It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US top court rules against city on race, overturns Sonia Sotomayor decision

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 




What is a criminal lawyer?

A redundancy.

My apologies to criminals.


This case has nothing to do with criminal law. It is civil law with civil lawyers.

Just an FYI




Consider for a moment that the U.S. Supreme Court is being called upon to adjudicate the hiring of firefighters.


The case has nothing to do with hiring of firefighters. It has to do with racial discrimination against white firefighters who were not allowed their promotion that they deserved based on the test given to them by the city - because they were white.

[edit on 6/29/2009 by greeneyedleo]




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WinoBot
 


Her decisions have been overturned on a percentage not up to standard for a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Ladies and gentlemen, what is rarely discussed in these frivolous cases is the actual monetary cost for reviewing and trialing over and over. Consider for a moment that the U.S. Supreme Court is being called upon to adjudicate the hiring of firefighters. Not that firefighters are not important, this case is simply a no-brainer. (Insert your own joke regarding Sotomayor here!) Mindboggling!

We pay, we pay and justice is further weakened by this onslaught of nonsense. Our legal system is over burdened. Wow has that ever become cliché? Every issue crippling the economy (i.e. the country) can be traced at least partially to frivolous lawsuits and/or regulators/judges that are if not entirely negligent of their duties are injecting opinion where law should be the determinant. And so we pay and hard working citizens like these firefighters are kept in personal limbo. There are pressures to conserve all our resources but this huge waste is rarely, seriously questioned.

What is a criminal lawyer?

A redundancy.

My apologies to criminals.


In a few words: "A BRILLIANT series of facts!"

If we all actually learned something today it should be the above. The only winners in these cases are the lawyers and barristers who make millions out of their "talking" in court rooms.

If we all went back to the principles of Common Law (which are still the only law we need), there would be no problem in life.

Forget religion, forget government. Here are the two basic principles of Common Law:

1) Do no harm

2) Cause no loss

If you apply the above to everything you say and do, you'll never break the law, you'll never have a problem, and you'll be a fine upstanding member of the community.

How hard can it really be?

Edited to add that if we lived by those two very, very simple principles there would be no need for the greedy liars known as politicians and lawyers.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by dampnickers]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 




The only winners in these cases are the lawyers and barristers


If we learned anything today - the winners in this case were the firefighters - not the lawyers.

Did everyone read the case? Or are people now just commenting on the justice system in general?

[edit on 6/29/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by Hemisphere
 




What is a criminal lawyer?

A redundancy.

My apologies to criminals.


This case has nothing to do with criminal law. It is civil law with civil lawyers.

Just an FYI





Thank your lucky stars I'm not a liar.....er..... lawyer. Of course you're correct but despite the descrepency I'm guessing the lawyer crack was not lost on you. I think any frivolous lawsuit is criminal. There, that should be more inclusive to those practicing civil law. I wouldn't want this to go to the Supreme Court, they're busy.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


It should have said "these, and indeed any case are the lawyers"...

Regardless of whether or not a group of people have succeded in defeating oppresion, there is always the bill to settle at the end of it.

I for one would like to see the amount of money charged on an hourly basis by the Legal Profession to the public purse of any economy around the world. I would bet that in one hour, in any country, the figure would easily have at least six digits to it...

Peace.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Well hopefully this if anything will start to bring some jobs back into the country. It will the best and the brightest to succeed again.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by dampnickers
 




Did everyone read the case? Or are people now just commenting on the justice system in general?


The details have been out there for weeks. I take it you've read the entire case file. What is critical facts are contained that didn't make the encapsulations every media outlet has been providing?

We're commenting on the justice system in general and you think that's not appropriate here? Or are you looking for confirmation of what you've observed?

[edit for typo on 29-6-2009 by Hemisphere]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Hemisphere]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
This is a tough one it looks like. I can absoultely see the reverse racism aspect shinning through, and I think the fact that Sotomayor is hispanic weighs in a little bit on the subconcious. She had the ability to say "No, this is reverse racism... these men who studied for the promotion should get the promotion," yet instead she did not do this.

