Obama selects Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

[RobMoney$]

President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.

The president narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the selection process, including Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

On the district court bench, Judge Sotomayor earned a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, someone who does not let powerful interests bully, rush or cow her into a decision. "She does not have much patience for people trying to snow her," said one lawyer in 1995, who had cases pending before the judge and asked not to be identified. "You can't do it."

While still in her 30s, Judge Sotomayor became the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York. She was the first American of Puerto Rican descent to be appointed to the Federal bench in New York City.

Born in the Bronx on June 23, 1954, she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8. Her father, a factory worker, died a year later. Her mother, a nurse at a methadone clinic, raised her daughter and a younger son on a modest salary.

Judge Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and became an editor of the Yale Law Journal. She spent five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney's office before entering private practice.

But she longed to return to public service, she said, inspired by the "Perry Mason" series she watched as a child. In 1992, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended the politically centrist lawyer to President George H. W. Bush, making good on a longstanding promise to appoint a Hispanic judge in New York.

On the Circuit Court, she has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. Some of her most notable decisions came in child custody and complex business cases. Her most high-profile case involved New Haven's decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.

She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia.

The case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court and is now before the Supreme Court.

While Judge Sotomayor is not seen as an extreme liberal or a crusader on the bench, she has made some remarks that are likely to draw fire from Republicans during the confirmation process.

In 2001, she gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."In her speech, at a conference on diversity, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion - often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor - that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"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," said Judge Sotomayor.

Another statement that has already drawn criticism from conservative bloggerscame on a video that surfaced in May of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then immediately adds: "And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm - you know."

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts.

And a memorandum on Judge Sotomayor prepared by conservative groups pooling research on potential nominees cites a ruling in which she said a man could sue a private corporation for violating his constitutional rights while acting as a government contractor. Her decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, which said only individual agents, not corporations, may be sued for such violations.

[RobMoney$]

Previous rulings


1994 baseball strike

On March 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_30), 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995), as a district judge, Sotomayor issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball), preventing MLB from unilaterally implementing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Bargaining_Agreement) and using replacement players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players) . Her ruling ended the 1994 baseball strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_baseball_strike) after 232 days, the day before the new season was scheduled to begin. The Second Circuit upheld Sotomayor's decision and denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-Legal_Bases-8)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-Smith-31)[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-46)

Copyright

In New York Times Co. v. Tasini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Tasini), freelance journalists sued the New York Times Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Company) for copyright infringement for the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times)' inclusion in an electronic archival database (LexisNexis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis)) the work of freelancers it had published. Sotomayor (who was then a District Judge) ruled that the publisher had the right to license the freelancer's work. This decision was reversed on appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal), and the Supreme Court upheld the reversal; two dissenters (John Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens) and Stephen Breyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer)) took Sotomayor's position.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-47)
In Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Carol_Publishin g_Group), Sotomayor ruled as a district judge that a book of trivia from the television program Seinfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seinfeld) infringed on the copyright of the show's producer and did not constitute legal fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circ uit) upheld Sotomayor's ruling.

Abortion

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Reproductive_Law_and_Po licy_v._Bush&action=edit&redlink=1),[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-48) Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration)'s implementation of the Mexico City Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy) which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) as a method of family planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning) in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection), as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion) position over the pro-choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice) position, and can do so with public funds".[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-49)

First Amendment rights

In Pappas v. Giuliani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappas_v._Giuliani),[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-50) Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the NYPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYPD) could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment) protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
In Dow Jones v. Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Jones_v._Department_of_Justice&action=edit&redlink=1),[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-51) Sotomayor sided with the Wall Street Journal in its efforts to obtain and publish a photocopy of the suicide note of former White House Counsel Vince Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster). Sotomayor ruled that the public had "a substantial interest" in viewing the note and enjoined the Justice Department from blocking its release.

