Sotomayor is a fraud and should be ousted from any Supreme Court vetting!!

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Any reasonable intelligent person has to agree with the above. If you you are an idiot and an apologist for racism. Why?

Years ago, fire departments and police departments and unions were good ole boy networks with pure despotism. Your grandpa, (likely Irish LOL) had a job as a fire fighter, your dad got a job as FF because his dad greased the wheels, and then you got a job because of the same. A qualified man/woman without an "In" had no chance.

So what was done? The good ole boy network was dropped in favor of physical and written objective tests. OBJECTIVE TESTING should be seen as the answer for racial minorities. They should be pleading for them. That would be honest. Study hard, get physically fit and you get the job. Instead, as usual, they want a hand out and refuse to compete objectively. Because in written objective tests we know quite well that they mostly always lose out to whites. And Asians.

If you can't compete and study with the best, you don't deserve a job. If your mom and dad did not teach to study and work hard, tough shit. You lose.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This post shows you know nothing about the Ricci Case. The merits of the test were NOT part of what Sotomayor and the Appelate court ruled on.They were ruling on whether the City of New Haven could throw out the test results becuse of Fear of lawsuits. Their ruling followed precedents set by previous ruling of other courts on the issue. It was the Supreme Court who practiced "Judicial Activism" and created new law. You may want to read the decision for yourself and not rely on the right wing noise machine for your talking points.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Sotomayor is not a fraud, unlike Clarence Thomas , she is a reasoned, fair woman with a intelligent mind and obvious gifts that suit her to take over for David Souter.

Isnt it fun to watch Repugnantcans scream moral outrage when their own party is so full of horny hacks and scumbag schills?

As Lyndon Johnson used to say, "i love small parties. And the GOP is one of my favorite small parties of all time". Amen, Lyndon.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the suit, 20 city firefighters, 19 white and one Hispanic, sued the city for throwing out the results of a promotional test for lieutenants. They said the city violated their rights by not promoting them. The city said it feared a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it made promotions based on the test since no African-Americans scored high enough to qualify for immediate promotions. The Supreme Court CHANGED the current interpretation of Title VII. The appelate court did not have the ability to do that.
 
Last edited:

hud01

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Posts
4,983
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
133
Location
new york city
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
This post shows you know nothing about the Ricci Case. The merits of the test were NOT part of what Sotomayor and the Appelate court ruled on.They were ruling on whether the City of New Haven could throw out the test results becuse of Fear of lawsuits. Their ruling followed precedents set by previous ruling of other courts on the issue. It was the Supreme Court who practiced "Judicial Activism" and created new law. You may want to read the decision for yourself and not rely on the right wing noise machine for your talking points.
I am far from right wing, but the city of New Haven was wrong. They would not even certify the results or the test to find out if it were biased. They found the results and threw them out.

This was not judicial activism, it was cowardice by the city
 

hud01

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Posts
4,983
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
133
Location
new york city
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Sotomayor is not a fraud, unlike Clarence Thomas , she is a reasoned, fair woman with a intelligent mind and obvious gifts that suit her to take over for David Souter.

Isnt it fun to watch Repugnantcans scream moral outrage when their own party is so full of horny hacks and scumbag schills?

As Lyndon Johnson used to say, "i love small parties. And the GOP is one of my favorite small parties of all time". Amen, Lyndon.
She was repremanded informally by a judge who was her mentor, for failing to properly render a decision
 
Last edited:

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This post shows you know nothing about the Ricci Case. The merits of the test were NOT part of what Sotomayor and the Appelate court ruled on.They were ruling on whether the City of New Haven could throw out the test results becuse of Fear of lawsuits. Their ruling followed precedents set by previous ruling of other courts on the issue. It was the Supreme Court who practiced "Judicial Activism" and created new law. You may want to read the decision for yourself and not rely on the right wing noise machine for your talking points.

I stand by what I wrote. I know the case. If she were truly honest, and she isn't, then she would have investigated the case more thoroughly, vetted it with more clarity, and and written clearly that using objective tests is THE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE WAY to select employees. She was dismissive of the complaint, which in fact should truly be the rallying cry for all minorities who want a fair shake in objective testing, and not a hand out as most minorities REALLY want. They don't want to compete, but be handed gifts on a silver platter. As usual.


If you can and I know you won't be able to. give me one good reason why she did not get 4 square behind defending objective testing as the sole criteria for employment. The 10 highest scorers get the 10 top jobs, period.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
If you can and I know you won't be able to. give me one good reason why she did not get 4 square behind defending objective testing as the sole criteria for employment.

I'll offer two:

  • Because Einstein did poorly at written tests, failed his college entrance exam. One of the greatest minds [perhaps the greatest] of the last century would have been consigned to the scrapheap by your measuring stick. In fact, he nearly was ...
  • Because, formalised testing should only be an element, an aid toward the formulation of an employment decision. Taken in isolation, an exam is a poor foundation for making a balanced decision about an individual, other factors must also be considered.
How large a part each of the various factors played, would of course depend on nature of the post. I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious - your post is so transparently trollish in nature, it's comical.
 
Last edited:

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I take no side in this dispute--only interest. But it ceases to be an informative debate when it degenerates into simple ad hominem name-calling..... :frown1:

Name calling? Get over yourself, what do you think this is ... kindergarten?