On the other hand, Sotomayor reached her decision based on what the council who preceded her believed. They believed that this test was unfair to minorities, which apparently happens from time to time on promotion tests.



Kenneth Yusko, a specialist in employment testing, says psychologists aren't sure why certain written tests produce racial disparities in certain job categories, but they do

www.npr.org...


I'm not a firefighter, maybe somebody on ATS is and they expand on this. My opinion is that no tests can prepare somebody to be in the shoes of a lieutenant or captain. I think the majority of this preperation comes from hands on training and experience. Anyone can pass the police test if they study hard enough, but what happens when they have somebody shooting at them and they are pissing their pants?

To me, from the reading I've been doing I've noticed many people saying the test was flawed from the beginning. Nobody was promoted, nobody was demoted. Sure, it sucks that people studied their asses off, passed and do not get the promotion, but I don't think that is reverse racism. I certainly don't think Sotomayor perpetuated that reverse racism. She saw that the council decided the test was unfair to minorities and upheld that ruling.

To chastise her for this is unwarranted. You must also criticise the other 4 people on the Supreme Court who voted against overturning Sotomayors ruling, and also the council who decided this test was unfair. So far all the headlines I've been seeing is Sotomayor's name and how awful her ruling was.

My 2 Cents, hope everyones Monday is going good.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
As most have said the guys with the best scores should always be at the top, regardless of race laws. Sorry I'd like the guy with the 95 saving me instead of the one with the 85, thank you very much. I wonder what else this could mean in the Court System in general.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WinoBot
 


Winobot, you've brought something out here. Correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem that Sotomayer despite anything a preceding council beleived, was legislating from the bench in this case. This is the issue that has been her sticking point with many. It's not her job. She apparently knows her legal boundaries but ignores them. We've all seen the taped sessions of her with the *wink* to her cohorts regarding this issue.

Judges start as lawyers, I just don't know any judge jokes. Give me some time but this really isn't that funny.

Just FYI she has been appointed by both Bush Sr and Clinton during her career. Somehow that doesn't make me any more comfortable with the prospect of her serving on the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WinoBot
I certainly don't think Sotomayor perpetuated that reverse racism. She saw that the council decided the test was unfair to minorities and upheld that ruling.

To chastise her for this is unwarranted. You must also criticise the other 4 people on the Supreme Court who voted against overturning Sotomayors ruling, and also the council who decided this test was unfair. So far all the headlines I've been seeing is Sotomayor's name and how awful her ruling was.


For once, I think the headlines are right. Maybe Sotomayor didn't "perpetrate" it and the council did, but you seem to be missing that the job if a judge is to right wrongs committed or "perpetrated" by others, like the council. What is racially biased about asking how many 50 foot hoses it takes to make a 520 foot hose in a firefighters test? To chastise her for calling that a racially biased question along with others like it on the test is completely warranted.

And I have seen others criticizing the other 4 supreme court judges, I'll do it too. People should be hired and promoted irrespective of their race, color, or creed, these decisions should be based on qualifications, abilities and performance and any judge that rules otherwise deserves to be chastised, including not only Sotomayor but also the other 4 judges.

Now if for some reason minorities are having more difficulty figuring out the answers to questions on these qualification tests, perhaps further action is needed to provide better minority education etc and that would be a valid response to the facts provided in this case, but the actions of Sotomayor are not the way to handle this.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by Hemisphere
 




Consider for a moment that the U.S. Supreme Court is being called upon to adjudicate the hiring of firefighters.


The case has nothing to do with hiring of firefighters. It has to do with racial discrimination against white firefighters who were not allowed their promotion that they deserved based on the test given to them by the city - because they were white.


Leo, sorry I didn't address this earlier. You're right on here of course. My apologies an oversight not a slight.

