What a surprise.
It's not very hard to spot the vicious political agenda behind Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy; Judge
Sonia Sotomayor
of the Court of Appeals on New York's second circuit."Among the more controversial cases that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor participated in is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving affirmative action in the New Haven, Conn., fire department. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against a group of white firefighters who passed a promotion exam that was later discarded because no black applicants had passed."
When exactly America going move beyond judging people on their skin colour to the content of their character, as promised?
Can any one out there honestly argue that this "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" (there's an oxymoron if TB ever saw one,) can in any way promote equality?
Try... TB dares you.
Posts
11 comments:
Would anyone like to place bets on how closely Obama's administration will follow the plotline of the West Wing? I seem to recall a hispanic supreme court justice story...
The 'affirmative action' movement has been tragic for the US in many ways. It is a repudiation of what Dr. King publicly endorsed throughout his career.
It creates terrible resentment in those who are denied opportunity simply because of skin color(e.g. non-African origin), and casts a shadow of doubt and disrepute on every black person who does achieve in our society. The inevitable thought occurs: Is he/she here because of affirmative action? Is this person really up to snuff? If not, how can we address the problem without being attacked as racist?
On and on it goes.
Then, stir into this witch's brew the interests of other 'minorities', such as Hispanics(Cuban, Mexican, or Central American?), Native Americans(who after all, were here first!), and the Chinese, who have a reputation for mowing down any and all competition by outworking and out-achieving everyone within sight.
It is a witches' brew, and poisons the American Dream.
In the 1970's, whilst I was in university, my college was forced to add a black faculty member. Problem was, there were no openings!
The quandry was solved when the university appointed a hand-picked(by the 'affirmative action activists') individual as 'special assistant to the dean'. The man was a dolt, and a laughing-stock. The black students didn't like him either, because they knew him to be a dolt. There was NO hindrance to admission to my college by black students: Quite the opposite, they were welcomed and well-taught, just like the white students.
His salary and package could have been spent making it possible for ten deserving students to study at the college.
His fraudulent presence poisoned the well for years.
Obama's appointment holds the possibility of reopening the wounds, and increasing the rancour.
Which may be his exact intention...
If you look beyond the colour of her skin then Sotomayor is highly qualified. I would suggest those who oppose her because they think 'she was chosen for demographic reasons' are those with a problem not Obama.
Yes, but what was the LAW in the case. I thought that you guys don't like judicial activism? Try to at least think before you slag off the best American president since Truman.
Let us suppose that 100 white people unfairly profit at the expense of 100 black people. That makes 200 injustices. Let us then assume some well meaning fool comes along, picks a different 100 black people and lets them unfairly profit at the expense of a different 100 white people.
To you or I, that makes 400 injustices in total. To those who indulge in group politics, they see is as 0 injustice as the injustice meted out to one group cancels out the injustice meted to the other group.
With respect TB, you are completely and utterly wrong on this one.
Sotomayor was one of a group of judges on the US 2nd Circuit who upheld a District Court judgement which dismissed claims for reverse discrimination.
A new test had been brought by the FDNY in which it was claimed unfairly limited the chances of black candidates (a drop in numbers of black promotions would have been significant - maybe anomalously, but no black officer would have been promoted that year, even though they had passed the old tests in practice sessions).
Out of fear of a discrimination law suit, the FDNY decided to void the results of the new test as being untried. They reverted to the old test six months or so later.
The White *and Hispanic* officers who would have been promoted claimed that voiding the test was reverse discrimination, and that the FDNY had no right to do so. This cliam was rejected by the District Court before it came before Sotomayor on the 2nd Circuit.
The FDNY defence, I believe, centred on the fact that chooising to void an untried test was not motivated by an desire to constrain any group from being promoted, but rather to ensure that no group was being unfairly excluded. Under the new test, white and hispanic officers bringing the action would still have been eligible. Because no test discriminated against them, there was no 14th Amendment issue - the voiding of a test they had passed was disappointing, but not discriminatory against whites or hispanics.
This was the Distrct court ruling, and upheld by the 2nd Circuit. It will now go before the Supreme Court, where I suspect it will fail, unless Scalia is off on jurisprudence safari with some esoteric Straussian reading of the Equal Protection clause.
The major point though, is that cases are (or should be) decided on law not on politics. Sotomayor voted against the officers who were White *and Hispanic* - ie she did not vote along racial lines.
She did exactly what a judge should do which is try the case by the law, rather than be an ideologue or a political activist.
I'm not sure she is even in favour of affirmative action - I oppose it, and I disagree with the actions of the FDNY in this case, but what they did was not illegal under the challenge laid down by the officers.
Sonia Sotomayor is clearly qualified, and harder to paint as a judicial activist than any of the other shortlisted candidates. Her race is, I think, not a significant consideration - she's got this on merit, and I think she will do very very well on the SCOTUS.
That would be FDNH, rather than FDNY!
Why the assumption that it's an AA pick? There's no such thing as a single 'most qualified' person to be a Supreme Court Justice - instead there are a bunch of people who would be good picks. Sotomayor is clearly one of those and Obama picked her. Being honest the fact that she's a Hispanic woman probably did help her, but if she's qualified for the job then why does that matter? Affirmative action is a problem when unqualified people get jobs over better qualified people. It's not a problem when well qualified minorities get positions.
She is explicitly racist and sexist, claiming publicly that a hispanic woman would be wiser than a white male and come to better judicial conclusions (that was in response to a statement by Sandra Day O'Connor that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion). She has also claimed that policy is truly made in the court of appeals, rather than by the executive and legislature, but only reactionary bigots actually READ the US Constitution.
Hey,
I think you're being less than fair with your quoting of Judge Sotomayor.
The "explicitly racist and sexist" quote in context:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."Firstly, the context. Second;y, it is predicated "I hope". Thirdly, the point is concerning a life of experience - the identity tags are added for emphasis. If this is your idea of racist and sexist then I would advise you never leave your Convent.
You are correct she has claimed policy is made in the Court of Appeals. It is. Everyone knows it, many people (including Judge Sotomayor) don't think that's how it should be, but no-one who knows it disagrees. The quote:
""All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."I know it would be lovely for Conservative ideologues if everything Obama did was essentially Communist or Satanic, but Sotomayor is a good pick - the best from the shortlist reported - and I think she'll make a good SCOTUS Justice.
I'd love to know if third-year student 'TB' has ever actually even been to America. I assume not.
I'd therefore love to know what makes him think he can pontificate about stateside politics with such cocksure certainty from a position of, basically, total ignorance.
Stick to what you know, Bear. Focus on the light entertainment, popular, domestic, Tory campaign stuff you're apparently so good at. Steer clear of America until you at least have a bit of US history under your belt.
Yours sincerely,
Someone who grew-up there.