can't get past the hypotheticals I see. Why don't you talk about her qualifications instead of your subtle racism?

5/27/2009 10:43:41 AM

Obama is a shrewd politician, and he did this for his own party's gain, and nothing else.

If she is confirmed, he'll be heralded by the latino community for picking her. If she is not, the latino community will lash out against the Republican party.

Either way, Obama in the end, gets his way.

5/27/2009 10:44:38 AM

yup, did this for no concern over the Supreme Court and making sure a qualified individual sits on said court. Lot of y'all are dense.

5/27/2009 10:45:49 AM

I honestly think he had no regard for the SC in this decision. There were other qualified individuals out there he could have chosen.

5/27/2009 10:50:48 AM

Quote :

"The ruling in question here is whether the city has the right to disregard an employment test if they feel the employment test is invalid."

The question is does the city have the right to deny white fire-fighters from career advancement just because some racial quota wasn't reached?

And Hooksaw's point about Thomas is well-made. Democrat senators weren't impressed enough about Clarence Thomas' compelling life-story to stop themselves from the politics of personal destruction and their "high-tech" lynching.

I would like to stop hearing democrats and the press telling us that she needs placement on the Supreme Court because she's a minority and grew up poor. Show us how smart she is. Show us how fair she is to litigants. Show us how she will interpret the Constitution closely and not set policy from the bench.

Quote :

"yup, did this for no concern over the Supreme Court"

If you believe that Obama truly has the country's best interests at heart, then this nomination is his best effort at fulfilling that desire.

But I see Obama as a true radical in a nice suit with charm and a telepromptor. He is attempting to re-mold the country into a Saul Linsky/George Soros Nirvana.

I think If the average American really understood what Obama's true philosophy was- his disdain for capitalism, his burning desire for strong central authority, his contempt for the successful --they would reject him pretty quickly.

That is why he must hide his true feelings, as much as he hates it. The press must not scratch him too far below the surface philosophically.

Obama simply took a look at his killer majority in the Senate and decided to throw caution to the wind and nominate a radical activist for the SC. But like many of his other flawed job-filling decisions, this one may come back to bite him too.



[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 10:51:24 AM

Quote :

"can't get past the hypotheticals I see. Why don't you talk about her qualifications instead of your subtle racism?"

Can you show me what part of the post at issue was "hypothetical" or "racist," nutsmackr?

^ Yep--so true. Just watch Thomas own the shit out of Biden and the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 10:54:05 AM

Quote :

"The question is does the city have the right to deny white fire-fighters from career advancement just because some racial quota wasn't reached? "

no one was denied a promotion based upon skin color because no one was promoted.

5/27/2009 10:59:32 AM

Quote :

"no one was denied a promotion based upon skin color because no one was promoted."

Except for the folks who passed that test and were denied the subsequent promotion due to the fact that the test was thrown out, as no minority candidates passed.

But hey, who's counting?

Also, just for laughs:

Quote :

"Her ruling was a question on Title VII, while it doesn't allow the alteration of individual tests, it does allow the employer employing them to not certify the entire batch. Oh, and it is a published opinion. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/doc/06-4996-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/hilite/ And if you have the time to look up Lexis Nexis search here. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). You will get all the information you need from the District Court ruling that was affirmed."

If you had even read you link, it issues a withdrawl of their previously unpublished opinion and replaces it with a one-page per curiam decision summary.

Nice going, there.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : case]

5/27/2009 11:33:16 AM

5/27/2009 11:56:12 AM

Oh look, Supplanter treats us to posting the same damned thing not once, but twice. I wonder if we'll be treated to a third posting?

And we've got Dalia Lithwick. Ah, Dalia Lithwick - clearly a rational and fair-minded kind of court reporter.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243387736

...except of course when she's changing her tune on how much of a "mistake" it was during the Roberts hearings to bring on charges of mysogyny, when she herself was trumpeting them herself. And now, of Republicans.

Whoopee!

PS: Is that irritating, condescending Keith Olberman-esque tone a trademark of MSNBC, or do all liberal pundits use it?

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 12:13:35 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=

Quote :

"Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to."