Look at the OP's history, my post above and the situation in context. Then, come back when you do have something to offer other than barracking from the sidelines.
 

mikeyh9in

Cherished Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Posts
322
Media
4
Likes
341
Points
293
Age
55
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Gender
Male
I stand by what I wrote. I know the case. If she were truly honest, and she isn't, then she would have investigated the case more thoroughly, vetted it with more clarity, and and written clearly that using objective tests is THE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE WAY to select employees. She was dismissive of the complaint, which in fact should truly be the rallying cry for all minorities who want a fair shake in objective testing, and not a hand out as most minorities REALLY want. They don't want to compete, but be handed gifts on a silver platter. As usual.


If you can and I know you won't be able to. give me one good reason why she did not get 4 square behind defending objective testing as the sole criteria for employment. The 10 highest scorers get the 10 top jobs, period.

If you have any experience in education (the SAT, or ACT tests for college entrance) or have studied "objective" testing, you would understand that there is no such thing as an unbiased test. The creators of the test introduce their own biases (intentional or not). Standardized testing in schools have also taken a lot of criticism due to inherit biases.

So ONE good reason is a potentially racially biased test.

It is also important to note that Sotomayer was not the judge that actually wrote the ruling.
 

karldergrosse

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Posts
1,865
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
208
Location
Near the Great Smoky Mountains
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Name calling? Get over yourself, what do you think this is ... kindergarten?

Look at the OP's history, my post above and the situation in context. Then, come back when you do have something to offer other than barracking from the sidelines.


Your arrogance, intemperance, and name-calling have just proved my point..... Thanks--glad we agree.....
 
Last edited:

SEXXXX

Experimental Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Posts
291
Media
2
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
NYC
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
I take no side in this dispute--only interest. But it ceases to be an informative debate when it degenerates into simple ad hominem name-calling..... :frown1:

This one is, too bad since it is pointless to argue with argumentative kind with zero knowledge and understanding
 
Last edited:

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Your arrogance and name-calling have just proved my point..... Thanks--glad we agree.....

Really, and exactly what 'name' did I call you?

According to most definitions, it's only arrogance where I believe I'm right and you're wrong - and/or I consider you inferior. Since you have expressed no opinion (cogent or otherwise) on the subject matter of the thread, and I merely observed that you appeared overly sensitive to robust debate in an adult forum, yet felt it necessary to critique another, that epithet wouldn't seem to apply.

Might I suggest you either express an opinion on the thread topic, or continue to wring your hands about how beastly I am ... the latter [preferably] in private. The choice being entirely your own to make.

I'm assuming you have an opinion of course.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I stand by what I wrote. I know the case. If she were truly honest, and she isn't, then she would have investigated the case more thoroughly, vetted it with more clarity, and and written clearly that using objective tests is THE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE WAY to select employees. She was dismissive of the complaint, which in fact should truly be the rallying cry for all minorities who want a fair shake in objective testing, and not a hand out as most minorities REALLY want. They don't want to compete, but be handed gifts on a silver platter. As usual.


If you can and I know you won't be able to. give me one good reason why she did not get 4 square behind defending objective testing as the sole criteria for employment. The 10 highest scorers get the 10 top jobs, period.

Besides the incongruity of your blatantly racist remarks with your sig in which you quote Thoreau, a noted abolitionists, I find your simplistic characterizations of "minorities" at once tiresome, amusing, and almost insulting, if one were not to consider the source.

But thanks anyway for making it quite clear where you're "comin' from". That way, one can avoid making the mistake of taking your comments as having any basis in rationale.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Besides the incongruity of your blatantly racist remarks with your sig in which you quote Thoreau, a noted abolitionists, I find your simplistic characterizations of "minorities" at once tiresome, amusing, and almost insulting, if one were not to consider the source.

But thanks anyway for making it quite clear where you're "comin' from". That way, one can avoid making the mistake of taking your comments as having any basis in rationale.

It's the reason why I don't like engaging him in any reasonable discussion. Because you go into it knowing that the more you probe and challenge his beliefs, it always falls back to the ol' "supreme race" argument.

Dem "damn negro boys" are the reason why everything in America is screwed up! :rolleyes:

The more he bastardizes certain races of people, the more he doesn't even realize how many are the exact opposite of his own twisted beliefs. Yes, even the "gangsta rappers". Film at 11. :cool:
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
She was repremanded informally by a judge who was her mentor, for failing to properly render a decision

Bullshit.

She interpreted the LAW correctly...

The Supreme Court, in overturning this decision actually stated categorically that they realized that their decision would significantly complicate title nine enforcement.

The dissenting opinion was that this ruling made title nine unenforceable.

Ergo- the republican appointed imbeciles and fuckwads on the Supreme Court- y'know- the ones like Thomas and the asshole who said torture wasn't technically "punishment"... well those 5 incredibly unqualified paragons of poor reasoning decided to OVERTURN a law, without actually overturning the law.



But then, what do you expect from Republicans, who see no conflict in demanding resignation from philandering democrats, while demanding understanding for philandering republicans.

Seriously... anyone considering themselves to be republican at this point really ought to be too embarrassed to admit to it.


ETA- surprise surprise these were the same five dipshits who named Bush president... and stated in their opinion that their own opinion in that case was not to be used as precedent...

Essentially naming GW president without actually invoking ANY legal reasoning whatsoever?

Let's just all hope that 3 more of these republican nincompoops on the Court retire so we can hopefully get some genuine legal scholars who can reason their way out of a paper bag.
 
Last edited: