In Ricci v. DeStefano she ruled against the white fire-fighter . . . even though it’s clear that not a single negro was smart enough to pass the test.

Even if you believe that the failure of the black firefighters to earn promotion was due to their own deficiencies rather than test bias, the law says that you have to assume the opposite. You may disagree with civil rights law, seeing as how you’re a neo-Nazi and all, but the fact remains that it’s still the law until Congress says otherwise.

Under the law as it stands, if they had not thrown out the test, then the black firefighters would have had a much better case to make in their inevitable lawsuit than the white firefighters do now. Seeing as being sued by one group or the other was their only two options, they went with the one that would produce a worse legal case against them.

Title VII of the civil rights act says they had to throw out the test because its results demonstrated that it was racially biased. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of standing law. The lower court ruled that doing so was legally appropriate. The three-judge panel Sotomayor sat on merely ruled that the lower court ruled correctly.

Wingnuts keep calling for judges who will judge based only on the law and not on their political opinions. But that’s exactly what everybody involved in Ricci did. What you’re saying is that she should have ignored the civil rights act and engaged in judicial activism.

I’m seeing some new responses to trolls that endear me. Things seem to be getting on keel. I think we regular progressives here (and back up) are discerning people. Wack-a-troll has its place, as does ignore-the-troll, mock-the-troll, and pity-the-troll.

I’m very pleased that m_____d (the name which I will not speak) is gone. And I’m looking forward to J_____a*S being gone because he engages in hate speech, which is something I don’t ever want to see in our comment sections. It’s not like we don’t know it’s out there. Why let it occupy space that is dedicated to Progressives?

In Ricci v. DeStefano she ruled against the white fire-fighter . . . even though it’s clear that not a single negro was smart enough to pass the test.

From the WSJ:

“A total of 118 applicants took the two tests in late 2003, and 59 earned passing scores. But because there were limited vacancies, only the top scorers were eligible for promotion — a group comprised of 17 whites, and two Hispanics. None of the 27 black firefighters with passing scores was eligible. The city ultimately rejected the results of the test. Firefighters whose scores gave them a good chance at being promoted filed suit.”

Please get your facts and your half-baked arguments straight.

So you are comparing apples (the average circuit court judge) with oranges (circuit court judges who became SC judges).

I eagerly await your comparison of her qualifications with any sitting Justices at the time they were nominated. Warning – you might not like what you find when you go look that up either… heh.

.

Johnintexas Says:

To compare apples with apples . . . she’s at 60% soon to be 80%.

It’s awesome when y’all base your arguments on your own wishful-thinking predictions. Mainly because you’re always wrong. Overturning Ricci would amount to basically throwing out a vast amount of standing civil rights law. Mind you, I wouldn’t put it past the SCOTUS as it sits presently, but still that would amount to judicial activism of the highest order.

.

Johnintexas Says:

Is that who we want . . . a racist lesbian

Hang on a sec – you’re a racist. I mean, I’m not calling you that as an insult, it’s just plain fact. You’re the one who said that white people were doing “the Negroes” a favor by enslaving them, as well as a number of things that pretty much the hardcore definition of racist exists to refer to. And you’re saying she’s just like you? Why don’t you like her if you’re both racists?

As to her sexual orientation, I’ll take her ex-husband’s word for it over yours.

Well obviously not as profoundly stupid as you, you humorless liberal hack.

Ooh, a “NO U” comeback. Nice. That’s automatically another point for me, btw.

.

Johnintexas Says:

The two stats don’t even jive, you jive-ass liberal. It’s apples & oranges.

How so? Let’s go to the numbers:

* Over 400 cases judged
* Five of those have been reviewed by the SCOTUS (less than 1.25% of total)
* Three of those have been overturned by the SCOTUS (less than 0.75% of total, exactly 60% of those reviewed)
* Even if you use the 60% rate, that beats the average 76% for all circuit court judges.

So which fruit was which again? Which numbers do you want to go by? What case do you think you can make with them?

Though I suppose it could be heavy metal poisoning and/or white trash parents and associates. It must be an awful way to live.

What the idiot doesn’t seem to understand is, the majority of Americans have rejected his point of view, as evidenced by President Obama’s toatal asskicking of grampy mcdepends and caribou barbie.

and I’ll type this slowly so you can grasp it

Dude, http doesn’t allow me to read your keystroke rate. You’re really profoundly stupid, aren’t you?

.

Johnintexas Says:

What that shows is that on the big cases . . . you know, those involving the Constitutional principles the Supreme Court spends its time on . . . she got it wrong the majority of the time.

The SCOTUS overturns about 76% of the cases that it reviews. It intentionally picks up cases that it believes could use a SCOTUS ruling. So she’s still well below the average with 60%.

.

Johnintexas Says:

What that show is that she is a minor-leaguer . . . not ready for major leagues.

Where would you put her, the “Negro League?”

You don’t have to answer that. We already know what you’d prefer, you “Aryan” filth.

By the way, Republicans, that DHS report about “extremist right-wing groups” wasn’t talking about anything to the left of the likes of Jit and his KKK/Aryan-Nations/Neo-Nazi types. You seem to have forgotten just how ugly it can get that far off to the right in the wilderness; but they’ve been waiting for you for quite a while now. You may have dumped them after Oklahoma City, but they always knew you’d come back. Now it’s on you to figure out how to disassociate yourselves from them again, if you actually have the desire to.

Only for the ones who aggressively disrupt the threads with abuse or utter inanity.

I’ve started to recommend every post that is one of the following:

on topic
factual
insightful
probing
an entertaining zinger
a thoughtful question
addresses the discourse itself in a way that enriches dialogue
a new take on the issue

whether I agree or not. Some concern trolling can have the above qualities, but I don’t recommend them. It should be people having dialogues noted, and trolls ignored. Dialogue? SCORE! Trolls. FAIL

I would like for TP do clean out posts by people who are here to insult and do not even pretend to engage. I would like people who engage in unmitigated racist, sexist, or heterosexualist hate speech shunned, then deleted.

I suspect a certain night in shining armor will mount his stallion and accuse this of bigotry that will lead to genocide, but I see it as unnecessary and weak to tolerate anti-social behavior. It is also of no benefit to anti-social people. They don’t need to be accepted for this behavior— the exercise of their bigotry is self-fortifying.

If you were having a meeting to discuss a political issue of consequence, would you let a kid hang around and heckle and mock you? The cyber mind is in it’s terrible twos. I think it’s time for a discipline.

A lot of the threads are particularly hot lately, btw. Real discourse—diverse, thoughtful, loaded with facts, and aware of itself.

wiley, we’ve been trying out an “ignore” policy and it seems to be having some impact.

Whassisname from yesterday wasn’t worth responding to primarily because he wasn’t addressing the topic – or any substantive topic, for that matter.

However, Dukakis Gore and Kerry all learned that being “above that” and failing to respond to even the most disgusting slurs coming from the wingnutosphere just makes them stronger. JIT is on topic and does give reasons for his opinions; the stench coming off of him is the same one that comes off of any Aryan Nations puke who crawls out from their bunker to scream about all the brown people taking over their “White Nation.” I submit that they require vigorous dissent and exposure even more than more rational right wingers do.