- Mark Krikorian

5/27/2009 12:18:10 PM

Quote :

"I think If the average American really understood what Obama's true philosophy was- his disdain for capitalism, his burning desire for strong central authority, his contempt for the successful --they would reject him pretty quickly."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAA

5/27/2009 12:34:08 PM

whoa, I didn't read through, that post is nuts!

Quote :

"Obama simply took a look at his killer majority in the Senate and decided to throw caution to the wind and nominate a radical activist for the SC. But like many of his other flawed job-filling decisions, this one may come back to bite him too. "

A radical activist? You do understand how stupid you're making yourself look, right?

5/27/2009 12:38:14 PM

^^ You have a long history of meaningful posts related to Supreme Court nominees, don't you?

Quote :

"John Roberts is a fucking faggot. I know because he fucked me."

spookyjon

message_topic.aspx?topic=350851

This was from you, yes?

5/27/2009 12:40:55 PM

(if you knew jon at all, you'd know that he was mocking the very existence of that thread)

and from other threads around the same time from spookyjon:

Quote :

"I thought the opening remarks were pretty good on both sides, Dem and Republican, and Roberts himself made some very good opening remarks. There were two senators I heard who were just pandering, but 2/18 isn't that bad."

Quote :

"I wouldn't say he's "cool". I would say he's a pretty damn qualified jurist who I will probably hate once he's in power. But he knows his stuff (as, obviously, should be the case)."

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 12:54:17 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you talk about her qualifications instead of your subtle racism?"

So lets talk about qualifications, like how even when the supreme court agrees with the outcome, they many time criticize her reasoning as off base or wrong? Again, I would like to see information on that for other judges, but it seems to me that if you're going about your judging the wrong way, then you're not a very good judge.

I'm not sold one way or the other on her, but her reasoning being a source of constant criticism from higher courts and the opinion and hopes of apparently a few people that her "rich experiences" will help shape the court (without any examples of what sort of decisions would this shaping be a good thing) have me a little concerned.

5/27/2009 12:56:04 PM

^^ Okay. Perhaps you're right.



[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 12:56:08 PM

Quote :

"Oh look, Supplanter treats us to posting the same damned thing not once, but twice. I wonder if we'll be treated to a third posting?"

Wrong vid the 2nd time, I was posting from work where it is easy to get distracted by work, here is what I was going for - the whiskey sour supreme court:

5/27/2009 1:57:14 PM

Quote :

" If you had even read you link, it issues a withdrawl of their previously unpublished opinion and replaces it with a one-page per curiam decision summary. Nice going, there. "

You will also know that the unpublished opinion is part of the material The Supreme Court is currently looking at to formulate its decision.

Nice concept of reality, lady.

5/27/2009 3:07:13 PM

OMG Ya'll let's play some Mad Lib!


"I would hope that a (adjective) (Race) (Gender) with the richness of (pronoun) experience would more often than not reach a better (noun) than a (Race) (Gender) who hasn’t lived that life."

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 3:24:38 PM

Quote :

"You will also know that the unpublished opinion is part of the material The Supreme Court is currently looking at to formulate its decision."

Let's go back to the tapes. You accused someone of wrongly citing the fact that the case was unpublished, saying, "Oh look, a simple lexus-nexus search turns it up!"

When pointed out that your own link confirms the original story, that this unpublished summary judgement was only later replaced with a published per curiam decision, you turn into a whiney little bitch.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Anytime you feel like copping to your error, we're all ears, here. Not that anyone will be holding their breath or anything.

5/27/2009 3:40:27 PM

Quote :

"Let's go back to the tapes. You accused someone of wrongly citing the fact that the case was unpublished, saying, "Oh look, a simple lexus-nexus search turns it up!" When pointed out that your own link confirms the original story, that this unpublished summary judgement was only later replaced with a published per curiam decision, you turn into a whiney little bitch. "

the per curiam decision was published you trolling assfuck. The Lexis Nexis search was for the district court decision. If you look, both of the links I have posted are to the US Court of Appeals website. This clearly dictates that they are not unpublished.

So in other words, pull your goddamned head out of your ass you self-righteous libertarian assfuck.

5/27/2009 5:03:45 PM

Yeah, so, no, you're not going to admit you're wrong.

