Sotomayor on Tape

Politics • Views: 2,360

The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire has made available audio recordings of Sonia Sotomayor in action in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. I’ve included the audio files below:

MP3 Audio

MP3 Audio

Seventeen white and two Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn., scored high enough on a test to win promotion, but the city threw out the results after finding that no black firefighters hit the threshold.

The white firefighters sued, alleging reverse discrimination, and lost in federal district court. The case then landed in Judge Sotomayor’s courtroom at the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. In an hour-long hearing last year she vigorously dives into the dispute.

For the first half-hour, she and the presiding judge, Rosemary Pooler, fire questions at the firefighters’ lawyer, Karen Lee Torre. One Sotomayor remark that caught our attention comes early on, when the judge raised the technical issue of whether it was proper to name the New Haven mayor as a defendant in the case. Ms. Torre cited comments the mayor made backing the city’s Civil Service Board in throwing out the test, to which Judge Sotomayor snapped back: “Politicians every day get up in all types of fora and make what I consider the most ridiculous arguments, some of them illegal.” (The Catholic-school-educated judge clearly knew the Latin plural of “forum.”)

For the second half hour, they question the attorney representing New Haven, Richard Roberts. Throughout the oral argument, Sotomayor repeatedly came back to the notion that the city had a right to take another crack at building a better test if it feared the results of the first one were discriminatory.

In her rebuttal, Ms. Torre argued that the city’s interest wasn’t giving minorities a fair shake, but “race racketeering” to benefit “cronies” of the mayor.

Judge Sotomayor paid little attention to that claim, which the city has denied. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

Jump to bottom

271 comments
1 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:50:25pm

Thanks Charles

2 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:51:10pm

Very garbled. ( first recording )

could be on my end.

3 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:51:59pm

I’ve never understood the term “reverse racism”. Racism is racism people. It is not a directional concept.

4 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:54:46pm

re: #3 bryantms

I’ve never understood the term “reverse racism”. Racism is racism people. It is not a directional concept.

That and “Hate Crimes”.

5 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:55:09pm
“We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”


Using her logic regarding her career as as judge

Since she seems to be overturned so often by the SCOTUS, seems logical to me to move her to the SCOTUS.

Problem solved!

/////////////////////////////////////////////

6 Dan G.  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:55:39pm

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yea, those Love Crimes are too bad…
/

7 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:56:22pm

I am mystified: what kind of questions or what kind of knowledge to assessed, could be the domain of only a certain ethnic set?

8 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:56:46pm

re: #3 bryantms

As applied by liberals, sure it is. If the discrimination is against blacks and Latinos, it’s bad, and must be punished. If it’s against white males, it can be excused and ignored. Sotomayor may have applied that principle in this case.

My question to Judge Sotomayor is simple: when does the double standard end?

9 brookly red  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:12pm

re: #6 Dan G.

Yea, those Love Crimes are too bad…
/

/15 will still get ya 20…

10 Beholden  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:12pm

You either pass the test, or you don’t. Seems to me she failed that test.

11 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:22pm

re: #7 Gang of One

I am mystified: what kind of questions or what kind of knowledge to assessed, could be the domain of only a certain ethnic set?

That kind of thought is obviously the product of a bigoted mind.

12 SpaceJesus  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:58pm

how do you look at firefighting knowledge in a more substantive way exactly

13 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:58:36pm

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That kind of thought is obviously the product of a bigoted mind.

Please explain — we are talking about what kind of test or exam? How were the questions deemed to be skewed?

14 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:58:41pm

What kind of questions could be unfair to blacks? I just don’t get it. I want to see the test.

15 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:26pm

re: #14 KenJen

What kind of questions could be unfair to blacks? I just don’t get it. I want to see the test.

That’s what I am asking.

16 Dan G.  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:43pm

The problem I have is that her premise (in the text provided) is that tests can be racially selective. Now, I acknowledge that one’s background/upbringing could preclude good performance on a test… but very specifically one’s race!? This idea is the very basis of racism.

It may very well be that the vast majority of “under-represented minorities” are raised in conditions that preclude good performance on tests, but to peg their race as the cause is wrong and will not lead to remediation.

17 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:49pm

re: #13 Gang of One

Please explain — we are talking about what kind of test or exam? How were the questions deemed to be skewed?

No clue.

18 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:00:38pm

re: #12 spacejesus

how do you look at firefighting knowledge in a more substantive way exactly

I would guess that one can either do the job or cannot do the job. I’ve no idea what the requirements were for the New Haven FD, but they should be based on objective criteria (how much one can lift, endurance, spatial knowledge of town, behavior, etc).

19 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:03:28pm

re: #18 Honorary Yooper

I would guess that one can either do the job or cannot do the job. I’ve no idea what the requirements were for the New Haven FD, but they should be based on objective criteria (how much one can lift, endurance, spatial knowledge of town, behavior, etc).

Probably quite a bit on practical knowledge, strategies, deployment, management, etc

20 Rednek  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:03:37pm

GM at 0.81 per share.

At what level is a company de-listed?

21 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:03:50pm

re: #18 Honorary Yooper

I would guess that one can either do the job or cannot do the job. I’ve no idea what the requirements were for the New Haven FD, but they should be based on objective criteria (how much one can lift, endurance, spatial knowledge of town, behavior, etc).

Yep….I don’t want someone who can’t haul the normal weight of a normal citizen out of a burning home….regardless of their gender, cultural origin.

Some people, however, like the feeling of feeling like they helped someone by letting someone into such a job that doesn’t know what they are to do, and may not be physically able to perform.

22 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:03:53pm

re: #17 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No clue.

Yah, sour grapes, I guess. Some blacks and/or Hispanics did not make the grade for whatever reasons, and this then means that the exam is biased. Whatever position Sotomayor falls on in the liberal/conservative spectrum, this kind of thinking just reeks of victimhood politics.

23 MJ  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:04:09pm

NYT has a piece on her “temperament”:

…But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her…. Among the comments from lawyers was that she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner” and attacks lawyers “for making an argument she doesn’t like.”

24 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:04:49pm

re: #20 Rednek

I think it has to be below market cap for like 30 days or something along those lines.

25 J.S.  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:05:01pm

There are too many unknowns here (imo)…(such as what precisely were the questions on the test? was the test discriminatory? evidence? etc.) Think I’ll wait to hear the questions/answers put to Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing…

26 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:05:36pm

re: #23 MJ

NYT has a piece on her “temperament”:

I’m thinking Michelle Obama knows her well…hence the “mean” America…

27 Dahveed  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:05:46pm

re: #20 Rednek

GM at 0.81 per share.

At what level is a company de-listed?

When they file for bankruptcy, they will be de-listed.

28 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:05:48pm

I want to see the test. And the answers given. I really don’t see how a test can be “racist”, but without actually seeing the test I can’t come to conclusions.

Some things I’m wondering:

— If this is a test to gain a promotion, shouldn’t it be on those things that pertain to your job?

— How are the things that pertain to one’s job variable based on race?

29 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:06:07pm

this could be a sticky situation, hopefully it isn’t completely binding.

30 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:06:32pm

re: #25 J.S.

There are too many unknowns here (imo)…(such as what precisely were the questions on the test? was the test discriminatory? evidence? etc.) Think I’ll wait to hear the questions/answers put to Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing…

Since this is an exam already given, could it be published for all to see?
The exam’s contents do change from year to year, right?

31 nyc redneck  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:06:32pm

how often will she let her idea of what’s fair trump the law?
that’s the question.

32 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:06:57pm

re: #28 kynna

I want to see the test. And the answers given. I really don’t see how a test can be “racist”, but without actually seeing the test I can’t come to conclusions.

Some things I’m wondering:

— If this is a test to gain a promotion, shouldn’t it be on those things that pertain to your job?

— How are the things that pertain to one’s job variable based on race?

sprechen zie deutche?

33 Creeping Eruption  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:07pm

re: #32 Eowyn2

sprechen zie deutche?

Not since addressing my second year German teacher as Herr Phallus. (His name was Alles).

34 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:29pm

re: #18 Honorary Yooper

There’s also probably information regarding specific knowledge about firefighting, tactics, circumstances requiring different tactics (how to deal with certain chemicals, hazmat, etc.)

Here’s a sample exam (not the New Haven test), and it goes to reading comprehension and knowledge of firefighting tactics.

The angle of discrimination in the tests is along the same lines of those who criticize other standardized tests for discriminating against minorities.

35 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:49pm
Judge Sotomayor paid little attention to that claim, which the city has denied. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

I have a problem with a couple of those points. First the assumption that the current test never, ever has any of the aggrieved group pass. How does she know that? Are there no minority promotions on this fire department, ever?
Secondly, just how do you devise a test that measures knowledge in a more substantive way? What criteria and standards do you apply and how do you know you’ve achieved them?
It sounds to me like engineering the test to get the desired outcome.

36 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:09:26pm

Here’s Krauthammer on this issue: [Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

37 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:10:38pm

Why didn’t the firefighter sue the New Haven public schools for not educating them (assuming that is the common denominator for those who failed the test)?

38 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:10:39pm

From that article:
“Two things are sure to happen this summer: The Supreme Court will overturn Sotomayor’s panel’s ruling. And, barring some huge hidden scandal, Sotomayor will be elevated to that same Supreme Court.”

39 UFO TOFU  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:10:40pm

OT, but this made me chuckle:

Nevertheless, one does wonder, would a wise Latina woman even make the claim that a wise Latina woman could make a better decision than a white man? So even if this statement is true, might Judge Sotomayor’s making it suggest she is not one of them? Food for thought, indeed.
40 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:03pm

re: #34 lawhawk

The angle of discrimination in the tests is along the same lines of those who criticize other standardized tests for discriminating against minorities.

Nice place, when those who don’t want to learn can still have what ever they ask for, because no one handed it to them.

But then, there was a link here this morning about how in MA, the stimulus money is being handed over to ACORN to then hire those who are limited in the work force because of their bad past.

Reward those who don’t want to play by the rules, the New American WAY!

41 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:13pm

re: #30 Gang of One

Since this is an exam already given, could it be published for all to see?
The exam’s contents do change from year to year, right?

I heard that the reason it was deemed discriminatory is because of the percentages of those who scored well. Since a higher percentage of caucasian men scored higher than took the test, it was obviously discriminatory.

nobody is coming up with the test.

42 JustABill  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:14pm

Of course tests can be skewed to produce the racially “desired” results. I seem to recall a psychologist making an “IQ” test such that the African-American students scored way better than the other races.

That being said, one would assume that there is a set of knowledge/skills that the job to which these officers are testing for will require. A test to determine who has those skills should be created, then the applicants tested and let the chips fall where they may…

Of course, I would prefer that the officers who initiated the suit simply quit and found jobs in an area where such nonsense doesn’t happen, rather than file a law suite.

I am of the opinion that most/all discriminatory actions hurt both the party subject to the discrimination as well as the party making the decision. In this case, the city will end up with a less qualified police force…

43 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:44pm

re: #33 Creeping Eruption

Not since addressing my second year German teacher as Herr Phallus. (His name was Alles).

smillllieeees

44 davinvalkri  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:47pm

This is why we should have some doubts about Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Nothing about her being a retard or belonging to La Raza, just these judicial reviews.

45 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:12:10pm

It would be very interesting to see exacty what parts of the test were discriminatory, and see the arguments for why.

/dreaming

46 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:13:03pm

Sotomayor herself stated this case was “facially race-neutral.”

47 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:13:29pm

re: #42 JustABill

Of course tests can be skewed to produce the racially “desired” results. I seem to recall a psychologist making an “IQ” test such that the African-American students scored way better than the other races.

That being said, one would assume that there is a set of knowledge/skills that the job to which these officers are testing for will require. A test to determine who has those skills should be created, then the applicants tested and let the chips fall where they may…

Of course, I would prefer that the officers who initiated the suit simply quit and found jobs in an area where such nonsense doesn’t happen, rather than file a law suite.

I am of the opinion that most/all discriminatory actions hurt both the party subject to the discrimination as well as the party making the decision. In this case, the city will end up with a less qualified police force…

And if you had been a fireperson for 15 yrs and were taking the test for promotion, would you have been content to just drop the ball and move on to a new job, um, somewhere?

48 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:14:34pm

re: #34 lawhawk

I saw nothing discriminatory in the exam you linked. It looks to be a fairly standard and fair exam. Even the questions seemed race-neutral (as they should be). Personally, I think the most of the claims about the standardized tests having a race-bias are bullshit.

49 Idle Drifter  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:14:49pm

Is the Exam sort of like the Keeper of the Bridge of Death asking questions varying degrees of difficulty.

Youtube Video

///////////////

50 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:16:58pm

re: #48 Honorary Yooper

I saw nothing discriminatory in the exam you linked. It looks to be a fairly standard and fair exam. Even the questions seemed race-neutral (as they should be). Personally, I think the most of the claims about the standardized tests having a race-bias are bullshit.

You are most likely blinded by your privileged upbringing…for those who are gracious, but an “R” word to others….

51 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:17:17pm

#3 bryantms

I’ve never understood the term “reverse racism”. Racism is racism people. It is not a directional concept.

In a perfect world, maybe. But in this world it refers to racism against whites, which according to many does not exist.

A good article on Sotomayor topic.

The Sotomayor Rules[Link: online.wsj.com…]

52 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:17:32pm

Sample test
I can’t answer any of the questions. Guess that means I can become a fireman. Right?

53 1SG(ret)  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:17:40pm

re: #23 MJ

“behaves in an out-of-control manner” and attacks People “for Asking a Questions he doesn’t like.”

Changing this slightly reminds me of someone else…….just can’t put my finger on who!

54 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:08pm

“Judge Sotomayor paid little attention to that claim, which the city has denied. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

What evidence was ever presented that the test was biased?

Has anyone ever published the actual test itself?

And what bias could there be in a test for fire captain promotion?

Hmmm, let me see…

Q #14: What is the secret handshake that all white people use to greet each other who no one else is looking?

Q #23: Describe the manner in which Wonder Bread tastes superior to all other food?

Q #37 What is the forbidden code used by white people in test answers to communicate to test-scorers to give them extra points unfairly?

Gimme a freakin’ break. If the test was in any way indentifiably biased, that would have been pointed out. But as far as I have seen, it never was pointed out.

And did the city ever produce this revamped test specially designed to give black people higher test scores? I doubt it.

I see all these arguments simply as a smokescreen and justification to push through an “affirmative action”-type agenda.

55 Gang of One  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:33pm

re: #52 KenJen

Sample test
I can’t answer any of the questions. Guess that means I can become a fireman. Right?

What’s your ethnicity?
//

56 JustABill  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:53pm

re: #47 Eowyn2

And if you had been a fireperson for 15 yrs and were taking the test for promotion, would you have been content to just drop the ball and move on to a new job, um, somewhere?

Perhaps if they quit in mass, the city would get the point. The people making these decisions are also elected officials. This sounds like an excellent election day issue…

57 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:54pm

re: #50 Curt

You are most likely blinded by your privileged upbringing…for those who are gracious, but an “R” word to others….

Privileged upbringing? I’d have to laugh my ass off at anyone who claimed that of me. I wish I had access to money as a kid, and I had to fight for a lot of what I finally got.

58 MJ  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:56pm

White House: Sotomayor says she chose word poorly

WASHINGTON – The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn’t lived the same life.
That’s according to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. He says he has not talked directly to Sotomayor about it but has spoken to people who have.
Critics have singled out the 2001 comment by Sotomayor for criticism. She was describing how personal experiences can affect judging. She said a “wise Latina woman” with her experiences would more often than not reach a “better conclusion” than a white male.

Thanks Robt.
Maybe you’re not really the Press Secretary either, you just play one on TV.
Jerk.

59 Idle Drifter  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:19:14pm

re: #49 Idle Drifter

questions with varying degrees of difficulty. PIMF

60 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:20:26pm

I’m trying to follow the horrible audio on these tapes without much luck, although on #2 at ABOUT 15:00, Sotomayor said that no one was hurt in this case (NewHaven). Did I hear that correctly?

61 bryantms  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:21:49pm

Another Sotomayor ruling bringing Free Speech advocates out of the woodwork: [Link: www.nbcconnecticut.com…]

62 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:22:10pm

re: #52 KenJen

Sample test
I can’t answer any of the questions. Guess that means I can become a fireman. Right?

What’s a BLEVE?

63 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:22:30pm

New Haven’s Racial Test

But the city’s civil service board refused to certify the results and no promotions were approved. Seventeen white candidates and one Hispanic candidate sued, charging a denial of their 14th Amendment rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal laws.

The board found the racially disparate results of the tests unacceptable. New Haven’s population is 37.4% black, but no African-American was among the top performers on either exam. The highest-scoring black candidate for a captaincy ranked 16th, behind 12 whites and three Latinos. On the lieutenant’s exam, the strongest black performers ranked 14th, 15th and 16th.
….
The city proclaimed the New Haven test must have been biased, given the results. An amicus brief for the International Association of Professional Black Firefighters declared flatly that it was “widely known and accepted that cognitive examinations, such as used here, have a demonstrated adverse impact on blacks and other minorities.” The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a “four-fifths rule,” which holds that a job-related test in which the passing rate of a racial minority is less than 80% of the white rate is presumptively flawed.

This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

64 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:23:01pm

I honestly was pre-disposed to dislike Sotomayor, but the evidence I have seen of her thus far shows she is not that bad.

I think some people think that because Obama has proven to be horrible, all of his actions must be horrible. A broken clock is still right twice a day.

I am not happy with the comments Sotomayor said about race and gender, but ultimately what matters is how she ruled on the court. She certainly does not appear to be a far leftist in her rulings - based upon the evidence presented. And she has a very long track record, having been on the bench for at least 15 years.

Not a bad choice - better than I would have expected from Obama.

What I find terribly offensive is what Debbie Schlussel said. She called Sonia Sotomayor “So-So,” and then compared her to J-Lo, claiming she was picked because she is like “Jenny from the block.”

Ugh. I am glad Ms. Schlussel did not win the seat she ran for in elected office. Such statements are very clearly an expression of bigotry on her part.

Source:

[Link: www.debbieschlussel.com…]

65 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:23:17pm

re: #42 JustABill

Of course tests can be skewed to produce the racially “desired” results. I seem to recall a psychologist making an “IQ” test such that the African-American students scored way better than the other races.

Wrong. In fact, they did make such a test, but the experiment went disastrously awry.

Two African-American professors claimed that standardized tests were biased in favor of white kids, and so to prove their point designed a test that was purposely supposed to be biased in favor of African-American students. The intent was to give the test to mixed classes, and then when the Black students scored higher on average, this was to be used as conclusive evidence that tests can be made biased.

By now you’ve probably guessed what happened. They gave their purposely pro-Black test to mixed classes — and the white students still outscored the Black students.

Ooops!

It was such an embarrassment, they tried to cover it up. But it was too late — they had pre-emptively publicized the experiment too much already.

66 Idle Drifter  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:23:24pm

re: #52 KenJen

The total number of questions is 1575! Sure it’s multiple choice but damn!

67 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:23:25pm

re: #34 lawhawk

There’s also probably information regarding specific knowledge about firefighting, tactics, circumstances requiring different tactics (how to deal with certain chemicals, hazmat, etc.)

Here’s a sample exam (not the New Haven test), and it goes to reading comprehension and knowledge of firefighting tactics.

The angle of discrimination in the tests is along the same lines of those who criticize other standardized tests for discriminating against minorities.

The test looks race neutral. Apparently the law is concerned with outcomes rather than process. You can’t get past the unfairness to the guys that worked hard & did well on the exam.
In New Haven the desired result would have been proprtionate high grades across racial groups, but that just didn’t happen.

68 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:24:37pm

re: #62 MandyManners

What’s a BLEVE?

Someone doesn’t know what a BLEVE is?

/

69 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:25:25pm

re: #62 MandyManners

What’s a BLEVE?

Boiling
Liquid
Expanding
Vapor
Explosion

sounds like a probrem to me …

70 davinvalkri  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:25:26pm

re: #65 zombie

Wrong. In fact, they did make such a test, but the experiment went disastrously awry.

Two African-American professors claimed that standardized tests were biased in favor of white kids, and so to prove their point designed a test that was purposely supposed to be biased in favor of African-American students. The intent was to give the test to mixed classes, and then when the Black students scored higher on average, this was to be used as conclusive evidence that tests can be made biased.

By now you’ve probably guessed what happened. They gave their purposely pro-Black test to mixed classes — and the white students still outscored the Black students.

Ooops!

It was such an embarrassment, they tried to cover it up. But it was too late — they had pre-emptively publicized the experiment too much already.

Can I just say epic fail? Ha ha!

71 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:25:38pm

re: #64 Daria Emmons

Yeah, Debbie is a nut and probably racist.

72 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:26:10pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a “four-fifths rule,” which holds that a job-related test in which the passing rate of a racial minority is less than 80% of the white rate is presumptively flawed.


This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

That “four-fifths” rule is outrageous. If I were in Sotomayor’s position, I would have declared the four-fifths rule unconstitutional and ruled for the firefighters. She had the power to do that, and failed to do so, I believe due to her personal bias.

73 danrudy  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:26:36pm

I get it.

Lower expectations until they are met.

74 Lincolntf  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:26:47pm

…Judge Sotomayor paid little attention to that claim, which the city has denied. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”…


That is racism in it’s purest form. Every test will consistently have people finishing at the bottom, those would be the people who don’t know as much as those who finish at the top. She’s so racially obsessed that she’ll never recognize that it’s views like hers that perpetuate the “unqualified minority getting the job” stereotype.
Screw her. She’ll probably get confirmed and the nation will be all the worse for her presence.

75 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:26:52pm

re: #54 zombie

“Judge Sotomayor paid little attention to that claim, which the city has denied. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

What evidence was ever presented that the test was biased?

Has anyone ever published the actual test itself?

And what bias could there be in a test for fire captain promotion?

Hmmm, let me see…

Q #14: What is the secret handshake that all white people use to greet each other who no one else is looking?

Q #23: Describe the manner in which Wonder Bread tastes superior to all other food?

Q #37 What is the forbidden code used by white people in test answers to communicate to test-scorers to give them extra points unfairly?

Gimme a freakin’ break. If the test was in any way indentifiably biased, that would have been pointed out. But as far as I have seen, it never was pointed out.

And did the city ever produce this revamped test specially designed to give black people higher test scores? I doubt it.

I see all these arguments simply as a smokescreen and justification to push through an “affirmative action”-type agenda.

I do not like the way the law is formulated, HOWEVER, the mere fact that no black people passed the test is considered evidence that the test was biased.

I am serious - this is how the law is formulated. That is disgusting and true.

Anyway, given those parameters, this firefighter case is not necessarily the red herring people think it is.

76 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:27:06pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

New Haven’s Racial Test


This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

New Haven covered their collective ass. I think cancelling the entire set of test results was wimpy but appropriate. It is the world we live in.

77 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:27:20pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

The black firefighters are saying that blacks have no cognitive ability?

78 Eowyn2  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:27:24pm

re: #61 bryantms

Another Sotomayor ruling bringing Free Speech advocates out of the woodwork: [Link: www.nbcconnecticut.com…]

I have to give her a thumbs up on that one.

79 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:01pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

New Haven’s Racial Test

This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

The city was trying to protect itself from a lawsuit from the other end. They just can’t win.

80 Lincolntf  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:04pm

re: #78 Eowyn2

What? Why?

81 1SG(ret)  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:15pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

Shouldn’t that really be insulting to minorities. I read that to say, “the only way you can succeed, is if we dumb it down for you”. I know I would feel insulted, but hey I’m just a dumb old white guy.

82 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:33pm

re: #72 zombie

That “four-fifths” rule is outrageous. If I were in Sotomayor’s position, I would have declared the four-fifths rule unconstitutional and ruled for the firefighters. She had the power to do that, and failed to do so, I believe due to her personal bias.

That would be legislating from the bench.

83 brookly red  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:42pm

re: #69 OldLineTexan

Boiling
Liquid
Expanding
Vapor
Explosion

sounds like a probrem to me …

/sheesh, only a man would know that… the test is sexist too!

84 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:46pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

New Haven’s Racial Test

The city proclaimed the New Haven test must have been biased, given the results. An amicus brief for the International Association of Professional Black Firefighters declared flatly that it was “widely known and accepted that cognitive examinations, such as used here, have a demonstrated adverse impact on blacks and other minorities.”


This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

Seems to me that if anybody should be sued here it ought to be the New Haven Public School system.

85 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:55pm

I want to add that the mere fact that no black people passed is not considered PROOF of racism in the test. But it is considered EVIDENCE of racism. You may rely upon other pieces of evidence to prove the test was not considered racist. I just wanted to clarify that.

86 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:29:52pm

re: #83 brookly red

/sheesh, only a man would know that… the test is sexist too!

I Googled it.

I am too old and fat to be a firefighter. My 30-ish extremely handsome and muscular cousin is one, however.

87 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:29:55pm

re: #82 Sharmuta

That would be legislating from the bench.

It would be upholding the Constitution, in this case. I don’t remember ever voting for a “four-fifths” rule.

88 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:30:52pm

re: #61 bryantms

Another Sotomayor ruling bringing Free Speech advocates out of the woodwork: [Link: www.nbcconnecticut.com…]

I wonder if the use of that word pissed her off.

89 jvic  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:31:05pm

There is a fundamental difference between making a test fair and making outcomes “fair”. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, powerful political forces have worked hard to blur that difference.
***********
I saw this link in the lefthand column:

“But I don’t think anything can replace spelling,” Kavya Shivashankar said. “Spelling has been such a big part of my life.”

On her fourth and final try, the Kansas girl who flashed a sweet smile with every word won the Scripps National Spelling Bee on Thursday night…

Kavya became the seventh Indian-American in 11 years to claim the title, including back-to-back winners who want to be neurosurgeons.

Seven out of eleven? Sounds unfair to me. /

Sooner than we might think, Kavya and others like her (some of whom are Hispanic, btw) may go somewhere in this small world where their talents are appreciated and rewarded, leaving us stuck with creationists, “wise Latinas”, etc.

90 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:31:08pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

However, a case could be made where she could’ve said something about the Federal law’s insistance on trying to equalize the outcomes. She did not. So while she may have upheld the letter of the law, that does not make the law right, nor does it make her judgement on it right.

91 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:31:19pm
But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

The difficulty is that a fair exam is rather likely to yield results that don’t measure out equal fractions of success for all races. Just look at recent spelling bees and science fairs. There’s nothing about the spelling challenges or science judging that is discriminatory. But IQ is important in these contests, and varieties of IQ are important, and intense dedication to winning is important. None of these things are equally distributed among the various ethnic groups. There can therefore never be any such thing as a valid, reliable test that conforms to Judge Sotomayor’s requirement that it bring forth winners in rough proportion to their race and ethnicity. The Indians and the Chinese, for instance, are not going to switch places with the Chinese winning the spelling bees and the Indians winning the science fairs. And whites, who win less often than their proportion of the population, relative to these two ethnic minorities, are not discriminated against in these measures. We just don’t bring that combination of brains and dedication to the task that is necessary to win “our share”. The temptation to steal what we cannot win fairly, by invoking “discrimination” laws and naming as the cheater the people we would be aiming to cheat, is universal. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling is an instance of such stealing in the name of fairness.

When success comes to those who earn it, people strive. The general level of determination and dedication to personal excellence rises. This benefits every race, because when you’re bleeding out after an accident, you don’t care whether the paramedic looks like you, you care whether he can find the damned femoral artery and clamp it before you’re gone.

When success is determined not by personal effort and ability but by a racial spoils system, ultimately everybody loses because nobody wastes time and effort on getting good at anything. What would be the point? Getting together a winning coalition and taking what you can from a shrinking pot becomes the only game in town.

92 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:31:26pm

re: #87 zombie

On what grounds would you declare Title VII unconstitutional?

93 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:31:52pm

re: #88 MandyManners

I wonder if the use of that word pissed her off.

The girl obviously insulted douche bags by comparing them with the school administrators.

/

94 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:32:05pm

Seriously: Can we get a look at the test itself to see evidence of its supposed racism?

No? I thought as much. Because it’s almost certain that there will be nothing racist about the test.

Was a new test ever produced? If not, the rationale for her ruling crumbles like dust.

95 KingKenrod  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:32:11pm

re: #63 Killgore Trout

New Haven’s Racial Test

This doesn’t look like judicial activism. She was upholding existing federal law. You might not like those laws but they are laws.

You’ve got it exactly backwards.

Invalidating a law which is unconstitutional is not activism.

Upholding an unconstitutional law because it provides the outcome you desire is judicial activism, and that is what I see here.

96 debutaunt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:33:26pm

re: #71 Killgore Trout

Yeah, Debbie is a nut and probably racist.

Am not. Am not.

97 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:33:43pm

re: #87 zombie

It would be upholding the Constitution, in this case. I don’t remember ever voting for a “four-fifths” rule.

You did not vote on it, HOWEVER, I recall this being federal legislation. So it was crafted by legislators you voted for.

As far as the constitutionality of the law goes; it is very hard to prove a law unconstitutional. And by the time Sotomayor saw the case, the law had been argued multiple times before courts, and shown to be constitutional. Thus there was case law for Sotomayor to rely upon as backing to determine the constitutionality of the law.

98 Lincolntf  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:33:44pm

re: #88 MandyManners

When the word Douchebag is outlawed, only Judges will be Douchebags.
Yeah, that was weak, I know.

Still, the girl was off-campus and bitching about her school administration, and the administration stripped her of her rights to run for school office? Absurd.

99 doppelganglander  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:34:45pm

re: #72 zombie

That “four-fifths” rule is outrageous. If I were in Sotomayor’s position, I would have declared the four-fifths rule unconstitutional and ruled for the firefighters. She had the power to do that, and failed to do so, I believe due to her personal bias.

Exactly. New Haven was just trying to cover its ass because it would have inevitably been sued by the black firefighters. As long as there are idiotic rules like this, a certain number of minority individuals will find it easier to sue their way into positions, rather than actually study and work for a promotion. And it taints the achievements of every minority by leaving room for suspicion that he/she achieved the position on some other basis than merit.

100 alexknyc  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:34:47pm

re: #21 Curt

Yep….I don’t want someone who can’t haul the normal weight of a normal citizen out of a burning home….regardless of their gender, cultural origin.

Some people, however, like the feeling of feeling like they helped someone by letting someone into such a job that doesn’t know what they are to do, and may not be physically able to perform.

If I’m ever unconscious in a burning four-floor walk-up, I don’t want the firefighter who passed the easier test coming to get me.

101 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:34:50pm

That sounded like she had her mind made up and used technical arguments to put the lawyer off. I got bored after a while. Did she ever get around to the actual subject?

102 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:34:51pm

re: #71 Killgore Trout

Yeah, Debbie is a nut and probably racist.

She’s a shrieker, just like Crazy Pam. I’ve never found her information to be reliable.

103 bnichols10  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:35:12pm

I sure would love to see this test. I don’t understand what could possibly be on a firefighter test that is biased towards one group but discriminates against another…

104 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:35:12pm

Is this racist? On what grounds could it be declared unconstitutional?

105 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:35:42pm

re: #92 Sharmuta

On what grounds would you declare Title VII unconstitutional?

I don’t know the specifics of the entirety of Title VII, only referring to that “four-fifths rule” which Killgore alluded to. It seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people and all groups be treated equally under the law.

106 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:36:52pm

re: #104 Sharmuta

Is this racist? On what grounds could it be declared unconstitutional?

I don’t know. Did New Haven meet the burden of proof?

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases

(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or

(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.

(B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.

(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business necessity.

(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of “alternative employment practice”.

(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a rule barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter only if such rule is adopted or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

107 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:36:57pm
108 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:37:35pm

re: #87 zombie

It would be upholding the Constitution, in this case. I don’t remember ever voting for a “four-fifths” rule.

If the plaintiffs did not make the constitutional argument (I don’t know whether they did), then it actually would have been improper for Sotomayor to rule on it.

109 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:37:54pm

re: #98 Lincolntf

When the word Douchebag is outlawed, only Judges will be Douchebags.
Yeah, that was weak, I know.

Still, the girl was off-campus and bitching about her school administration, and the administration stripped her of her rights to run for school office? Absurd.

The school administration had no right to do that. It reminds me of a case in high school. I got hit in the face about a block after getting off the bus in my freshman year by a junior bully. We reported it to the police, and the school was pissed that we didn’t contact them first. It was none of their business as it happened after school, off school grounds. As it was, the jerk got frogmarched out through the cafeteria by the police to applause.

110 John Neverbend  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:38:17pm

re: #20 Rednek

GM at 0.81 per share.

At what level is a company de-listed?

That depends on the exchange. NASDAQ’s rule (which was temporarily dropped but I think has been reinstated) requires delisting if the stock trades below $1 or the market cap is below $5 million (both for more than 30 consecutive business days).

111 bnichols10  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:38:34pm

re: #104 Sharmuta

Or what about this? It may not be racist, but it certainly is an openly accepted policy of discrimination.

112 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:39:07pm

re: #104 Sharmuta

Is this racist? On what grounds could it be declared unconstitutional?

You couldn’t, but I did not see anything there about minority set asides.
It could be argued that disqualifying the test because it did not achieve the desired result violated Equal Protection for those with high scores.

113 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:39:59pm

re: #106 OldLineTexan

That’s what the case is trying to decide, but the jury of public opinion has already spoken.

114 JustABill  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:40:30pm

re: #65 zombie

Wrong. In fact, they did make such a test, but the experiment went disastrously awry.

Two African-American professors claimed that standardized tests were biased in favor of white kids, and so to prove their point designed a test that was purposely supposed to be biased in favor of African-American students. The intent was to give the test to mixed classes, and then when the Black students scored higher on average, this was to be used as conclusive evidence that tests can be made biased.

By now you’ve probably guessed what happened. They gave their purposely pro-Black test to mixed classes — and the white students still outscored the Black students.

Ooops!

It was such an embarrassment, they tried to cover it up. But it was too late — they had pre-emptively publicized the experiment too much already.

Hmm, Ok you got me to do a little digging. I found this link. Its Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt…

115 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:41:06pm

re: #14 KenJen

What kind of questions could be unfair to blacks? I just don’t get it. I want to see the test.

Is this the same case where one of the white firefighters was dyslexic, and he still worked hard and earned a promotion which was then taken away? I’m sure he’s thrilled about having insinuations of racism wafting his way.

116 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:41:08pm

re: #105 zombie

I don’t know the specifics of the entirety of Title VII, only referring to that “four-fifths rule” which Killgore alluded to. It seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people and all groups be treated equally under the law.

Overall, the law was set up because of the problem of standards of proof. Basically, the thinking is that whether a test is “racist” or not is subjective, and very difficult to prove. A seemingly “neutral” employment test may be used which really was set up to exclude minorities or women. This law was meant to make it hard to allow such a test to remain viable.

You can argue many ways as to whether this reasoning is sound.

America used to have very significant racial problems (the 1960s were not that long ago), and many tactics were used to deny minorities and women choice jobs. Maybe the original justification for this law was understandable. But today, I do think the law has outlived its usefulness, and it is hard to find places of employment which actively seek to exclude minorities and women. (in fact, the opposite, i.e., the recruitment of minorities and women, is more often the case)

117 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:41:26pm

re: #104 Sharmuta

Is this racist? On what grounds could it be declared unconstitutional?

From your link:

“(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor- management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.”

So, the very law Sotomayor relies on to support her ruling in fact seems to totally undermine her ruling.

