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

reply to post by rival


Rival,

Thanks for sharing your story here. There's an old adage "no good deed goes unpunished". It would seem true at times like these.

Judging from the enlightened posts I've read, I think the others following this thread will agree with me. You didn't post your story for sympathy or attention you were simply adding personal experience to the thread. That said I must pause to note that you and your family have bared much pain while bettering the life of one young man. For now that will have to be your consolation. You've also shown your children and those watching in your community how to act responsibly and that will be a future reward for you and everyone. I think you already know in your heart everything I'm saying, I just want you to know there are others that admire your unselfish decisions and your good works. I hope that if I was challenged like you that I would act in kind.

Do whatever you can to get past these disturbing people and events. Easier said than done I know. What is the Biblical quote, "and this too shall pass"? And of course: Illegitimus non carborundum! ("Don't let the bastards grind you down!") I can't think of a more appropriate time to use that phrase.

Well done. Peace to you and yours!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

Ok, now I see what you are saying. That it could have been avoided altogether had Sotomayor had a brain and made a sensible decision in the first place. I agree in that respect. However, I do believe that taking it to the Supreme Court, in the long run, will be a great boon, because it has finally set the ultimate precedent for future issues of reverse discrimination. Perhaps because of this case, future cases will end up deferring to the supreme court decision and we will not see this happen again.

Excellent point about this setting precedent. It seems luck and not the law was on our side in this decision. A new appointment could obviously have flipped this outcome. There's reason a plenty to challenge Ms Sotomayer's appointment.

P.S. I never went near Kitty!

Originally posted by Hemisphere
Excellent point about this setting precedent. It seems luck and not the law was on our side in this decision. A new appointment could obviously have flipped this outcome. There's reason a plenty to challenge Ms Sotomayer's appointment.

Very true. Who is this Sotomayer broad replacing anyway? Can nominees be challenged and prevented from taking the bench if there is strong reason to show that they are not fit for the job, or have blatant agendas?

P.S. I never went near Kitty!

I have witnesses who say otherwise!

I was a volunteer firefighter...and had to be trained and tested by the DOT of the state of Maryland.

As I recall the training/testing it was all specific things like volume of water, proper ways of identifying and treating various fires, etc.

Unless someone can't read or write or understand math where presented, how can a test be said to be racially exclusive?

We had this problem in chicago about 20 years ago...they needed 300 cops and had to not accept the first 300 because they were white and passed the test...they had to take the bottom feeders...even though they failed, because they were minorities.

When will people realize that the quota system hurts those who can do well because it is assumed they got the job not because they deserve it but because the quota system required that they be hired regardless of qualifications???

Can someone tell me how a basic test can be racially biased?

Originally posted by Common Good
Well folks, there you have it. The cry of reverse-discrimination is finally heard. This is what happens when you push the race card too far, now people might actually be able to get jobs without being overlooked simply because they are white, or any other color for that matter. This will probably weigh heavy on the future job markets, and schooling scholarships perhaps if this case pertains to any of it. No man should be more beneficial for one thing over the next simple because of a historical indifference. I dont say this often, but kudos to the Sureme Court.

Couldn't agree more. Reverse-discrimination is just as bad in the realm of skin colour as it is in the realm of gender. It's funny how sometimes the interests of minorities are placed above those of the majority.

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!

Very well said, and I think that is a good acronym too!

Looking at current events, White Adult Christian Males are the most prejudiced by far.

Originally posted by wiseone11
Can someone tell me how a basic test can be racially biased?

I don't know all the specifics of this case, but I thought the bias in similar cases was based on a statistic like "75% of the whites passed the test and 50% of the minorities passed the test. Therefore it is obvious that the test is biased against minorities"

To some that may seem like an obvious conclusion, but there is another possible conclusion, that perhaps the minorities were either not given equal educational opportunities, or have cultural differences placing less emphasis on education, or other similar factors, and are not performing as well as a result of those issues instead of any specific racial bias in the test. In the example of "how many 50 foot hoses does it take to make a 520 foot hose?" I think it's safe to say if fewer minorities answer that question correctly, it would not be due to racial bias, there must be some other factors at play. But even in a seemingly simple case like that, you could hear an argument that the minority grew up in a neighborhood where they didn't have 50 foot garden hoses, so that's what makes it biased, but I don't find that argument particularly persuasive.

I guess the best answer to this nonsense is to ask Ms. Sotomayor that - if her house was burning to the ground with her in it - would she want:
* The fire officer that was promoted by his skills/merit, or
* The fire officer that was promoted by his skin colour

in charge of the rescue?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Chaoticar]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Exactly! Education is the responsibility of those that wish to take the tests. No one elses. The original filer in this suit is deslexic and studied for almost two years, paying for extra classes and tutors he paid for out of his own pocket, only to be told that because the minorities didn't get the same training and education he should lose his passing with honors grade on the test. If someone wishes to be considered for a higher ranking postition he should do what is neccessary for himself, not rely on racist and discriminatory PC crap to raise his place in the department!
Zindo

[edit on 6/30/2009 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbi, you're right on there. If there are any handicaps it comes down to educational opportunities and things of that nature. And that is less and less the case as the years pass. You have to purposefully avoid educational opportunities now or so it seems. Even if someone taking this test had educational disadvantages, you still can't error and promote their lower test score because there are lives at stake. The men with the lower scores can study, improve and be promoted in the future. That's what this country is about, opportunity. Now that they know what is involved how tough can that be? If they continue to fail they are not capable.

We continue having minorities come to the country and due to various differences and language they start at the bottom and work up. It was that way for every group. Yes blacks might be the exception but that was 150 years ago and the civil rights 60's were 40+ years ago. How old are the firemen? 30 to 40 years old? It's time for everyone in the country to grow up. Just mho.

Hello everyone. Nice to meet you all.


[color=#484644]pret auto

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Who is this Sotomayer broad replacing anyway? Can nominees be challenged and prevented from taking the bench if there is strong reason to show that they are not fit for the job, or have blatant agendas?

From what Sunsetspawn posted earlier in the thread, she would be replacing Justice David Souter who Spawny mentioned was liberal leaning. And so it would be one liberal justice for another liberal justice if her appointment was accepted. Yes nominees can be challenged. They often are and a good percentage of nominees are rejected. The problem now is that Republican opposition to her nomination is weak as nearly all Republicans in office are weak or compromised in some way. (That South Carolina governor did a lot for Republican perception at a very critical time.) I'm not a Republican per se, I'm a fiscal conservative for sure. You just can't expect any common sense representation from Democrats now, they're all in Obama's pocket. That's the stimulus dollars at work. They buy loyalty to Obama. "Your state wants stimulus funds, you vote with and for me!"

So, despite her blatant agenda as well as her penchant for not following the law as written and being overturned on account of that, there is a good chance she will still be approved. If she isn't it will be near miraculous in my opinion and that's a damned shame. We're living in a country run by damned shames.