Racial discrimination is still being used for political gain 40+ years after the civil rights movement. The firefighters are punished by their race and Sotomayer is seemingly being rewarded for hers. What regarding her race has held her back in this country? Apparently nothing. (I have nothing against Sotomayer, my wife would be classified a "latina" by these standards and she literally cringes at the term. American born, her parents were Cuban immigrants and she and they consider themselves American without hyphen.) What Sotomayers critics are asking now: "Is she the best candidate?" of any race, sex, etc. She might have been just that for lower courts. Wishing this "latina" is the best candidate for the Supreme Court does not make it so. Wishing that the best qualified firefighter was black does not make that so.

Only lawyers could continue to use this as a tool crippling and frisking the nation. From the "Lawyer in Chief" down to your local ambulance chaser.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dampnickers
The simple fact here is that whites are the one group who are most discriminated against. Especially if you are a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), and male!

I've seen many, many examples of it in my life, and I'm sure it will continue for a few years yet.

The problem is that there aren't enough people being affected by this discrimination against whites for it to be an issue... as soon as there are a critical mass of whites being affected then we'll see riots akin to those of the Blacks that rioted in the US and other place several decades ago.

Although, when the whites riot they wont be as civilised as people think them to be. They'll have been pushed so far into a corner that they will have little choice but to snap and go for the proverbial juggular.

The revolution is coming, and it isn't going to be pretty.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by dampnickers]


I honestly think everyone is discrimminated against by everyone! Not just blacks, whites, males, females, rich, poor, handicapped, foreign born or US born. Everyone gives into the stereo-types that the Mainstream Media feed us.

How many of us have assumed things about people we do not even know? We all do it, doesn't make it right or wrong. It comes natural. How many times have we passed up an opportunity to talk to someone because of how they looked, or because of your assumptions of how they might act or be?

For all we know that person we avoided could have ended up being one of our most adored friends in life. We need to surpass our spiritual immaturity and look beyond what our eyes tell us.

Perception is the mother of Deception.


[edit on 29-6-2009 by leira7]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The racism against whites is sometimes out of hand.. this for instance, is one of those cases. Imagine if only blacks or Latinos passed the exam, would they have tossed it out? I think not.


"Relying so heavily on pencil-and-paper exams to select firefighters is a dubious practice," Ginsburg said, calling the majority ruling "troubling."

"Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold," she said.


Obviously it was a Liberal/Conservative split in the Court.. thank God that other racism Sotomayor was not on the bench, she would have altered the outcome, and racism in this country would have won another battle.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by leira7

I honestly think everyone is discrimminated against by everyone! Not just blacks, whites, males, females, rich, poor, handicapped, foreign born or US born. Everyone gives into the stereo-types that the Mainstream Media feed us.

How many of us have assumed things about people we do not even know? We all do it, doesn't make it right or wrong. [edit on 29-6-2009 by leira7]

If you think discrimination can be right, I don't happen to agree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. You can even practice discrimination in deciding who to invite to the barbecue you have at your house if you want. But discrimination has no business in the workplace and is completely wrong there.

I hope someday you will realize that.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
A nice slap in the face to the Obama admin.
I like it.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
What really irks me about this decision is that these men have not been made whole. The City of New haven hasn't been taken to task and these men now have no rights to sue to get the compensation they deserve. They may not even be considered under the new testing rules New Haven has put in place. In short, all they did was reverse an ignorant decision and did absolutely nothing for the men who where wronged. There was NO remedy in this reversal. These men will be stigmatized by the PTB in New haven and will be treated as pariahs by the criminals running the city with no recourse! Completely unacceptable!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Maybe if we could get a supreme court majority that would simply rule on the LAW as it is written. Instead of giving their own interpretations. Why do we have the supreme court making all the decisions on our most important social issues anyhow. It's just another way for the feds to make the calls.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
As most have said the guys with the best scores should always be at the top, regardless of race laws. Sorry I'd like the guy with the 95 saving me instead of the one with the 85, thank you very much. I wonder what else this could mean in the Court System in general.


I would prefer somebody who has run into a burning building before, against somebody who has just gotten out of college and scored a 95 on the exam. This can be seen in the work force everywhere... People want employees with job experience, not who got the highest GPA in college.




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join