Why don't you take a midol and call us when you're off the rag? Or I know, troll a little more. Come up with a few more expletives to shout. I'm quite convinced of your intellectual prowess, but how about the rest of the forum?

Wow us with your brilliance.

5/27/2009 5:15:22 PM

FLASHBACK: From then-political commentator Julianne Malveaux concerning Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

Quote :

"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person (4 November 1994)."

http://www.nndb.com/people/185/000109855/

5/27/2009 5:20:49 PM

so someone was an asshole racist in 1994? what's your point?

5/27/2009 5:41:49 PM

What is bullshit about this nomination is that conservatives, independents, or even moderate democrats can not even voice a protest against
this candidate without facing the "OMG you just don't like her b.c she a hispanic woman"
If she got the job purely out of merit fine...

If she got the job as some kinda of product of an affirmitive action quota system than its complete bullshit. What's next is there going
to be a constiutional amendment passed so that the supreme court has to be representaitive all sub-sets of american culture...

Supreme Court 2020 - A gay jewish black guy, a hispanic woman, an asian homosexual guy, a white agnostic woman, a black islamic woman,
a italian american guy, a mexican transexual, and two boring ole white protestant male.

5/27/2009 5:43:14 PM

Quote :

"What is bullshit about this nomination is that conservatives, independents, or even moderate democrats can not even voice a protest against this candidate without facing the "OMG you just don't like her b.c she a hispanic woman""

yes they can. but it seems that a large portion of the criticism of her as a pick is that she's being picked because she's a hispanic woman. she's just as qualified (as far as her resume is concerned) as most ussc nominees. now her decisions might not be to your liking. and that's a legitimate criticism. but this isn't like a harriet miers pick where she obviously wasn't grade a material.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : miers]

5/27/2009 5:49:16 PM

so, if she is "just as qualified as most other nominees," then what sets her apart from any other possible picks who are equally qualified right now but don't have spicy pink tacos?

5/27/2009 6:39:34 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, so, no, you're not going to admit you're wrong. Why don't you take a midol and call us when you're off the rag? Or I know, troll a little more. Come up with a few more expletives to shout. I'm quite convinced of your intellectual prowess, but how about the rest of the forum? Wow us with your brilliance."

I freely admit when I'm wrong. In this case I am not. The opinion of the court, prior to the per curiam ruling, is freely available on the Court of Appeals website. I have provided a link. Now, if you think being freely available on the court's website isn't published, then may god help your stupidity and unfounded arrogance.

5/27/2009 6:49:08 PM

Quote :

"so, if she is "just as qualified as most other nominees," then what sets her apart from any other possible picks who are equally qualified right now but don't have spicy pink tacos?"

what he says

5/27/2009 6:49:17 PM

to get rid of the bitchfest here, Chaos, why does the "fact" that the decision was "unpublished" matter? How did the firemen "not get a fair hearing" by virtue of the "unpublished" decision?

5/27/2009 6:55:07 PM

Quote :

"so, if she is "just as qualified as most other nominees," then what sets her apart from any other possible picks who are equally qualified right now but don't have spicy pink tacos?"

What set her apart is Obama picked HER out of the group, and there's nothing you can do about it.

5/27/2009 6:59:51 PM

nah nah nah boo boo

5/27/2009 7:00:18 PM

^^ because he's YOUR president AM I RITE!

5/27/2009 7:02:57 PM

well, snarky terpball, since Obama is all about some transparency how about he explain it, then? Or does he just like his tacos spicy?

5/27/2009 7:07:44 PM

5/27/2009 7:09:45 PM

Enough with the ignorant racism, folks.

5/27/2009 7:13:46 PM

then you agree that Obama should find a less racist pick? great!

5/27/2009 7:14:28 PM

Quote :

"I freely admit when I'm wrong. In this case I am not. The opinion of the court, prior to the per curiam ruling, is freely available on the Court of Appeals website. I have provided a link. Now, if you think being freely available on the court's website isn't published, then may god help your stupidity and unfounded arrogance."

Bullshit, and, uh, bullshit. Again, I question whether you even read your own link - I don't think you did. One of the first actions of the link you posted was to retract a prior action and replace it with the per curiam ruling.