Unbelievable. Thanks for the link.

118 JustABill  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:41:52pm

re: #83 brookly red

/sheesh, only a man would know that… the test is sexist too!

Or a firefighter. Might be good to know when something was going to explode…

119 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:42:28pm

re: #111 bnichols10

Or what about this? It may not be racist, but it certainly is an openly accepted policy of discrimination.

Then someone should file a lawsuit, okay?

120 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:42:33pm

re: #111 bnichols10

Or what about this? It may not be racist, but it certainly is an openly accepted policy of discrimination.

There’s been a lot of debate about these recently. In Chicago, they’ve been abused constantly.

121 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:43:38pm

re: #113 Sharmuta

That’s what the case is trying to decide, but the jury of public opinion has already spoken.

Well, the public doesn’t get to rule, so while it may be annoying it is not important.

122 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:44:25pm

re: #115 The Sanity Inspector

Is this the same case where one of the white firefighters was dyslexic, and he still worked hard and earned a promotion which was then taken away? I’m sure he’s thrilled about having insinuations of racism wafting his way.

If so, then that firefighter might have an ADA case against the city. It just keeps getting juicier and juicier.

123 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:45:03pm

re: #117 zombie

From your link:

“(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor- management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.”

So, the very law Sotomayor relies on to support her ruling in fact seems to totally undermine her ruling.

Unbelievable. Thanks for the link.

The law was not set up as an affirmative action program at all. However, it was set up so that lack of minorities passing a test is considered “evidence” of discriminatory intent, and shifts the burden of proof in any litigation to the employer to prove there was in fact no discrimination.

This is a delicate subject; ultimately Sotomayor had reason to particularly look at the outcome of the test, as the law is structured that way.

That said, I will not disagree with you if you say the law itself is a problem.

124 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:45:13pm

re: #117 zombie

Good thing she didn’t declare it unconstitutional then.

125 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:46:16pm
126 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:46:19pm

re: #119 Sharmuta

Then someone should file a lawsuit, okay?

I have tried, and been laughed out of lawyer’s offices. I lost a job to an “SDB” that was “owned” by a minority female but run by her white husband to get guaranteed Fed contracts. I was forced to reapply for my job with them, and then they cancelled the agreement we signed.

My wife was once fired unjustly, and a high-profile lawyer in town told her that being a female was in her favor, but that as a white woman she would go nowhere.

File a lawsuit. Yes, that always works.

127 jvic  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:46:48pm

re: #65 zombie

re: #42 JustABill

Of course tests can be skewed to produce the racially “desired” results. I seem to recall a psychologist making an “IQ” test such that the African-American students scored way better than the other races.

Wrong. In fact, they did make such a test, but the experiment went disastrously awry.

Wow. Would you happen to have a link about that incident? (I’m not disputing you, just performing due diligence.) Thanks.

128 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:47:03pm

re: #124 Sharmuta

Good thing she didn’t declare it unconstitutional then.

The law is not an affirmative action law as such, but it does act as a “hidden” affirmative action law.

If employers are worried that the lack of minorities/women in their workplace could itself be considered grounds for an employment discrimination lawsuit, they will do everything they can to attract and retain minorities and women.

Just food for thought.

129 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:48:35pm

re: #125 Iron Fist

That sounds like a hell of a party favor to me. Where can I get one?

(Gasoline is one of my favorite toys :-)

At first, I thought it was a preaching verb …

DO YOU BLEVE? AMEN!

then I thought I had better look it up.

/

130 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:48:40pm

re: #128 Daria Emmons

The law is not an affirmative action law as such, but it does act as a “hidden” affirmative action law.

If employers are worried that the lack of minorities/women in their workplace could itself be considered grounds for an employment discrimination lawsuit, they will do everything they can to attract and retain minorities and women.

Just food for thought.

Oh- I get that completely. Which is what I think the town of New Haven was trying to do- protect itself from a lawsuit based on discrimination. Instead it created a different problem.

131 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:48:59pm

re: #114 JustABill

Hmm, Ok you got me to do a little digging. I found this link. Its Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt…

That was a different test — the one I’m thinking of was in the ’80s, I believe. The infamous “BITCH-100 test” in your link was nothing but pure cultural bias rendered in test form — quite the opposite of the way standardized tests are designed, in which bias, if any, is very subtle and hard to pinpoint. The BITCH-100 test asked things about James Brown and chitlin’s and stuff like that. More of a joke to prove a point rather than an actual test.

132 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:49:25pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

The city was trying to protect itself from a lawsuit from the other end. They just can’t win.

They should have stood by the results of the test, promoted the firefighters, and fought the other lawsuit. As long as it was not heard before Sotomayor, they have a chance of winning. If not, Scotus would give them the final win and justice would be done.

133 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:51:35pm

re: #57 Honorary Yooper

Privileged upbringing? I’d have to laugh my ass off at anyone who claimed that of me. I wish I had access to money as a kid, and I had to fight for a lot of what I finally got.

:) I knew it would get your blood pressure back to normal…LOL

134 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:52:51pm

re: #132 BatGuano

This is getting really ridiculous. This is beyond one judge on an appellate court.

135 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:53:10pm

re: #130 Sharmuta

Oh- I get that completely. Which is what I think the town of New Haven was trying to do- protect itself from a lawsuit based on discrimination. Instead it created a different problem.

They had a choice between two potential lawsuits. They took the one with no real potential for ACLU or other large advocacy involvement.

I truly have some sympathy for both sides … it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t in post-racial America.

It would only be funnier if there were a sexism angle to work as well. What happens if minority men pass in sufficient numbers, but not minority women? What about LGBT rights?

Sotomayor is going to be in the same bind unless she is Solomon reborn unto us, but that is why we pay her the big bucks.

136 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:53:17pm

re: #131 zombie

That was a different test — the one I’m thinking of was in the ’80s, I believe. The infamous “BITCH-100 test” in your link was nothing but pure cultural bias rendered in test form — quite the opposite of the way standardized tests are designed, in which bias, if any, is very subtle and hard to pinpoint. The BITCH-100 test asked things about James Brown and chitlin’s and stuff like that. More of a joke to prove a point rather than an actual test.


That’s the one I was thinking of, too… the infamous BITCH test, which proved the utterly non-controversial point that of course a test CAN be designed to be completely culturally biased. As if anyone ever doubted that.

137 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:53:31pm

re: #132 BatGuano

They should have stood by the results of the test, promoted the firefighters, and fought the other lawsuit. As long as it was not heard before Sotomayor, they have a chance of winning. If not, Scotus would give them the final win and justice would be done.

I do not know. I do not see evidence in Sotomayor’s rulings - the limited I skimmed through - that she is a particularly biased justice.

You have to realize the employment discrimination law is what it is. I am not a fan of it - but you cannot get around what the law is. Sotomayor was not a radical, given that.

And thus while her comments about race and gender were ill-advised at best, this case is not necessarily evidence that her race and gender commentary was reflected in decisions she rendered.

138 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:53:53pm

re: #82 Sharmuta

That would be legislating from the bench.

No. It would be upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, from the bench. Any law that sets quotas for who advances, (and that’s what laws that forbid valid and reliable tests from counting when the results don’t meet the quota), is unconstitutional. Such a law stands on its head the whole basis of law: rules that apply equally to all, without fear or favor. A blindfolded lady, with scale and sword.

A multiple choice written test asking questions such as “what symbol distinguishes fire extinguishers that work on burning metals?” is as close to that scale as any method for determining who advances can possibly be. And Judge Sotomayor used her sword to break the scale, rather than uphold its impartial verdict.

139 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:54:05pm

re: #127 jvic

Wow. Would you happen to have a link about that incident? (I’m not disputing you, just performing due diligence.) Thanks.

I read about it in college psychology courses. The test was made up in the pre-Internet era, in the ’80s, and then subsequently tried to be suppressed, so it’s not easy to find. By the time the Web appeared, it very likely had mostly been expunged from memory as much as possible. The one time I tried to find a link (quite a while ago), I remember that I couldn’t do it quickly, so gave up. Hence, I don’t have a link handy, nor the spare time at the moment to try to dig one out. I suspect it will be not so easy, since I don’t remember the names of the professors!

I’ll try to dig it up when I have some free time, however.

140 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:54:24pm

re: #134 Sharmuta

This is getting really ridiculous. This is beyond one judge on an appellate court.

Agreed, that comment was absurd.

141 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:54:40pm

re: #138 lostlakehiker

So The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?

142 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:55:16pm

re: #134 Sharmuta

This is getting really ridiculous. This is beyond one judge on an appellate court.

I thought this thread was about one judge on an appellate court.

143 jarheadlifer  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:55:25pm

re: #85 Daria Emmons

I want to add that the mere fact that no black people passed is not considered PROOF of racism in the test. But it is considered EVIDENCE of racism. You may rely upon other pieces of evidence to prove the test was not considered racist. I just wanted to clarify that.

Hardly. It’s just evidence that those people weren’t qualified at the time the test was administered to be management. We know nothing of the background of these failed firefighters and have no way to measure their inherent capability to pass any test, let alone a firefighting management test. Did they study? What kinds of annual reviews did they recieve? Have they demonstrated leadership initiative in their prior job performance? Have they made efforts to broaden their professional experience with job-specific or general management training?

With respect to the test results, you say that they are “considered evidence of racism”. But, I could make the case that there’s just as much substantive evidence that these men perhaps shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. Of course, my argument wouldn’t be evidence, but a conclusion. With your analogy, you offer no evidence, just supposition.

Racism requires an intentional action, a consciousness of guilt, if you will . Can you point to any evidence that was offered in this case that showed this test was designed with malice aforethought to be racially discriminative? Probably not. And if you can’t, how can a judge rule that it was a discriminative test?

144 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:56:32pm

re: #138 lostlakehiker

But if you’re going to scold Sotomayor for failing to strike down the EEOC rules as unconsitutional, you have deal with the fact that (probably) no other potential nominee has so struck them down.

(And, again, I don’t know if the plaintiffs were even arguing that.)

145 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:56:39pm

re: #141 Sharmuta

So The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?

I think it is fair to say parts of it may be, and are worth looking into. (I have no desire to write a legal brief, so I will skip that exercise)

But it’s one of those cases where the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

The Civil Rights Act was passed with the best of intentions and was laudable in its goals; whether the Act as a whole is constitutional is a different matter.

146 doppelganglander  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:57:52pm

re: #131 zombie

That was a different test — the one I’m thinking of was in the ’80s, I believe. The infamous “BITCH-100 test” in your link was nothing but pure cultural bias rendered in test form — quite the opposite of the way standardized tests are designed, in which bias, if any, is very subtle and hard to pinpoint. The BITCH-100 test asked things about James Brown and chitlin’s and stuff like that. More of a joke to prove a point rather than an actual test.

Wikipedia had a link to the Chitling Test of Intelligence. It’s clearly a test of knowledge, not intelligence. It proves nothing except that the designer didn’t know the difference between an intelligence test and a test of knowledge. (I actually knew some of the answers even though I’m white as paper. Also, the last question does not provide the correct answer among the choices.)

147 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:58:04pm

re: #143 jarheadlifer

Hardly. It’s just evidence that those people weren’t qualified at the time the test was administered to be management. We know nothing of the background of these failed firefighters and have no way to measure their inherent capability to pass any test, let alone a firefighting management test. Did they study? What kinds of annual reviews did they recieve? Have they demonstrated leadership initiative in their prior job performance? Have they made efforts to broaden their professional experience with job-specific or general management training?

With respect to the test results, you say that they are “considered evidence of racism”. But, I could make the case that there’s just as much substantive evidence that these men perhaps shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. Of course, my argument wouldn’t be evidence, but a conclusion. With your analogy, you offer no evidence, just supposition.

Racism requires an intentional action, a consciousness of guilt, if you will . Can you point to any evidence that was offered in this case that showed this test was designed with malice aforethought to be racially discriminative? Probably not. And if you can’t, how can a judge rule that it was a discriminative test?

