RELATED STORIES
-
Rush to Judgment and political crucifixion: In defense of Charlie RangelThu, 07/29/2010 - 00:00He went from being an icon of the Civil Rights Movement to virtual pariah all in a matter of months. ...
-
Workplace rules: Skip the Black-on-Black dissingThu, 07/29/2010 - 00:00As an African American trying to advance on the job, you can’t appear too sympathetic to Black issues ...
-
Judge's ruling on AZ immigration law won't stop hate groupsWed, 07/28/2010 - 10:54But maybe now we can have an adult conversation instead of debating fake problems ...
-
Maureen Dowd misdiagnosed Obama's race problemWed, 07/28/2010 - 00:00Who really has a race problem Obama or America? Maybe it's a bit of both ...
theloop Twitter
- That is why MN Short Sale has formed a group of experts from different fields to help those homeowne... On Seven tips to shave down your spending painlessly (almost)
- He wasn't an equal co-conspirator, the plan was totally and entirely Shoshanna's plan. It was really... On The five most beloved Black sidekicks
- I think that the selection of responses to the poll question are very narrow and designed to shape a... On Why Aren’t More Black Musicians Boycotting Arizona?
- Sex and the City movie #1. Jennifer Hudson's character. ... On The Black sidekick: Want your character to shine?
COMMENTS
Remember the image of lady liberty and the scales of justice? Any clue what that symbolizes? Empathy or diversity should NEVER weigh into the opinions of judges. The constitution should be read and interpreted, plain and simple.
This nomination sounds pretty bad based on Obama's self-pronounced litmus test and Sotomayor's track record. I hope I'm wrong. Either way, nominating someone for any position based on gender, ethnicity, or creed is ALWAYS a bad idea. It is against everything that we as Americans should stand for.
You are right. But that is exactly how every president in the last 20 years has picked Supreme Court Justices. Clarence Thomas was the black guy, before him Thurgood Marshall was. Ruth Bader Ginsberg (sorry I know the sp. on that is likely wrong) was the woman. And until the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor we had two women. Presidents never admit that race, gender, political affiliations and ethnicity play into their decisions. And Obama was no different. But those issues always come into play. We currently have six Catholics. How is that possible in this largely Protestant country. It's because politicians use Catholics to satisfy the right to life element of the Republican party.
This nomination, without question, further inflames the culture of discrimination. It is heretic to claim otherwise.
If you want to support equality then you have to profess equality AT ALL TIMES~
The simple fact that New Haven firefighters were not allowed ANY advancements, based solely on the fact that there were no black persons who qualified for advancement, reeks of Reverse Discrimination. You cannot support Reverse Discrimination and purport to be anti-discrimination, PERIOD.
If there were challenges to be made on the question of discriminatory procedures in the testing sequence, those should be reviewed. But this case was brought to review on the basis that no persons 'of color' had qualified for advancement, and that precept is deplorable.
Better yet, the challenge is now heading to the Supreme Court for deliberation - but Sotomayer was one of the original Federal Justices who delivered this ruling in the first place~!
You are talking about the New Haven Fire Fighters case. I agree that a white man who passes the test should be given the promotion he was promised. No one should ever be discriminated against, and it applies to all of us.
I have not read her opinion on that case so I do not know what criteria she used for upholding the city of New Haven's decision. But here is the precedence that the New Haven case sets: It could prevent race from ever being a consideration in all municipal hiring. And there are some public sector jobs where women and minorities are woefully under-represented even though the communities they serve are not. I don't think it matters when talking about fire fighters, but what about school teachers, police officers, district attorney offices, social workers.
And I would have a serious problem if that were the case.
I would vote no! How could anyone with a 60% ruling reversal rate http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/ be a good choice for this crucial role? I see this as a pure racial play and frankly a brilliant method for obama to shore up re-election.
I would vote no! How could anyone with a 60% ruling reversal rate http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/ be a good choice for this crucial role? I see this as a pure racial play and frankly a brilliant method for obama to shore up re-election.
The 60% ruling reversal is a numbers game. Out of the thousands of cases she has tried only 6 have been up for review in the first place. If you take that number and divide it into the actual number of cases, It turns out to be slightly less than 1%. The fact that only 6 cases were even deemed worthy of a second look is impressive.
Two she based the New-Haven case on precedent. She wrote the opinion. However, it was the majority opinion not hers.
Yes, but not because she's a minority, because she is ridiculously qualified and adds a needed voice to the bench.
Post new comment