Second Amendment rights

Sotomayor was part of the three-judge Second Circuit panel that affirmed the district court's ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maloney_v._Cuomo&action=edit&redlink=1).[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-52) Maloney was arrested for possession of nunchakus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunchakus), which are illegal in New York; Maloney argued that this law violated his Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment) right to bear arms. The Second Circuit's per curiam opinion noted that the Supreme Court has not, so far, ever held that the Second Amendment is binding against state governments. On the contrary, in Presser v. Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois), a Supreme Court case from 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." With respect to the Presser v. Illinois precedent, the panel stated that the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) (which struck down the district's gun ban as unconstitutional) "does not invalidate this longstanding principle." Thus, the Second Circuit panel upheld the lower court's decision dismissing Maloney's complaint.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-53)

Fourth Amendment rights

In N.G. ex rel. S.G. v. Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N.G._ex_rel._S.G._v._Connecticut&action=edit&redlink=1),[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-54) Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ decision to uphold a series of strip searches of “troubled adolescent girls” in juvenile detention centers. While Sotomayor agreed that some of the strip searches at issue in the case were lawful, she would have held that due to the “the severely intrusive nature of strip searches,” they should not be allowed “in the absence of individualized suspicion, of adolescents who have never been charged with a crime.” She argued that an "individualized suspicion" rule was more consistent with Second Circuit precedent than the majority's rule.
In Leventhal v. Knapek (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leventhal_v._Knapek&action=edit&redlink=1)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-55), Sotomayor rejected a Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment) challenge by a Department of Transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Transportation) employee whose employer searched his office computer. She held that “[e]ven though [the employee] had some expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the investigatory searches by the DOT did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights” because here “there were reasonable grounds for suspecting” the search would reveal evidence of “work-related misconduct.”

Employment discrimination

Sotomayor was a member of a Second Circuit panel in a high-profile case that upheld without significant comment a lower court decision backing the right of the City of New Haven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticut) to throw out its promotional test for firefighters and start over with a new test, because the City believed the test had a "disparate impact" on minority firefighters and it might therefore be subject to a lawsuit from minority firefighters under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) if it certified the test results. (No black firefighters qualified for promotion under the test, whereas some had qualified under tests used in previous years.) Several white firefighters who had passed the test, including the lead plaintiff who has dyslexia and had put much extra effort into studying, sued the City of New Haven, claiming that their rights were violated because the test was thrown out. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as Ricci v. DeStefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano),[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-56)[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-57)[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-58) and a ruling has not yet been issued.

Antitrust

In Clarett v. National Football League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarett_v._National_Football_League)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-59) Sotomayor upheld the NFL's eligibility rules requiring players to wait three full seasons after high school graduation before entering the NFL draft. Maurice Clarett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarett) challenged these rules, which were part of the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players, on antitrust grounds. Sotomayor held that Clarett's claim would upset the established "federal labor law favoring and governing the collective bargaining process." She wrote: "We follow the Supreme Court's lead in declining to 'fashion an antitrust exemption [so as to give] additional advantages to professional football players . . . that transport workers, coal miners, or meat packers would not enjoy.'"

Civil Rights

In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malesko_v._Correctional_Services_C orp.&action=edit&redlink=1)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-60), Sotomayor, writing for the court, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing Supreme Court doctrine, known as "Bivens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens)" — which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations — could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens doctrine could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling.

Property Rights

In Krimstock v. Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krimstock_v._Kelly&action=edit&redlink=1),[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-61), Sotomayor wrote an opinion halting New York City's practice of seizing the motor vehicles of drivers accused of driving while intoxicated and some other crimes and holding those vehicles for "months or even years" during criminal proceedings. Noting the importance of cars to many individuals' livelihoods or daily activities, she held that it violated individuals' due process rights to hold the vehicles without permitting the owners to challenge the City's continued possession of their property.
In Brody v. Village of Port Chester (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brody_v._Village_of_Port_Chester&action=edit&redlink=1), [63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-62), a takings case, Sotomayor wrote an opinion remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings on whether Brody had adequate notice of the Village's condemnation proceedings against his property. (A related proceeding in the lower court was called Didden v. Village of Port Chester. The case has drawn attention from conservative commentators.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-63)[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-64))

[RobMoney$]

"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," said Judge Sotomayor.