I am not saying that the 4/5 test is good policy. But the fact that no black firefighters passed a standardized test is considered legal evidence of bias. (not proof, but evidence)

Remember - I am not saying whether this should be the case, but that is simply how the law is drafted.

148 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:58:53pm

re: #100 alexknyc

If I’m ever unconscious in a burning four-floor walk-up, I don’t want the firefighter who passed the easier test coming to get me.

My point exactly!

City of Va Beach, back in the late 80s-early 90s dropped the requirements to pass the test from hauling a 200 lb dummy down three frlight of their training building to 90 lbs (still three flooors), so they could up the # of women in the fire Dept.

I don’t want a guy who can only meet the “criteria” of 90 lbs on the fire department, either…but…diversity at all costs! (And I do mean “All” for some poor souls)

149 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:59:18pm

re: #145 Daria Emmons

I think it is fair to say parts of it may be, and are worth looking into. (I have no desire to write a legal brief, so I will skip that exercise)

But it’s one of those cases where the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

The Civil Rights Act was passed with the best of intentions and was laudable in its goals; whether the Act as a whole is constitutional is a different matter.

Hasn’t there been enough case law on the books to make it fairly accepted?

150 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:00:07pm

re: #146 doppelganglander

It proves nothing except that the designer didn’t know the difference between an intelligence test and a test of knowledge

Not necessarily that he didn’t know the difference, rather that he was trying to prove a point (although very indirectly and, IMHO, rather badly). As I said, it’s utterly uncontroversial that a putative intelligence test CAN be designed to be “culturally biased”. The burden is showing that a given test IS “culturally biased”.

151 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:01:23pm

re: #150 Occasional Reader

Not necessarily that he didn’t know the difference, rather that he was trying to prove a point (although very indirectly and, IMHO, rather badly). As I said, it’s utterly uncontroversial that a putative intelligence test CAN be designed to be “culturally biased”. The burden is showing that a given test IS “culturally biased”.

Apparently a light burden. 4/5 fail, for whatever reason, it’s a biased test.

152 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:01:26pm

re: #136 Occasional Reader

That’s the one I was thinking of, too… the infamous BITCH test, which proved the utterly non-controversial point that of course a test CAN be designed to be completely culturally biased. As if anyone ever doubted that.

Here are some sample questions from a similar test, the “The Chitling Intelligence Test,” designed around the same time, in 1971:

4. “”Bo Diddley” is a:

(a) game for children, (b) down-home cheap wine, (c) down-home singer, (d) new dance, (e) Moejoe call.

5. “Hully Gully” came from:

(a) East Oakland, (b) Fillmore, (c) Watts, (d) Harlem, (e) Motor City.

6. Cheap chitlings (not the kind you purchase at a frozen food counter) will taste rubbery unless they are cooked long enough. How soon can you quit cooking them to eat and enjoy them?

(a) 45 minutes, (b) 2 hours, (c) 24 hours, (d) 1 week (on a low flame), (e) 1 hour.

7. What are the “Dixie Hummingbirds?”

(a) part of the KKK, (b) a swamp disease, (c) a modern gospel group, (d) a Mississippi Negro paramilitary group, (e) Deacons.

8. If you throw the dice and 7 is showing on the top, what is facing down?

(a) 7, (b) snake eyes, (c) boxcars, (d) little Joes, (e) 11.

9. “Jet” is:

(a) an East Oakland motorcycle club, (b) one of the gangs in “West Side Story,” (c) a news and gossip magazine, (d) a way of life for the very rich.

10. T-Bone Walker got famous for playing what?

(a) trombone, (b) piano, (c) “T-flute,” (d) guitar, (e) “hambone.”

153 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:01:50pm

re: #149 Sharmuta

Hasn’t there been enough case law on the books to make it fairly accepted?

Oh, absolutely. I guess I should have said that as a matter of policy (rather than law), the Civil Rights Act might be worth looking into.

But I have no desire to do that right now - too lazy.

154 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:02:27pm

re: #153 Daria Emmons

Thanks for the clarification.

155 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:03:13pm

re: #146 doppelganglander

Wikipedia had a link to the Chitling Test of Intelligence. It’s clearly a test of knowledge, not intelligence. It proves nothing except that the designer didn’t know the difference between an intelligence test and a test of knowledge. (I actually knew some of the answers even though I’m white as paper. Also, the last question does not provide the correct answer among the choices.)

Exactly. True intelligence tests are totally culture-free. They have been revised dozens of tmes to expunge any reference to knowledge, cultural or otherwise. They even have IQ tests now that are non-verbal — no words whatsoever.

156 JustABill  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:03:15pm

re: #131 zombie

That was a different test — the one I’m thinking of was in the ’80s, I believe. The infamous “BITCH-100 test” in your link was nothing but pure cultural bias rendered in test form — quite the opposite of the way standardized tests are designed, in which bias, if any, is very subtle and hard to pinpoint. The BITCH-100 test asked things about James Brown and chitlin’s and stuff like that. More of a joke to prove a point rather than an actual test.

I didn’t say that creating a test to favor one group over another was unbiased or fair, just that it could be done. Of course the test was biased.

I think this is the test I was thinking of. I seem to remember that one of the ques ions was how long you should cook chitlins…

If you happen to have a link to the test you were talking about I’d be interested in it…

157 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:03:29pm

re: #152 zombie

I’m a lousy BITCH, I guess. (I only know two of them for sure.)

158 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:05:01pm

re: #155 zombie

Exactly. True intelligence tests are totally culture-free.

I doubt they can be entirely “culture-free”. Likely an impossible goal. But in a sense, they shouldn’t be; they are testing the raw intelligence of someone within the context of a certain culture.

159 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:05:01pm

re: #142 BatGuano

Another group of judges could have heard either case, and I doubt it would make as huge an impact as you seem to think it would by removing Sotomayor. The issues around Title VII are greater than one appellate court judge.

160 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:06:19pm

As an aside…

I just want to state publicly that Debbie Schlussel’s commentary on Justice Sotomayor was really my last straw for her. She has been shrill in the past, but this is a new low for her. I still am stunned that she would make up a song about Sotomayor as “Sonia from the block” and compare her to J-Lo.

Sonia Sotomayor is clearly qualified for the job, and certainly more qualified than Barack Obama was qualified to be president. She was picked in part as an affirmative action pick (we all knew that Obama would choose a woman), but that does not render her unqualified. Playing into Hispanic racial stereotypes about big bottoms…unbelievable.

The worst thing is that this sort of behavior only drives Hispanics further to the Dems.

I hope cooler heads and sanity prevails amongst the GOP, and they do not follow Schlussel’s lead.

161 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:07:04pm

This is all (HW) Bush’s fault for nominating her to the appellate court in the first place! He’s a RINO and she’s a liberal hack!1!

/must I?

162 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:07:37pm

re: #160 Daria Emmons

I still am stunned that she would[…] compare her to J-Lo.

I concur. J-Lo is WAY hotter.

163 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:07:44pm

re: #159 Sharmuta

Another group of judges could have heard either case, and I doubt it would make as huge an impact as you seem to think it would by removing Sotomayor. The issues around Title VII are greater than one appellate court judge.

Plus, three appellate justices hear appellate cases.

Sotomayor did not render her ruling all by herself.

164 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:08:37pm

re: #163 Daria Emmons

Plus, three appellate justices hear appellate cases.

Sotomayor did not render her ruling all by herself.

Indeed. Thank you for being a knowledgeable voice of reason today.

165 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:08:48pm

re: #161 Sharmuta

This is all (HW) Bush’s fault for nominating her to the appellate court in the first place! He’s a RINO and she’s a liberal hack!1!

/must I?

Probably. Apparently, she was part of a deal from a “smoke-filled room”?

166 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:10:00pm

re: #165 OldLineTexan

Probably. Apparently, she was part of a deal from a “smoke-filled room”?

Bush bought her? SLAVERY!

/

167 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:10:15pm

re: #161 Sharmuta

This is all (HW) Bush’s fault for nominating her to the appellate court in the first place! He’s a RINO and she’s a liberal hack!1!

/must I?

Well said! This whole Sotomayor episode has really soured me towards many ‘conservative’ commentators.

I voted for McCain and I find Obama to be an One-Big-Awful-Mistake-America, but these attacks on Sotomayor are just not grounded in sound reasoning.

168 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:10:21pm

re: #162 Occasional Reader

I concur. J-Lo is WAY hotter.

So that will be one order of reverse discrimination and a side of sexism. Would like fries with that?

/

169 Dan G.  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:11:00pm

re: #163 Daria Emmons

In your estimate (you appear to be knowledgeable) would it be accurate to state that she appears to have racist ideas, but that she rules on the cases before her on the basis of the law (i.e. she doesn’t “legislate from the bench”)?

170 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:11:05pm

re: #137 Daria Emmons

I’m not a fan of discrimination law either. Also, I was limiting my comments to this particular judge in this one case. I thought that laws could be challenged in the judicial system especially if they might flawed and might violate other parts of the constitution.

171 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:11:06pm

re: #166 Occasional Reader

Bush bought her? SLAVERY!

/

He is an old white guy.

172 Curt  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:12:02pm

re: #161 Sharmuta

This is all (HW) Bush’s fault for nominating her to the appellate court in the first place! He’s a RINO and she’s a liberal hack!1!

/must I?

I heard it was Schumer’s turn to get one of “his own” appointed at that level. Standard Quid Pro Quo politics from what Mike Gallagher said this morning.

The Congress Critters get to nominate friends, then it’s a way to rack up points for the President, should he need to call in markers for other legislative issues.

Kinda like pork spending, but with flesh and blood….

173 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:12:39pm

re: #167 Daria Emmons

Well said! This whole Sotomayor episode has really soured me towards many ‘conservative’ commentators.

I voted for McCain and I find Obama to be an One-Big-Awful-Mistake-America, but these attacks on Sotomayor are just not grounded in sound reasoning.

Every discussion is not necessarily an “attack”.

That label helped bring us Obama through the kinder, gentler McCain campaign.

174 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:14:22pm

re: #171 OldLineTexan

He is an old white guy.

I might add he has actually bombed people based on national origin, too.

/

175 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:14:32pm

re: #167 Daria Emmons

Well said! This whole Sotomayor episode has really soured me towards many ‘conservative’ commentators.

I voted for McCain and I find Obama to be an One-Big-Awful-Mistake-America, but these attacks on Sotomayor are just not grounded in sound reasoning.

It’s 0bama Derangement Syndrome. The last few days you’d think evil hadn’t come into the world until this woman was nominated.

176 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:14:40pm

re: #169 Dan G.

In your estimate (you appear to be knowledgeable) would it be accurate to state that she appears to have racist ideas, but that she rules on the cases before her on the basis of the law (i.e. she doesn’t “legislate from the bench”)?

I won’t go that far. I have only read summaries of maybe 10 decisions of her’s. These are the ten decisions which people have decided to highlight. (see: Wikipedia)

Anyway, based upon this limited reading of her, plus the opinion of the Volokh Conspiracy blog (which is a leading conservative legal blog - very trustworthy), her ACTUAL RECORD is pretty good.

She said some problematic statements, but she has had a long career, and I am sure you and I have said some problematic commentary from time to time in our careers as well. What ultimately matters is her record.

I am no expert in her record - by any means - but no one has presented evidence that her judicial record is far leftist, or even leftist.

177 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:14:41pm

re: #159 Sharmuta

Another group of judges could have heard either case, and I doubt it would make as huge an impact as you seem to think it would by removing Sotomayor. The issues around Title VII are greater than one appellate court judge.

It will ulitmately come down to SCOTUS. Maybe they will do the right thing since New Haven didn’t and some judges wouldn’t.

178 jvic  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:15:24pm

re: #139 zombie

I’ll try to dig it up when I have some free time, however.

Thanks for your response. I see that #156 JustABill has also expressed interest.

179 Dan G.  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:15:43pm

re: #176 Daria Emmons

Thanks.