So, to once more repeat the sequence of events:

Circuit court issued an "unpublished" opinion (unpublished in the sense that no explicit legal reasoning was given other than a summary motion not to hear the case, and therefore no legal opinion was actually put out), i.e., they made a summary motion to dismiss.
Hackles were raised to re-hear the case before the full panel of the circuit court (i.e., a motion to hear en banc - check your second link.)
This motion fails
The three-judge panel withdrew the summary motion
The "unpublished" opinion (i.e., summary judgment) was retracted and replaced with a per curiam ruling.

Don't believe me? Read your second link. The case was given "Summary Dismissal" as of February 15, 2008. The per curium ruling is dated June 9, 2008. It specifically withdraws the order for summary dismissal and replaces it with the per curiam ruling (your first link). "Summary dismissal" means that the case was not given a hearing and no legal opinion was given or cited. There is thus no legal opinion to publish. It was a summary judgment.

Honest to god you are a waste of oxygen.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 7:17:13 PM

Quote :

"to get rid of the bitchfest here, Chaos, why does the "fact" that the decision was "unpublished" matter? How did the firemen "not get a fair hearing" by virtue of the "unpublished" decision?"

I'm simply calling bullshit for bullshit, here. The panel's first move was to issue a summary dismissal on the case. This was later replaced with a ruling detailing reasoning upholding the city's position.

It was his contention that this sequence of events never occurred- that it was in fact a partisan fabrication. This is clearly incorrect, and he knows it.

5/27/2009 7:19:40 PM

For the record, tacos are a Mexican dish, not a Puerto Rican one.

5/27/2009 7:20:37 PM

Quote :

"then you agree that Obama should find a less racist pick? great! "

I think he's referring to this shit:

Quote :

"Or does he just like his tacos spicy?"

Which is both childish and inappropriate and does nothing to further your case.

5/27/2009 7:24:07 PM

nonono, Chaos, your argument only has merit if the fact that it was unpublished at the time actually prevented the firemen from getting a fair hearing. Otherwise, you are bitching and moaning over something that doesn't really matter anymore. it was unpublished, then, but now it's published. smackr, as much as I hate to say it, would be right in saying that it is published, as he was only taking issue with whether it was published. You are adding the extra weight of not being published at the time hurt the firefighters.


^ of course it's childish, but it gets the point across pretty fucking distinctly: Obama picked the woman for less-than-virtuous reasons.

5/27/2009 7:25:12 PM

Quote :

"nonono, Chaos, your argument only has merit if the fact that it was unpublished at the time actually prevented the firemen from getting a fair hearing."

Read my edited post. I explained in greater detail. What happened is that the original case was a summary motion to dismiss - the firefighters didn't originally get their case heard. An en banc motion was filed by a Circuit judge, it failed, but the three-judge panel withdrew their summary order and heard the case.

Quote :

"Otherwise, you are bitching and moaning over something that doesn't really matter anymore. it was unpublished, then, but now it's published. smackr, as much as I hate to say it, would be right in saying that it is published, as he was only taking issue with whether it was published. You are adding the extra weight of not being published at the time hurt the firefighters."

This is not as trivial as you make it sound. They originally refused to even hear the case before a judge on the Circuit raised hell, then reversed their summary dismissal and heard the case. This is pretty important.

5/27/2009 7:29:38 PM

Quote :

"Circuit court issued an "unpublished" dismissal (unpublished in the sense that no explicit legal reasoning was given other than a summary motion not to hear the case, and therefore no legal opinion was actually put out) of the case Hackles were raised to re-hear the case before the full panel of the circuit court This motion fails The "unpublished" dismissal was retracted and replaced with a per curiam ruling."

Seriously, that is your bitching is about, the order of events? Are you denying that the opinions are published? Are you also denying that the second link lays out the arguments both sides were making in the matter?

Are you also denying that both decisions are published on the Court of Appeals website? Seriously, you have problems.

5/27/2009 7:33:21 PM

maybe, but being published or not didn't affect whether the firemen got a fair hearing. I mean, I can begin to see what you are saying, but that is a far cry from:

Quote :

"What precedent did she use to screw over the fire-fighters in Ricci v. DeStefano? Oh that's right, it was a unpublished decision. No chance for them to even get a fair hearing."