Yep, this confirmation hearing should go well.

[yeahwho]

"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," said Judge Sotomayor.


Yep, this confirmation hearing should go well.

I have a feeling this pick is going to be a bit smoother than Harriet Miers (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/conservatives-sonia-sotomayor-as-harriet-miers.html), Senorita Sotomayor has shot to the topmost position in her profession.

[RobMoney$]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit



Supreme Court: White firefighters bias victims

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court declared Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race, ruling against minorities in a major reverse discrimination case that could affect bosses and workers nationwide. The justices threw out a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.

In its last session until September, the court's conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that faulted New Haven and the courts that had upheld the city's discarding of results of an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain.
The city said it acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities, but Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that New Haven's action amounted to discrimination based on race against the white firefighters who were likely to be promoted.
"No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race," Kennedy said.

The ruling restricts, but does not eliminate employers' ability to take diversity into account in employment decisions. But the ruling could make it harder for minorities to prove discrimination based solely on lopsided racial hiring or promotions.

Sotomayor and two appeals court colleagues had ruled the city did the right thing in throwing out the test, and the Supreme Court reversal gave critics fresh ammunition two weeks before her Senate confirmation hearing. Conservatives said it showed her to be a judicial activist who lets her own feelings color her decisions. "This case will only raise more questions in the minds of the American people concerning Judge Sotomayor's commitment to treat each individual fairly and not as a member of a group," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
On the other hand, the Obama administration and liberal allies said her stance in the case demonstrated her restraint and unwillingness to go beyond precedents established by her own 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The high court ruling shows "she doesn't legislate from the bench," said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. "The Supreme Court clearly had a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act."



Well it's about damn time.

And LOL @ the "The high court ruling shows "she doesn't legislate from the bench," spin the liberals are putting on this.


Also, I'm putting you all on warning. The next time I use the term "reverse discrimination" and some ass-clown chimes in with "there's no such thing as reverse discrimination, I'm going to link this story.
"Reverse Discrimination" is absolutely a legitimite term in the english language from here on out.

[Documad]

If that one case where she signed onto someone else's opinion is all they've found on her given her lengthy history, then she might be the best candidate we've seen in my lifetime.

[Schmeltz]

The thing is that there really is no such thing as "reverse discrimination," it's all just plain old discrimination. If someone is discriminated against because of their race, does it really matter which particular races are involved? What if a Chinese guy decided not to hire an East Indian guy just because he doesn't like East Indians? What's that, sideways discrimination? Parallel discrimination?

[Bob]

the difference between regular discrimination and reverse discrimination is that reverse discrimination is designed to remedy prior regular discrimination, and unless it's narrowly tailored to do so, it isn't legal, same as regular discrimination (though that question is a murky one to say the least and as you can see, not even 9 supreme court justices can reach a happy consensus about it). whether that's a socially useful thing to do is up for debate.

unless you dismiss "remedying past discrimination" as "white guilt", then there's nothing to talk about i guess

me, i haven't completely made my mind up about it, though i do know that if i'm up against a black gay man in a wheelchair for a lawyer job i should probably go home and save myself some time because damn

[RobMoney$]

me, i haven't completely made my mind up about it, though i do know that if i'm up against a black gay man in a wheelchair for a lawyer job i should probably go home and save myself some time because damn


See, this is my problem.
If we are to be truly "without prejudice" then the black guy in the wheelchair shouldn't be given any more advantage than you.

The firefighters promotion was based on a test.
Now if you were to tell me that black firefighters had less acess to that test somehow, then I could see a racial bias, but everyone had EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to take the test, which is what of Government should be enusuring. Not how many of each race passes.

But to take the test, have all white guys score in the top tier and then decide that we're going to throw the test out because it's racist is something the "Proud Latina" judge should never have signed onto.

Unless it was a one question test in which that question was "Are you white", then I don't see how a test can be racist.