180 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:15:48pm

re: #177 BatGuano

It will ulitmately come down to SCOTUS. Maybe they will do the right thing since New Haven didn’t and some judges wouldn’t.

But what you think is right and what the law says are not always the same thing.

181 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:15:57pm

re: #173 OldLineTexan

Every discussion is not necessarily an “attack”.

That label helped bring us Obama through the kinder, gentler McCain campaign.

I am not speaking about the discussion here.

I refer to some of the commentary I have read on the Schlussel, Gellar, and Pajamas Media blogs.

182 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:16:12pm

re: #175 Sharmuta

It’s 0bama Derangement Syndrome. The last few days you’d think evil hadn’t come into the world until this woman was nominated George Bush was selected President.

As the world turns, the sun appears to start a new day. However, there is nothing new under it.

183 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:16:24pm

re: #176 Daria Emmons

I regret that I can only click + one time.

184 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:16:56pm

re: #180 Sharmuta

But what you think is right and what the law says are not always the same thing.

That is correct. Do you think these firefighters should have been discriminated against?

185 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:17:10pm

re: #181 Daria Emmons

I am not speaking about the discussion here.

I refer to some of the commentary I have read on the Schlussel, Gellar, and Pajamas Media blogs.

Gellar is not someone whose opinion is very important to me. Blogs in general need salt, just like the MSM.

186 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:22:04pm

re: #184 BatGuano

I don’t like quotas, I don’t like bigotry, I don’t like sexism, I don’t like discrimination. People should get promotions based on merit, but that doesn’t always happen.

The city is in a precarious situation. If they had gotten a lawsuit from the other side, the results may have been the same. To deny the test results and write a new test. Then what?

187 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:24:53pm

I mean- I don’t think it’s right that child molesters are let out of jail, but that’s the law. Until we change that, what I think is right and the law are not in agreement.

188 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:26:05pm

re: #185 OldLineTexan

Gellar is not someone whose opinion is very important to me. Blogs in general need salt, just like the MSM.

Anyway, I am not worried about Sotomayor.

I am extremely concerned about other actions from Obama, including, but not limited to: the bloated “Stimulus” budget, which is driving us, inch by inch, towards socialism; the USA joining the Human Rights Council at the UN; Obama basing any action vis a vis Iran on whether or not Israel commits suicide in a “two state” non-solution; Obama pushing for Turkey to have expanded NATO powers and membership in the EU, while denying the Armenian genocide; the shutting down of Gitmo, the desecration of the English language (“man-made disasters” rather than “terrorism” or “jihad”)…

The list goes on. (the above list is only SOME of the actions I am concerned about)

There are so many legitimate problems in the Obama administration…just because he *may* (I emphasize may, because I have not examined Sotomayor’s full record) have nominated an acceptable person for the Supreme Court does not render Obama good.

Everyone has a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say, but when conservatives harp on Sotomayor, that means they are not harping on actions which are real, proven, and downright alarming. I just look at everything as a case of “pick your battles.”

189 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:28:08pm

The city should have done right thing. I’m sure almost everyone on LGF can come up with examples of people who challenged law rather than accept injustice.

190 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:28:34pm

re: #188 Daria Emmons

I am less than thrilled with her, which is not surprising.

OTOH, I have no problem with this discussion going on until she is confirmed.

As far as the other things: it will always be necessary to multitask.

191 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:29:16pm

re: #190 OldLineTexan

I am less than thrilled with her, which is not surprising.

OTOH, I have no problem with this discussion going on until she is confirmed.

As far as the other things: it will always be necessary to multitask.

Totally understood - absolutely you are right. The discussion about Sotomayor’s skills is in fact very important.

192 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:29:47pm

re: #187 Sharmuta

I mean- I don’t think it’s right that child molesters are let out of jail, but that’s the law. Until we change that, what I think is right and the law are not in agreement.

We can’t change until we challenge.

193 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:34:30pm

re: #190 OldLineTexan

I am less than thrilled with her, which is not surprising.

OTOH, I have no problem with this discussion going on until she is confirmed.

As far as the other things: it will always be necessary to multitask.

I guess I look at this as one of distinction: do conservatives in general examine Sotomayor’s record? I think we all should examine her record as something newsworthy.

But should we be attacking her as a “racist” or a “sexist” or “unqualified”? I think it is only productive to do so if there is evidence of that - and a few comments she said is not true evidence of this. Labeling her racist only harms conservative credibility.

I want to again clarify - we absolutely should be quick to examine Sotomayor’s record, but slow to judge whether she is a bad justice. I think some conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich, have been far too quick to label her a bad justice with little evidence.

194 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:39:23pm

re: #192 BatGuano

I’ve actually spoken with an elected state official about changing the law on this matter. It’s not that difficult- just tell the people responsible that it needs to change. He knew I was right. Most people know I’m right. Child molesters should be removed from society either by incarceration or the death penalty based on what state law allows. I can only work to get the law changed where I live.

195 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:42:42pm

re: #30 Gang of One

Since this is an exam already given, could it be published for all to see?
The exam’s contents do change from year to year, right?

The blank exam(s) were probably submitted as evidence in the case and are now public record. The individual results might not be public.

196 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:46:01pm

Daria Emmons- here is another decision you can read:

[Link: www.citmedialaw.org…]

197 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:46:18pm

Looks like the lawyers at Powerline may have taken Sotomayor out of context too.

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]

198 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:48:10pm

re: #196 Sharmuta

Daria Emmons- here is another decision you can read:

[Link: www.citmedialaw.org…]

I have printed that out - about to leave work, so I will read it going home. :)

199 charles_martel  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:48:46pm

re: #69 OldLineTexan

What’s a BLEVE?

Boiling
Liquid
Expanding
Vapor
Explosion

sounds like a probrem to me …

Yep. If you have a pan of grease or oil on fire on the stove, and then throw water on it to “put it out”. BAM! The water instantly boils, and expands in an explosive way. Suddenly, your whole kitchen is on fire. saw it on video. damn scary.

200 beens21  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:48:55pm

What some others have noted, the city threw out the test results to avoid a potential disparate impact lawsuit by the black firefighters. That type of lawsuit requires no intent to discriminate by the city, you simply look at the impact of the test, as opposed to a disparate treatment suit that does require intent to discriminate.The trial ct dismissed this case on a summary judgment motion,(no trial)which may be one reason the Sup Ct took it, to remand for trial, or to clarify the law in these suits.

201 Optimizer  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:49:03pm

re: #34 lawhawk

There’s also probably information regarding specific knowledge about firefighting, tactics, circumstances requiring different tactics (how to deal with certain chemicals, hazmat, etc.)

Here’s a sample exam (not the New Haven test), and it goes to reading comprehension and knowledge of firefighting tactics.

The angle of discrimination in the tests is along the same lines of those who criticize other standardized tests for discriminating against minorities.

Basically, the unfairness is that the test takers are expected to have a decent command of American English. This is unfair, of course, because they have only had about 15 generations to pick that up. /sarc (You’re supposed to ignore that most 1st or 2nd generation Americans do just fine).

In Sotomayer’s world, “fairness” is not determined but equality of opportunity, but by equality of outcome. Beyond even this Leftist notion, the racism is clear. There is no presumtion that the test is unfair because certain white males repeatedly fail the test (let’s assume there are some), it’s all about race, of course. So much for justice being blind.

202 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:50:38pm

re: #160 Daria Emmons

As an aside…

I just want to state publicly that Debbie Schlussel’s commentary on Justice Sotomayor was really my last straw for her. She has been shrill in the past, but this is a new low for her. I still am stunned that she would make up a song about Sotomayor as “Sonia from the block” and compare her to J-Lo.

Sonia Sotomayor is clearly qualified for the job, and certainly more qualified than Barack Obama was qualified to be president. She was picked in part as an affirmative action pick (we all knew that Obama would choose a woman), but that does not render her unqualified. Playing into Hispanic racial stereotypes about big bottoms…unbelievable.

The worst thing is that this sort of behavior only drives Hispanics further to the Dems.

I hope cooler heads and sanity prevails amongst the GOP, and they do not follow Schlussel’s lead.

It’s really awful to watch this happening on right-wing blogs. The hysteria levels are getting completely absurd.

There are only a very few bloggers trying to get people to be reasonable about this instead of joining the virtual lynch mob, and those few are being attacked and labeled as traitors or worse.

It’s disturbing. Bad craziness is loose in the right-wing blogosphere and almost nobody’s trying to pull back from the brink.

203 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:50:39pm

re: #193 Daria Emmons

If I say something racist, is questioning it an “attack”?

I will state that I respectfully disagree with those who find no harm in Sotomayor’s famous remark. And I did indeed read the “whole thing”. However, I am not a lawyer.

I am also greatly disturbed by her published views on the Second Amendment.

However, I will add at the risk of repeating myself that I did not expect to be happy with any Obama appointee, and that potential SCOTUS openings were one of my two reasons to vote for McCain. So I am biased. I would have to be insane to not be.

204 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:51:07pm
205 voirdire  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:52:17pm

What does it portend that she has 60% of her decisions overturned at the next level? Can that figure be correct?

206 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:52:36pm

re: #196 Sharmuta

Daria Emmons- here is another decision you can read:

[Link: www.citmedialaw.org…]

AVERY DONINGER. I wonder if her race or heritage had anything to do with the court’s decision?

207 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:53:42pm

re: #206 kansas

No- it didn’t. You can read the decision for yourself and see as much, or you can make a ridiculous comment like the one you just did.

208 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:53:48pm

re: #204 Iron Fist

When I was a kid we’d soak tennis balls in high-test and set them on fire. Then play a sort-of combination dodge-ball and catch with them until the gas burned off. Then we’d do it again. It didn’t hurt the tennis ball much.

(Believe it or no, a friend’s farther actually taught us the game. What teaching there was. We really were pretty crazy, but we had fun :-)

As a young man at my first professional job, I participated in an annual river-tubing event. It was great fun until some dingus fired a “tennis ball cannon” at another dingus, resulting in a flaming tennis ball impacting (but not damaging) the particularly lovely and not particularly delicate girlfriend of a hothead with a great deal of judo training.

/hilarity ensued

209 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:55:33pm

re: #197 kansas

Looks like the lawyers at Powerline may have taken Sotomayor out of context too.

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]


No. They provided the entire speech.

210 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:56:12pm

From openleft.com

“While President Obama is receiving his first real post-inauguration bump from Sotomayor, and while a disproportionate percentage of that bump is coming from Latinos, Republicans keep calling her stupid, unqualified, mean, racist and privileged. Not only is this a total political disaster for Republicans, but any Republican who actually tries to stop the train wreck is excoriated by his own party.

The enormity of this political opportunity can hardly be overstated. Republicans are handing us a second Terri Schaivo on a silver platter. We need to keep fueling this discussion.”

211 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:56:56pm

re: #210 avanti

She’ll be confirmed and then on to the next shiny thing.

openleft will be left open.

212 Daria Emmons  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:57:14pm

re: #203 OldLineTexan

If I say something racist, is questioning it an “attack”?

I will state that I respectfully disagree with those who find no harm in Sotomayor’s famous remark. And I did indeed read the “whole thing”. However, I am not a lawyer.

I am also greatly disturbed by her published views on the Second Amendment.

However, I will add at the risk of repeating myself that I did not expect to be happy with any Obama appointee, and that potential SCOTUS openings were one of my two reasons to vote for McCain. So I am biased. I would have to be insane to not be.

I have to go right now - but closing comments…

Sonia Sotomayor’s statements at UC-Berkley may be considered “racist.” Maybe, maybe not. But that does not mean that Sonia Sotomayor, the person, is racist.

It is extremely helpful to examine all the evidence concerning Sotomayor. It is helpful, and it is necessary. But it is unhelpful, in my opinion, to be quick to then jump to a CONCLUSION that Sotomayor as a PERSON is thus “racist,” “sexist,” or really ANYTHING, until her full record is known.

No one should be so quickly judged on one paragraph they said at one speech, unless that paragraph included something similar to what is seen in a David Duke speech or on Hamas TV, and her comment most certainly was nothing like that.

