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.
What is a criminal lawyer?
A redundancy.
My apologies to criminals.
Consider for a moment that the U.S. Supreme Court is being called upon to adjudicate the hiring of firefighters.
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.
The only winners in these cases are the lawyers and barristers
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.
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]
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...
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.
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.
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]
"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.
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]
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.