[Documad]

As an aside, I don't understand how a written test will tell a city who is going to be a good firefighter in the first place.

[DroppinScience]

The thing is that there really is no such thing as "reverse discrimination," it's all just plain old discrimination. If someone is discriminated against because of their race, does it really matter which particular races are involved? What if a Chinese guy decided not to hire an East Indian guy just because he doesn't like East Indians? What's that, sideways discrimination? Parallel discrimination?

Agreed. (y)

[RobMoney$]

As an aside, I don't understand how a written test will tell a city who is going to be a good firefighter in the first place.


All the article said was that it was a promotion exam. I guess it could have been an exam involving a physical test such as fighting a staged fire or something.

But I assume it was a written test. And if it's for promotion to become a Captian or some other position of authority, those positions I imagine would require a lot of paperwork and proceedure that would absolutely be appropriate to give a written test to determine a person's knowledge.



I have a brother who's in the secret service and he's taken similar tests when he was a cop for advancement to become a Detective and such.
And Yes, he scored 100% on his exam and is a vietnam veteran and was denied promotion because he's white.
But fuck him anyway because he's an asshole.

[RobMoney$]

Also, the lead plaintiff is dyslexic and passed, so how hard could the exam have been?

[Dorothy Wood]

dyslexic people aren't retarded. some of the smartest people I've known have been dyslexic.


and anyway, I don't know what the test is, so I can't say if it was racist or not. there is such a thing as racial bias in standardized testing...but I don't know how a firefighter test could be racist.

[RobMoney$]

dyslexic people aren't retarded. some of the smartest people I've known have been dyslexic.


Never meant to imply anyone was "retarded".
Being the father of a child with special needs, I would NEVER imply anything like that, thankyouverymuch.

[YoungRemy]

I like the way Schmeltz put it, "reverse discrimination" is discrimination and it doesn't matter who it is against.

[Dorothy Wood]

Never meant to imply anyone was "retarded".
Being the father of a child with special needs, I would NEVER imply anything like that, thankyouverymuch.



okay...well, you implied that if the test was hard, a dyslexic person wouldn't be able to pass it. as if dyslexics were somehow less than able.

*shrug*

[RobMoney$]

okay...well, you implied that if the test was hard, a dyslexic person wouldn't be able to pass it. as if dyslexics were somehow less than able.

*shrug*


Or I was trying to imply that someone with a learning disability who actually WAS AT A DISADVANTAGE in taking a written test was the lead plaintiff against someone who's only excuse was the color of their skin.

If a person with dyslexia (be they black, white, or green) scored in the top tier of the test, I think they rightly deserve the promotion.
For Sotomayor to see it any other way certainly shows questionable judgement at the least.

[Bob]

Or I was trying to imply that someone with a learning disability who actually WAS AT A DISADVANTAGE in taking a written test was the lead plaintiff against someone who's only excuse was the color of their skin.

If a person with dyslexia (be they black, white, or green) scored in the top tier of the test, I think they rightly deserve the promotion.
For Sotomayor to see it any other way certainly shows questionable judgement at the least.

this opinion comes from a painstaking analysis of title VII i presume

[Dorothy Wood]

Or I was trying to imply that someone with a learning disability who actually WAS AT A DISADVANTAGE in taking a written test was the lead plaintiff against someone who's only excuse was the color of their skin.

If a person with dyslexia (be they black, white, or green) scored in the top tier of the test, I think they rightly deserve the promotion.
For Sotomayor to see it any other way certainly shows questionable judgement at the least.


considering people with dyslexia typically get more one-on-one attention in school and develop skills to cope with their disadvantages, one might say that some dyslexics may actually gain advantage in test-taking.


and considering neither of us have access to the test, it's impossible to argue or even discuss the nature of the test and who was at an advantage or a disadvantage.

I dunno, it would interesting to see the test. I'm not in favor of adjusting standards to suit race or gender, but I am in favor of examining standards to make sure they accurately determine who is best for the job.