Her comment was troubling, and ill-advised. But when taken in the context of her record, her comment is not the “proof” that Sotomayor is a racist that it is portrayed as.

At least in my opinion!

213 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:57:36pm

re: #207 Sharmuta

No- it didn’t. You can read the decision for yourself and see as much, or you can make a ridiculous comment like the one you just did.

I did read the decision which is what made me ask the question. Would the lower court have been overturned if the her name had been Maria Hernandez?

214 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:58:38pm

re: #202 Charles

It’s really awful to watch this happening on right-wing blogs. The hysteria levels are getting completely absurd.

There are only a very few bloggers trying to get people to be reasonable about this instead of joining the virtual lynch mob, and those few are being attacked and labeled as traitors or worse.

It’s disturbing. Bad craziness is loose in the right-wing blogosphere and almost nobody’s trying to pull back from the brink.

Some blogs and authors subsist on snark, not content.

215 Karridine  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:58:43pm

re: #54 zombie

“We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, the city’s not suggesting that,” she told Ms. Torre. But “if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”

If its been addressed previously, forgive me, I checked as far as your fine dissection, Zomboid One…

No reason that the city shouldn’t have an opportunity…, Judge Sotomayor, BUT UNTIL THEN it is just and reasonable that the people who scored well on THIS test be considered for promotion, as contracted earlier.

216 ed_gibbon  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:59:03pm

Its three fifths…but who’s counting

re: #87 zombie

217 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:59:40pm

re: #209 BatGuano

I know. I was being snarky having posted those exact same excerpts from her speech while being accused of taking her out of context.

218 voirdire  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:05:04pm

Would anyone prefer Elena Kagan or Diane Wood? Or Cass Sunstein?

219 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:05:35pm

re: #218 voirdire

I will gladly take Sotomayor over Wood!

220 voirdire  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:06:10pm

re: #219 Sharmuta


Exactly.

221 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:06:13pm

re: #217 kansas

I know. I was being snarky having posted those exact same excerpts from her speech while being accused of taking her out of context.

I see. I didn’t know if you missed it or were doing what you have been accused of. :)

222 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:07:29pm

re: #213 kansas

I did read the decision which is what made me ask the question. Would the lower court have been overturned if the her name had been Maria Hernandez?

Yes- everything she does is racist. // Are you happy now?

223 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:13:21pm

re: #212 Daria Emmons

I doubt I would be given the same consideration.

224 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:15:33pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

Yes- everything she does is racist. // Are you happy now?

What - did she go to a Tea Party?

/

225 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:17:05pm

re: #224 OldLineTexan

What - did she go to a Tea Party?

/

That’s kind of funny considering that no one wants to get worked up about the racists infiltrating tea parties, of which we have numerous comments to confirm, but everyone is up in arms about one comment from this woman.

226 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:18:51pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

Yes- everything she does is racist. // Are you happy now?

It’s kind of hard to get an honest answer around here. She made a comment based on race, and belongs to a group based on race. Those two statements are true. Maybe you don’t want to call that racist. I don’t care if you don’t, but those two things concern me. And in this one case, since the girl was named Avery Donniger, and I don’t see that as being a Latina with the rich heritage , I think it reasonable to wonder if that affected the decision, even though I did agree with it.

227 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:20:01pm

re: #225 Sharmuta

That’s kind of funny considering that no one wants to get worked up about the racists infiltrating tea parties, of which we have numerous comments to confirm, but everyone is up in arms about one comment from this woman.

Are any of the racists who are attending the tea parties using their rights under the constitution, going to be justices on the Supreme Court?

228 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:20:23pm

re: #225 Sharmuta

That’s kind of funny considering that no one wants to get worked up about the racists infiltrating tea parties, of which we have numerous comments to confirm, but everyone is up in arms about one comment from this woman.

A lot of people are concerned, and have expressed it here. Some have actually promised to take action. No one?

But surely you see the parallels. We have had statements on this blog that, taken at face value, suggest that everyone at a Tea Party is now a Stormfronter.

It’s just as impossible on its face as Sotomayor being a hard-core conscious racist with a history of judicial activism.

229 MPH  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:21:23pm

[Link: pajamasmedia.com…]


UPDATE: Associated Press: “Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale. And Sotomayor’s life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.” But there’s also this: “Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor’s office.”
230 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:21:53pm

re: #227 kansas

Let me punch that question into the “Future Foretold” machine, and see what it says.

231 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:22:05pm

re: #144 Occasional Reader

But if you’re going to scold Sotomayor for failing to strike down the EEOC rules as unconsitutional, you have deal with the fact that (probably) no other potential nominee has so struck them down.

(And, again, I don’t know if the plaintiffs were even arguing that.)

I’m resigned to Sotomayor being confirmed. We could do worse. We probably will do worse the next time around. Still, at best she flinched from performing her judicial duties. More likely, she didn’t feel like performing them. This case is as clean cut a case as can ever arise, and the Supreme Court is hearing it, and they will almost certainly reverse her. EEOC rules are obviously unconstitutional if they amount to this:

the State will void any and every test that fails the quota criterion, no matter how carefully constructed, no matter how germane to the job, no matter how necessary to preserving human life.
If there cannot be a test for advancement, the only remaining alternatives would be a racial quota system, where each race runs in its own lane (this has already been ruled unconstitutional), or a tacit quota system, in which the “test” is so constructed that everybody scores perfect and then a tiebreaker along racial lines is used. The courts have accepted the use of race as a tiebreaker.

The notion that the city just needed to get the test right is a red herring. Everybody involved knows that the next test, and the next, and any test that had any serious challenges and any validity, would probably yield results that didn’t fit the quota.

Until such time as something changed in the real world.

Given a Jaime Escalante-type teacher, and an incentive that could be obtained in no other way (job advancement), minority firefighters might come to the task of learning all about firefighting with heroic grit and resolve. They’d get good at it. Their test scores would show it. But as things now stand, why bother? The law will make you a winner after the fact, whether you know your stuff or not.

232 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:22:43pm

re: #230 Sharmuta

Let me punch that question into the “Future Foretold” machine, and see what it says.

Let me do it for you. That would be NO.

233 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:23:59pm

I’m going home. No one has convinced me that I don’t have a legitimate concern about this nominee. Not that it will do any good.

234 Lynn B.  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:24:43pm
Gibbs: Sotomayor’s Word Choice “Poor”

At the tail end of a more than hour-long press briefing White House press secretary made a stunning admission about the administration’s Supreme Court pick while discussing her controversial 2001 speech.

“I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor,” Gibbs said of Sonia Sotomayor’s argument that a “wise Latina woman” would reach better conclusions than white men. “She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judgment, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences impact your understanding. I think we’d all agree with that.”

I think (not sure) that this latter part is the point Charles has been trying to make.

But it would also seem that, taken in or out of context, there’s now a consensus that the remark was problematic.

235 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:25:02pm

I’m going to leave this thread now because it’s obvious folks want to see everything Sotomayor has done as being race based when her decisions don’t reflect this at all. It’s really depressing to watch this.

236 MPH  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:25:22pm

re: #228 OldLineTexan


It’s just as impossible on its face as Sotomayor being a hard-core conscious racist with a history of judicial activism.

She obviously is not a hard core conscious racist. Boilerplate politically correct collectivist.

237 BatGuano  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:26:32pm

re: #235 Sharmuta

Not me. I was on New Haven only. :)

238 Lynn B.  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:31:56pm

re: #36 bryantms

Here’s Krauthammer on this issue: [Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

Krauthammer, as usual, cuts through the bullshit and nails it.

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling “facially race-neutral.”

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less “advantaged.”

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

239 Lynn B.  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:38:27pm

re: #238 Lynn B.

I don’t agree, BTW, that a Supreme Court justice should be confirmed “solely on the grounds … that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees.” Otherwise, what would be the point of confirmation hearings?

But he’s right about the teaching moment.

I think.

/ever post a comment and then have second thoughts?

240 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:38:34pm

She’s a racist, and it’s her fault she made a racist comment. Stop making excuses for her.

241 Outrider  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:46:08pm
“…if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn’t the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?”…”


A firefighters test? How is the standard firefighters test going to put any “certain group” rate?

Assuming English is their primary language, what kind of questions concerning skills and abilities firefighters should know can there be on the test which automatically create a failure rate among a “certain group”?

Any firefighters out there?

242 tatterdemalian  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:54:00pm

Test bias? All tests are biased, by design, such that if certain criteria are met, the test is passed, and if they are not met, the test is failed. A test that is not biased in any way is a test that is useless for testing anything.

Racial bias in tests, of course, should be eliminated wherever possible, but simple test performance should not be considered proof of it. Even if everybody of any particular race failed the test, there is always a chance all the people who took the test simply didn’t meet the criteria being tested, rather than there being any inherent racial bias within the test. I’ll buy that the terminology used in the test may have been a factor that discriminated against certain races, but at the same time, if the firefighters’ equipment happens to be written entirely in a particular dialect of English, then understanding that dialect should be part of the qualifications for the job, and thus for passing the test. Fair or unfair, it does actually matter as far as work performance goes.

243 Karridine  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:06:24pm

re: #242 tatterdemalian

YES!

Exactly what many others upthread have sought to say!

244 Born Again Republican  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:57:18pm

re: #240 suntory_boss

She has finally said “she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech.”

[Link: news.yahoo.com…]

245 Bob Dillon  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:03:46pm

A client of mine emigrated to the US from Ethiopia many years ago. Was a former ambassador to the UK from his country. Holds a Phd. - Educated in Ethiopia and the UK.

Applied for a civil service job with the city of SF. Turned down - overqualified.

Next year - re-applied - no mention of education and played his race card. Hired - Mail Room. Every time an exam came up thereafter he sat for it - aced them all and over the years rose to one of the top administrators in the system.

Now retired, we go out to lunch every few months and he lets me pick his brain and bounce ideas off him. One of the most sharp and creative minds I have the honor of interacting with.

I do love his story.

246 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:04:23pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

No, no. You must agree everything she’s ever done is racist or you are a RINO!

////

247 LeonidasOfSparta  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:05:44pm

Rush has said, all along, (including waaay back when he first declared that she would be put forth as TOTUS’s SCOTUS choice) that she should be confirmed as a SCOTUS to show what sort of President TOTUS REALLY is, to highlight his radical statist plans.

Charles Krauthammer in WaPo, today, has a good article regarding Sotomayor in which he writes:
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

“Sonia Sotomayor has a classic American story. So does Frank Ricci. Ricci is a New Haven firefighter stationed seven blocks from where Sotomayor went to law school (Yale). Raised in blue-collar Wallingford, Conn., Ricci struggled as a C and D student in public schools ill-prepared to address his serious learning disabilities. Nonetheless he persevered, becoming a junior firefighter and Connecticut’s youngest certified EMT.
After studying fire science at a community college, he became a New Haven “truckie,” the guy who puts up ladders and breaks holes in burning buildings. When his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material. He placed sixth on the lieutenant’s exam, which qualified him for promotion. Except that the exams were thrown out by the city, and all promotions denied, because no blacks had scored high enough to be promoted.
What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy. On the Ricci case. And on her statements about the inherent differences between groups, and the superior wisdom she believes her Latina physiology, culture and background grant her over a white male judge. They perfectly reflect the Democrats’ enthrallment with identity politics, which assigns free citizens to ethnic and racial groups possessing a hierarchy of wisdom and entitled to a hierarchy of claims upon society…Figuratively and literally, justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons. Everyone must stand equally before the law, black or white, rich or poor, advantaged or not. When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story, and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling “facially race-neutral.”
Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.”

But to be silent, to NOT ask the difficult questions, to NOT state the obvious race-gender issue that surrounds the nomination of this candidate, is to do what MANY did during the presidential elections— many just got tingley feelings up their legs and became mesmerized and swooned and nodded like a bobblehead and ignored all the LIES.

You may not like Rush, but he has no problem speaking his mind. And, until the NEWEST Internet CZAR shuts him down, he should.

