound, fair, and justified.

I listen to Laura Ingraham on the radio around 7 or 8 pm whenever she's on. Most stuff she says create so much hate. I can feel it from her.

I'm not surprise if the Dem return the treatment to a Rep in office. Somehow, somewhere, the message of peace is meaningless when we have someone from one side who cannot justify a reasonable sense of logic towards the other without an all out verbal argument.

I remember a few days back when the RI officials were discussing RI high unemployment. A republican officie responded to a dem saying, "if you guys did this a fifteen years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess....now the problem is in your hands not mines..."

I just wanted to speak out to that retard, but, it was unprofessional to blame one group to a specific problem since the problem was an accumulation of mistakes from both parties. These social and stability problems needs to be rectified by both parties. When will these groups who has a voice on TV to persuade the average American that both parties need to solve these problems, instead of blaming one another?

[nowhereman 1]

I don't believe all democrats are correct people. I don't believe all republican are correct people.

I do know Ann Coulter is an extremist. From a reasonable and sensible perspective, Ann Coulter possess none of these attributes. She and Laura Ingraham can organize their own war against America. For, when a Dem is in office, they attack them regardless if their policy is sound, fair, and justified.

I listen to Laura Ingraham on the radio around 7 or 8 pm whenever she's on. Most stuff she says create so much hate. I can feel it from her.

I'm not surprise if the Dem return the treatment to a Rep in office. Somehow, somewhere, the message of peace is meaningless when we have someone from one side who cannot justify a reasonable sense of logic towards the other without an all out verbal argument.

I remember a few days back when the RI officials were discussing RI high unemployment. A republican officie responded to a dem saying, "if you guys did this a fifteen years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess....now the problem is in your hands not mines..."

I just wanted to speak out to that retard, but, it was unprofessional to blame one group to a specific problem since the problem was an accumulation of mistakes from both parties. These social and stability problems needs to be rectified by both parties. When will these groups who has a voice on TV to persuade the average American that both parties need to solve these problems, instead of blaming one another?

Well said! IMO Coulter & Limbaugh & the like make the Republican party look like extremists & sore losers who want to blame "liberals" for anything & everything. By constantly resorting to rhetoric & cartoonish exaggerations of the democrats they make themselves look bad. I have far more respect for conservatives like Newt Gingrich... I often don't agree with him but he comes across as intelligent, well-spoken & knowledgeable (just the opposite of the Coulter/ Limbaugh crowd).

[ready4ONE 5,400]

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test

results alone give the government a green light to engage in race

discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly

stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based

on a statistical disparity alone."

that says it all.

An entire article failing to note 13 total judges, not just Sotomayor, came out upholding the cities decision...

That says it all!

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test

results alone give the government a green light to engage in race

discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly

stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based

on a statistical disparity alone."

that says it all.

An entire article failing to note 13 total judges, not just Sotomayor, came out upholding the cities decision...

That says it all!

when those other judges are supreme court nominees, then you might have a point. until then, no red herring fishing in this thread.