I think most reasonable people would read that and make a connection between the last two sentences. Which might be what smackr did, whether we want to consider him "reasonable" or not...

5/27/2009 7:33:49 PM

Quote :

"I think most reasonable people would read that and make a connection between the last two sentences. Which might be what smackr did, whether we want to consider him "reasonable" or not..."

precisely, and whether or not it was published at the time of the rulings doesn't matter because they received their fair hearing before the trial judge.

5/27/2009 7:37:47 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, that is your bitching is about, the order of events? Are you denying that the opinions are published? Are you also denying that the second link lays out the arguments both sides were making in the matter?"

Any time you feel like admitting your error, here. Or you can continue to demonstrate your brilliance.

The second link occurred after the summary dismissal order was withdrawn. They dismissed the case with no legal opinion given before they withdrew that order and heard the case - after a motion by a judge to hear the case before the entire Circuit court failed.

In other words - their case was given no consideration on legal grounds before the summary order was withdrawn. The challenge was dismissed. The legal grounds for the case were not even considered prior to the withdrawal of the motion.

Quote :

"Are you also denying that both decisions are published on the Court of Appeals website? Seriously, you have problems."

Are you actually this retarded, or are you just incapable of reading anything? Because it's pretty obvious at this point that you've neither read nor comprehended either my post nor the very documents you've cited to make your case.

I said that the motion to dismiss contained no published legal opinion - it was a summary order. I'm not saying a summary order didn't get published, I'm saying a summary order contains no published legal reasoning. It's a summary order.

Goddamn, seriously. Waste of oxygen.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM. Reason : ugh.]

5/27/2009 7:38:42 PM

Walter Williams:

Quote :

"What is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable start for an answer is the recognition that our Constitution represents the rules of the game. A Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only namely; he is a referee. There is nothing complicated about this. A referee's job, whether he is a football referee or a Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and make sure that they are evenly applied without bias. Do we want referees to allow empathy to influence their decisions? Let's look at it using this year's Super Bowl as an example. The Pittsburgh Steelers have won six Super Bowl titles, seven AFC championships and hosted 10 conference games. No other AFC or NFC team can match this record. By contrast, the Arizona Cardinals' last championship victory was in 1947 when they were based in Chicago. In anyone's book, this is a gross disparity. Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it's like to be a perennial loser and what would you think of a referee whose decisions were guided by his empathy? Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the Steelers and less stringently against the Cardinals. Or, would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule? You'd probably remind him that the league makes the rules, not referees. Constitution should be identical to that of referees and football rules. The status of a person appearing before the court should have absolutely nothing to do with the rendering of decisions. That's why Lady Justice, often appearing on court buildings, is shown wearing a blindfold. It is to indicate that justice should be meted out impartially, regardless of identity, power or weakness. Also, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts." The legislative branch makes the rules, not judges. "

5/27/2009 7:44:00 PM

You seem to be having major problems here, but that is okay

PC: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/doc/06-4996-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/hilite/


Judge Jacobs dissent on the refusal to hear it en banc: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/2/doc/06-4996-cv_opn4.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/2/hilite/

Majority opinion on refusal to hear en banc: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/doc/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/hilite/

Now, if you actually took the time to read the reasonings behind their refusal to hear en banc, you would see the legal reasonings why they decided against Ricci, et. al.

It's not that hard.

And if that isn't good enough for you, let's go back to what caused the entire conversation between Earthdogg and I.

Quote :

"nutsmackr: Her conservative stance on stare decisis means she cannot be an activist judge."

Quote :

"EarthDogg: "nutsmackr: Her conservative stance on stare decisis means she cannot be an activist judge." What precedent did she use to screw over the fire-fighters in Ricci v. DeStefano? Oh that's right, it was a unpublished decision. No chance for them to even get a fair hearing."

Which brought me to point out that a myriad of decisions on this case were published.

Interesting that you state that I cannot admit I'm wrong, but you jumped into the middle of the conversation and assume you started at the beginning. So in other words, suck my balls.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 7:46:31 PM