I actually don't support her decision, so I'm not really arguing about that. I'm just saying I don't know the whole story, so I'm not going to get super upset about it. especially when the decision was 5-4.

[RobMoney$]

So now someone's civil rights were violated because they failed to pass a standardized test?



See, this is why people pretty much can't stand lawyers, Bob.
They take something good (Civil Rights Act) and prostitute it for their own selfish purpose.

Title VII was created, according to JFK,

"giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

Nothing in there about insuring quotas of any race for promotions, is there?
No, because such a thing in itself is a violation of that very law.

[Bob]

So now someone's civil rights were violated because they failed to pass a standardized test?



See, this is why people pretty much can't stand lawyers, Bob.
They take something good (Civil Rights Act) and prostitute it for their own selfish purpose.

Title VII was created, according to JFK,



Nothing in there about insuring quotas of any race for promotions, is there?
No, because such a thing in itself is a violation of that very law.

i didn't want to get lawyery and condescending but if you're going to pretend that you know more than me about how title VII works then i'm kind of going to have to so i'm sorry in advance

one of the forms of discrimination prohibited by title VII is "disparate impact," which is when an employer uses a facially neutral employment policy that has a racially discriminatory effect; it's a sort of "accidental racism". here, the employer used a written test and it applied it equally to everyone, but it had the effect of denying promotion to a protected class. it isn't about "insuring quotas", it's about forbidding employment policies which needlessly preclude minorities from advancing, even if the policy wasn't intended to do it.

disparate impact on its own isn't necessarily illegal; it's only illegal if the employer can't prove that the test is designed to measure candidates' qualifications for the jobs in question, or even if the employer can do that, it's still illegal if the adversely affected class of people can prove that other policies would achieve the same goal without having a disparate impact.

i know JFK didn't say any of this but it's all established Title VII law, i can refer you to cases if you want

the issue in ricci was a little different - the employer noticed the disparate impact (as well as the "rancorous debate" surrounding it) and before anyone could sue, it decided to just toss out the test scores, which affirmatively discriminated against the white and hispanic candidates. that's also illegal (obviously) unless you can prove that a disparate impact challenge was probably going to succeed. the legal standard for the required strength of this probability did not exist until the supreme court ruled on it just now, at least not as applied to title VII cases.


you can take issue with affirmative action and disparate impact and cast a pox on hooker lawyers all you want, i don't really mind if you think this is a good law or a bad law. i say all this because it is in fact the law and i take issue with your opinion that sotomayor showed "questionable judgment" by reaching her conclusion. she reached her conclusion by applying the law of title VII to the facts of the case (which is what a good judge is supposed to do). 2 second circuit appeals court judges agreed with her application of the law (well more appropriately, she and one judge agreed with the one who wrote the opinion) and so did 4 supreme court justices. 5 supreme court justices felt differently. it was apparently a close case, and 5 beats 4 so she's wrong and that's how the law works.

so basically i'm wondering, what part of sotomayor's (rather, the judge with whom sotomayor agreed) application of the law did you find questionable?

[Dorothy Wood]

So now someone's civil rights were violated because they failed to pass a standardized test?




I'm not sure if you're addressing bob here, or me, but as a person who has studied and researched standardized testing, I can say without question that standardized testing does indeed hinder if not violate the rights of certain people.

considering I have also been a victim (and I use that term pretty lightly) of discrimination via standardized testing, I can say that a lot of standardized tests are a whole lot of bullshit.

many standardized tests are written and scored by people with bias, (albeit usually subconscious bias) and are many times more subjective than objective as they aim to be.

therefore, as I said, it is impossible to form a complete opinion without seeing the actual test.

[RobMoney$]

I was replying to Bob's post.
Perhaps you popped in with that while I was responding?

Your point about dyslexic people getting more attention in school and therefore actually being an advantage is offensive.
It's like saying a guy in a wheelchair has an advantage because he gets all the close parking spaces and they have a ramp for him to use to get into buildings as opposed to having to use the stairs.

Anyway, it's very simple. Ask yourself,...

Which person is at a disadvantage on a written test?


Person with Dyslexia
Person who is Black
It's almost racist to even ask the question, isn't it?

[Dorothy Wood]

I was replying to Bob's post.
Perhaps you popped in with that while I was responding?

Your point about dyslexic people getting more attention in school and therefore actually being an advantage is offensive.
It's like saying a guy in a wheelchair has an advantage because he gets all the close parking spaces and they have a ramp for him to use to get into buildings as opposed to having to use the stairs.

Anyway, it's very simple. Ask yourself,...

Which person is at a disadvantage on a written test?

Person with Dyslexia
Person who is BlackIt's almost racist to even ask the question, isn't it?


well, you need to keep your emotions out of this. the very first post says the guy got coaching to overcome his dyslexia, which could very well have given him the edge because he would have revisited study skills that many of the other men (white and black) may not have.

I guess I'll just have to tell my old dyslexic physics professor and my poor dyslexic good friend that they're liars. because what they told me is that even though they struggled, they actually blossomed and became better than average students on account of the extra help from teachers and aides to learn how to overcome obstacles.


I'm saying it's like if the guy in a wheelchair brought his own ramp, or learned to hop up stairs. If he was in a race to the mall with a walking man who had to park farther away, the wheelchair man would most definitely have an advantage. and I'm quite sure he'd be offended that you think he's so incapable!


Anyway, none of this is simple at all!

I don't know the educational background of the test-takers. I don't know who scored the test. I don't know what the test is. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say who was disadvantaged and who had advantage.


Personally, I think it was probably just a coincidence and the people in charge just didn't want to be seen as racist, accidentally or otherwise.

accidentally racist...that's a good band name.

[RobMoney$]

i didn't want to get lawyery and condescending but if you're going to pretend that you know more than me about how title VII works then i'm kind of going to have to so i'm sorry in advance

I wasn't trying to act as if I knew more about the law than you, obviously I don't. I've posted before that I'm actual envious of your degree and I have no problem admitting that publicly.
But, just because I am not a member of the Legal profession doesn't mean I'm ignorant either.

I'm gonna go ahead and apply the K.I.S.S. strategy here.
Keep It Simple Stupid.
This case is simple to me, perhaps because I don't have the legal knowledge to get confused by it, if that makes any sense.

Just because no one black passed the test doesn't necessarily mean the test was racist. It's easy to look at this and see it as trying to meet a quota regardless of merit, and that just seems unfair to a legal amatuer such as myself.

[Bob]

I wasn't trying to act as if I knew more about the law than you, obviously I don't. I've posted before that I'm actual envious of your degree and I have no problem admitting that publicly.
But, just because I am not a member of the Legal profession doesn't mean I'm ignorant either.

I'm gonna go ahead and apply the K.I.S.S. strategy here.
Keep It Simple Stupid.
This case is simple to me, perhaps because I don't have the legal knowledge to get confused by it, if that makes any sense.

Just because no one black passed the test doesn't necessarily mean the test was racist. It's easy to look at this and see it as trying to meet a quota regardless of merit, and that just seems unfair to a legal amatuer such as myself.

that's fine.

as i said before, what bothers me is your statement that sotomayor showed "questionable judgment" by reaching her conclusion, but as far as i can tell, she reached her conclusion by applying the law of title VII to the facts of the case. you're entitled to your opinion about how this case should have been decided, either on the law or on basic principles of fairness or on an opinion that the law is unjust, you can feel however you want to feel about it. but what about sotomayor's treatment of this case, in her position as a judge who is charged with applying law to facts, did you find questionable such that she would make a poor supreme court judge?

[yeahwho]

I'm not too sure where this thread is going or what the point is, but I may as well tell you what I've gotten out of it so far, this is a country that either loves or hates black dyslexic's.

[yeahwho]

The hearings of Sotomajor,
Were replete with rank insults & more,
Condescending, malicious,
Rudely repetitious,
Don't try it again, por favor.

[yeahwho]

Al Franken was quite impressive during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. His line of questioning really took a direct path into past courtroom practices, 'Mason Moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaVwTZKL2hQ&feature=related)'.

[RobMoney$]

So lemme get this straight, you think a session of proverbial "grab-ass" between the proud latina and Franken is somehow refreshing, or "quite impressive" was the way you put it?

I mean was that really necessary?
This is the Supreme Court were talking about here, I hardly think it's time to entertain the masses with glib anecdotes about how you both liked Perry Mason as kids.
This is a hearing involving the United States Senate, not an appearence on Letterman for cripes sake.
I mean it's just another example of how weak Franken and the Dems are.
Playing Softball with Supreme Court Nominee's?

Fuck.

[yeahwho]

So lemme get this straight, you think a session of proverbial "grab-ass" between the proud latina and Franken is somehow refreshing, or "quite impressive" was the way you put it?

Playing Softball with Supreme Court Nominee's?

Fuck.

yep :D that is how we're gonna roll!

[Dorothy Wood]

the whole thing was softball, and frankly kind of strange.

it's like everyone was trying to put things in layman's terms, but ended up making stuff more pointless and unclear than if they were using fancy law language.

I mean, if you're influenced by Perry Mason, make it like a concise 30 second story, not a rambling love letter to a television show that has only the vague point of influencing her to study law.

[yeahwho]

Franken also hit serious notes, reading from a pocket Constitution, asking Sotomayor about the Voting Rights Act; whether Internet access should be protected; asking for the definition of an activist judge.

He even went where the administration didn't want Democrats to go by pressing the judge on abortion rights -- arguing that abortion rights don't have to be written into the Constitution to be protected.

"Are the words 'birth control' in the Constitution?" Franken asked. Sotomayor responded, "No, sir."

Franken then pressed the judge: "Are the words 'privacy' in the Constitution or the word?" Sotomayor said the word "privacy" is not.

But the watercooler moment of the hearing came when he asked the judge -- who'd revealed she's a lifelong fan of the TV show "Perry Mason" -- to name one case Mason lost. She couldn't.

"And you don't remember that case?" he asked.

Sotomayor responded: "I know that I should remember the name of it, but I haven't looked at the episode."

Franken followed up with this tongue-in-cheek question: "Didn't the White House prepare you for that?"


The Senate confirmation vote should give us a pretty good idea of the division within the Republican party that is causing it to struggle for an identity. Watch which republicans vote "against her/for her", this will be a very good indicator of how 2012 is going to go.

Those who agree with the Pat Buchanan insanity (http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/index.php?id=1514) and those who want to separate themselves from past stereotypes.

[Documad]

I enjoy both Perry Mason and Pat Buchanan. Pat's a loon but he's entertaining and I sense that he's genuine about his looniness. It's not an act for TV.

I don't know the name of the case he lost. I've been watching the DVDs as they're released and I haven't gotten to it yet. It must be in a later season. I have adored Perry Mason since I was a kid.

[yeahwho]

The Most Important Number in Politics Today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072801638.html)

Wendy Long, head of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, released a statement in the immediate aftermath of the vote praising Republicans on the committee for taking such a partisan stand. "Republicans will no longer defer to confirmation of liberal judicial activists," said Long. "The overwhelming, almost-unanimous Republican opposition to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is a historical first."

I am unimpressed and do believe a tactical, political error by the republicans has just been made. The dynamic of the USA has been lost on them. The continued belligerence and bickering over everything Obama is going to fail.

[Documad]

The republicans on that committee are fucking crazy. There's no doubt she is qualified -- intensely qualified. They didn't find a god damned thing in her record to pin on her. This brings home how important in the last couple of elections were and how important it is for democrats to hold onto the senate.

[yeahwho]

Sessions is quite the charming fellow isn't he. One great representative of an upstanding U.S. Senator.

I'm so glad the democrats have the majority, man this is insane.

[Documad]

No matter how mad I get at the democrats, I have to support them because more supreme court justices will be appointed.

[RobMoney$]

I'm for liberally leaning SCJ's.
just not this one.