248 shortshrift  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:05:51pm

re: #242 tatterdemalian

I’ve come in late, as usual.
I have read that New Haven paid for test consultants before the test was administered. Hope they got their money back.
There is a growing industry devoted to EEOC race rules, all based on the assumption that mainstream society is intrinsically racist. This very assumption is behind the identity politics the left supports, the activist judicial philosophy it looks for in judges, and the “empathy” that Obama looks for in judicial temperament and finds in Sotomajor.
Neither Sotomajor nor Obama should not “walk back” her statement concerning a wise Latina making better decisions than a white man. This is what they believe. It should stand as an example of the ideology they espouse and that has rewarded them both so richly.

249 shortshrift  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:07:58pm

My last should read “neither Stotmajor not Obama shoud “walk back”…
Too many negatives. Probably Freudian.

250 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:11:48pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

She has finally said “she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech.”

[Link: news.yahoo.com…]


She didn’t say that, someone said it for her. She has yet to make any statements since being nominated.

251 Born Again Republican  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:13:02pm

re: #246 Sharmuta

Political reality is you don’t make these kind of statements and sit on the highest court in the land. Maybe I missed it but did the justices on the court get seated with such a controversy hanging over their head?

I’ll check it out.

252 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:14:51pm

re: #251 Born Again Republican

Political reality is you don’t make these kind of statements and sit on the highest court in the land. Maybe I missed it but did the justices on the court get seated with such a controversy hanging over their head?

I’ll check it out.

Um- helloooooo? Justice Thomas ring a bell?

253 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:18:05pm

re: #252 Sharmuta

Um- helloooooo? Justice Thomas ring a bell?

And I say this not caring about the facts around the controversy, just that there was a huge controversy surrounding Justice Thomas when he was confirmed.

254 ladycatnip  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:23:56pm

All this gnashing of teeth over what she said is way too pc for me. We have the WH trying to minimize it while putting their spin on it, and we have posters here who are defending what she said. It is what it is, folks. People, politicians and judges should rise and fall on their own merits, their own actions and their own words. Her words (taken in context - I read the speech) should not have been said. We are supposed to have a colorblind judicial system, and as long as their is some sort of litmus test, race test or gender test, justice will be meted out with empathy (as Obama would like) rather than based upon the rule of law.

I found her comments offensive. That’s my opinion, and I’m Italian and female. ;-)

255 muddywood  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:40:22pm

re: #247 LeonidasOfSparta

100 updings for you!

256 jvic  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:41:02pm

Sotomayor is better qualified than Harriet Miers was or Alberto Gonzales would have been.

I’m not saying that to support Sotomayor. I’m saying it to put the situation in perspective.

Then there is the immortal G. Harrold Carswell…

257 Born Again Republican  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:43:45pm

re: #253 Sharmuta

The Anita Hill controversy. He said she said. We know what Sotomayor said. I wondered if a justice showed bias and was still put on the supreme court?

258 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:45:48pm

re: #257 Born Again Republican

So now we move the goal post. Right.

259 Born Again Republican  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:51:40pm

re: #258 Sharmuta

Charles has brought some great quotes by Sotomayor that show her ability to be non-partial. If I’m going to hold her responsible for seemingly racist remarks I’ll also credit her with a deeper understanding. I hope she gets a fair hearing.

260 Bob Dillon  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:53:39pm

re: #247 LeonidasOfSparta

I regret that I only have one upding to give.

261 iceweasel  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:55:10pm

re: #160 Daria Emmons

As an aside…

I just want to state publicly that Debbie Schlussel’s commentary on Justice Sotomayor was really my last straw for her.

I hope cooler heads and sanity prevails amongst the GOP, and they do not follow Schlussel’s lead.

I couldn’t agree more with you. Debbie Schlussel is a complete nut and people like her are terrible for the GOP.

262 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 6:00:15pm

re: #256 jvic

Sotomayor is better qualified than Harriet Miers was or Alberto Gonzales would have been.

I’m not saying that to support Sotomayor. I’m saying it to put the situation in perspective.

Then there is the immortal G. Harrold Carswell…

Henry Ford was a brilliant businessman, but he was still an antisemite. Should I ignore that aspect of him? I’m sure she’s very intelligent, but she’s a racist. Racists shouldn’t be judges, period. I wouldn’t want Henry Ford to have been a judge.

263 Maui Girl  Fri, May 29, 2009 6:23:38pm

re: #257 Born Again Republican

If you haven’t yet, read the book My Grandfather’s Son, an autobiography written by/for Clarence Thomas. The book made me weep in parts. Very good read.

264 Bob Dillon  Fri, May 29, 2009 6:59:35pm

re: #262 suntory_boss

Henry Ford was a brilliant businessman, but he was still an antisemite. Should I ignore that aspect of him? I’m sure she’s very intelligent, but she’s a racist. Racists shouldn’t be judges, period. I wouldn’t want Henry Ford to have been a judge.

I “believe” we all have racial bias within us as part of the human condition. Some consciously, some unconsciously. How that gets manifested depends on our own unique internal filters and our awareness of them.

Primates traveling down a path and meeting another - must make a split decision on their next action - friend or foe? - their survival depends on their ability to discriminate.

We, as humans, have mellowed out a bit however our wiring is still there.

Our task is to recognize overt and covert intentions from another based on our basic world view. The world is a friendly place or is a dangerous place. A well calibrated BS detector (and gut feeling) is handy.

As Sharm noted a day or so ago - it’s up to our elected officials to sort out appointments and I hope she gets some eloquent questions put to her … and she gets that, in her unique position, history is watching and noting her actions and speech. And that she is tempered to do her best - aware of her filters.

265 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 29, 2009 7:22:34pm

re: #141 Sharmuta

So The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?

Not as it is written. As it is written, it spells out that the act does not require quotas. But in practice, as interpreted by judges such as Sotomayor, it has come to require exactly that which in writing it forbids: quotas.

The act itself is constitutional. The way it’s been upended and used for purposes its authors explicitly forbade, that, sir, is unconstitutional.

266 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 29, 2009 7:39:01pm

re: #199 charles_martel

Yep. If you have a pan of grease or oil on fire on the stove, and then throw water on it to “put it out”. BAM! The water instantly boils, and expands in an explosive way. Suddenly, your whole kitchen is on fire. saw it on video. damn scary.

But that’s not what BLEVE is. You need more than just inertial containment to get a serious explosion rather than just a spatter.

With BLEVE explosions, you have a liquid that’s under enough pressure from its container that at that pressure it doesn’t boil, but if the pressure would be reduced to normal air pressure, it would.

One good example would be liquid nitrogen. It can be kept liquid with a mix of refrigeration and containment, but if the container fails, whoosh, the liquid quickly goes to gas phase. The expansion is so rapid as to amount to an explosion. Another example would be a pressure cooker with a stuck valve, full of water, sitting on an electric range. If, (or when, provided the range is hot enough) the container fails, the water flashes to steam, expanding very quickly. Boiler explosions are BLEVE’s.

Neither of these examples of an explosion involves a fire. But if the liquid that goes to gas is flammable, your troubles have just begun with the BLEVE.

267 monsonman  Sat, May 30, 2009 12:40:05pm

In spite of the fear of being labeled a lunatic right wing lunatic….It’s impossible to make a test that everyone gets the same grade (unless you give everyone the answers beforehand).

Promote those who score well….period.

268 leereyno  Sat, May 30, 2009 1:07:42pm

There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination.” There is either irrational and illegal discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color or religion; or there is the absence of that discrimination.

The phrase “reverse discrimination” tends to help the left because it creates the idea in people’s minds that discrimination against “minorities” is so rampant and so commonplace that cases which discriminate in their favor need a special term to describe them.

Refusing to promote any qualified candidates because their skin color is not the preferred shade is a clear and undeniable case of discrimination. It doesn’t matter whether the preferred shade is ebony, ivory, or something else, discrimination is discrimination. It is illegal and morally repugnant.

The other nonsense in this story is the idea that a test is somehow going to put those with a particular skin color at a perpetual disadvantage. How racist is that? The idea that having a particular shade to your epidermis means that you can’t pass a test that others clearly can? It is nonsense, but it does betray a belief that leftists secretly subscribe to; the idea that blacks are inherently inferior and must therefore be judged according to an inferior standard, which the left are eager see applied to them to them in exchange for their fealty.

269 JackofTrades  Sat, May 30, 2009 10:01:00pm

Only a few things to say on all this and Judge Sotomayer’s potential for confirmation.

1. In no case should a Judge be confirmed only because the President selected them. (If that’s your best argument for the confirmation of ANY specific judicial nominee, then the person should not be confirmed.)

2. Confirmation should only depend on factors involving the judges past record and judicial qualifications, their judicial philosophy (not, not their ideals, pro-choice or pro-life leanings, etc, but upon what basis they make their decisions, etc), and nothing else comes to mind as valid in the discussion. (I might be forgetting one or two items off the top of my head, but I doubt it.)

3. From what I have read, Sotomayer is not qualified to be a judge at any level.

A. Even outside this decision, however you view her ruling and/or the rule of law and her interpretations thereof in this case, she has demonstrated indicators of a racial bias. (I am not sure I would say she is a racist, but I will say that if she isn’t, she hasn’t done the best job of demonstrating that she isn’t. Maybe that’s my own form of a 4/5 test. It is possible to appear racist at times and not be a racist. It is NOT possible to be a racist and not appear as racist at times. I am not sure that I would say everything I have seen and read proves she is racist, but it surely suggests that she likely is.)

B. She has also openly declared that the law is what she wants it to be, that she uses her feelings and her personal and political onions to trump the rule of law in making her rulings, and that she considers it part of her job to protect ‘judges rights’ to make their own rules as priority above and instead of the rule of law.

C. She has openly made statements that make it clear she is absolutely opposed to any interpretation of the 2nd amendment that allows anyone to have any kind of gun, and given the opportunity, she will probably attempt to judicially legislate the entire 2nd amendment out of the Constitution.

She is at best a controversial nomination for good reasons, and at the worst, completely unfit to serve in ANY position in the court system.

All of that being said, I really am not that worried about her confirmation, which I do see as pretty much a sure thing. This lack of stress and worry is for one simple reason. She would be hard-pressed to be any worse, more liberal, or more of a anti-Constitutional judicial activist as a judge than the justice she has been selected to replace. (I put anti-Constitutional on the judicial activist, not just because certain judges are clearly against several large parts of the constitution and practice reading into it things never there, but also because judicial activism and legislating from the bench are clearly violations of the Constitution and anti-Constitutional.)

This is the second selection, that I know of, of a completely unqualified and unfit individual to serve in courts that President Obama has appointed to a Federal bench. If he has made other appointments, it is possible that there are others, and it is possible that they are most eminently qualified. These 2 appointments point very much towards his own philosophy which, in many places, is directly contrary to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

270 JackofTrades  Sat, May 30, 2009 10:07:19pm

re: #267 monsonman

In spite of the fear of being labeled a lunatic right wing lunatic….It’s impossible to make a test that everyone gets the same grade (unless you give everyone the answers beforehand).

Promote those who score well….period.

You ARE a right wing lunatic. Then again, I suppose you probably also support the 2nd Amendment, the troops, etc, in which case you are also a right-wing extremist and potential terror threat, according to DHS.

As for promoting those who score well, I agree entirely, provided that it has been demonstrated 1) that the knowledge on the test is important to the job and 2) that the test truly does not have specific racial elements. (Nothing I have seen or heard about this specific test suggests any interpretation except that it passes both of these qualifiers with flying colors, horns blowing, and a parade to praise it on.)

271 JackofTrades  Sat, May 30, 2009 10:11:02pm

re: #266 lostlakehiker

Neither of these examples of an explosion involves a fire. But if the liquid that goes to gas is flammable, your troubles have just begun with the BLEVE.

One would presume, since BLEVE situations can be easily created in fires, that it would be extremely important information for firefighters and those leading firefighters to know.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh