How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Racial Profiling inthe White House?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Racial Profiling inthe White House?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 07-31-2009 03:01 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

quote:


Here you are stating that a black, even one as prominent as a Harvard professor, is predisposed to see evil in everything a white person does, based on black history. Well, that certainly makes it quite the situation, doesn't it.....a country where blacks walk around, scarred by 300 years of injustices, distrusting whites. Japanese-Americans, scarred by the thoughts of the Japanese interrment during WWII and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, walking around with a hatred and distrust of whites, native Americans walking around, scarred by thoughts of reservations and genocide perpetrated by the US government, hating whites. I'll tell you what. I can understand the feelings of all of these people. Bob, I have spent a good part of my life either dealing with minorities or being a minority myself. My sympathy for injustices committed against these people in sincere. . .




     I need to acknowledge here that this is not the entire quote, and that I am splitting the quote on purpose.  To restore the sense of context, though, before I go further, the next part of the quote speaks about how all of this is not an excuse.  The "excuse" spoken of in the remainder of the quote reads like it means " an excuse for bad behavior."  Having given some notion of the context here, for the sake of folks understanding the whole of Mike's message rather than simply part of it, I'd like to continue dealing with this first part.

     You see, yes, I actually do think that this is the situation, at least in part, and that the White folk of this country have cut a wide wound across the history of those peoples we've come in contact with.  There is a lot of fear and animosity directed toward Whites for that reason.  And as you say, Mike, "that makes it quite the situation, doesn't it[?]"

     Well yes it does.

     What you leave out is the matching feeling on the part of White folks toward the minorities which enabled us to act in this way toward the minorities in the first place, and which enables us to not notice that they've been excluded from the catalogue here.  Or to think that the feelings and actions of Whites don't have a place in this stew of discontent that we're discussing here.  Nevertheless, you do have sympathy for these folks.  You say so, and I believe you.  But you don't see that it carries over into this situation.

     My feeling is still that Sergeant Crowley acted correctly.  My feeling is that Professor Gates acted poorly.  The arrest was appropriate given that the incident was public.

     And I still can understand where Gates got his anger and why it came out the way it did.  I sympathize with his situation and understand it.  There are some real issues to be considered there.

     I don't think any of them have to deal with the Professor's guilt or innocence, mind you.  He remains responsible for his actual behavior, just as the rest of us are responsible for ours.  But the issues are important issues, and they have to do with the presence of racism in this society and the degree to which it affects behavior and judgement by everybody.  How close this strain is to the surface with us is the unfortunate incident of the Boston policeman whose apparently intemperate e-mail to the Boston Globe has gotten him suspended from both the BPD and the National Guard.

     Whatever the officer's feelings on the matter, the form in which they leaked through to the public seems to be polarizing to say the least.  His judgement does seem to have been off pitch here, and that is how close the matter is to expression on a day to day basis in this country.

     And many other countries, by the way.  

     The History that Professor Gates teaches, you see, has consequences.  Many people are suspicious of people who have spent time in jail or who have a known history of violent crime.  Ex-cons, we call them; and we are very cautious about them, about hiring them, and about their supervision; and we are never quite sure when they will be safe to accept back into society.  I don't know if we are right about this or not, but the police that I've known have been cautious of them as well, and don't cut them very much slack, and they will give you reasons for this that they consider good enough reasons.  

     As far as many of these minorities are concerned — and every member of every minority won't share the view, but a lot of them will — there is a long history of crimes that have been committed against them by white folks, and especially White folks in authority.  And their feelings about white folks, especially white folks in positions of authority, aren't all that different than yours would be about a parolee or an ex-con.  The debt may be paid, sort of, but it's a good idea to keep a close eye on what's going on to see if the old familiar stuff is going to re-emerge.  And a lot of non-White folks are on a hair trigger about this with a lot of evidence to back them up.

     How easy is it for an ex-con to build trust with a police officer?  

quote:


. . . but it will not give them a free pass to do whatever they please and cite hundreds of years of persecution as an excuse.




     No, sir, it will not.

     Nor do I hear anybody asking for "a free pass to do whatever they please."  I find myself quoting YOU here, and you are substituting hyperbole for fact.  Why you would quote people who are asking for equal rights under the law as asking for "for "a free pass to do whatever they please" is a puzzle to me.  Asking for the right to do the same as White folk have done since the founding of this country is only asking for the kind of outrageous demands that you characterize them as offering if one believes that they do not have a right to equal treatment under the law.

     And they do.

     Your comments about Judge Sotomajor are difficult for me to fathom.  Her ruling went with the majority ruling in the case.   Are you telling me that a majority of the whole court was discriminating against White folks?  Are you telling me that she was making new law from the bench?  From listening to the hearings, even the Republican senators didn't believe that.  She was making a ruling based on the law that was presented her and did not go outside that range, which is exactly what Republicans have been asking of all the nominees for years.  Did you want her to legislate from the bench, which the Republicans have for many years held was an abomination?

     You are going to have to make up your mind here, Mike.  Do you want somebody to legislate from the bench and give you the sort of decision that you'd love to have but which was not supported by the points of law in front of the court, or do you want somebody to stick to the law at hand and render a judgement on that?

     I mean, all of us want what's convenient for us at the moment, but in this case, we really have to make a choice where our values lie.  O'Bama, as a Republican Lite kind of guy, went for strict construction of the law.  What about you?

Sincerely, Bob kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 08-01-2009 12:16 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your comments about Judge Sotomajor are difficult for me to fathom.  Her ruling went with the majority ruling in the case.   Are you telling me that a majority of the whole court was discriminating against White folks?

Actually, yes. The others who voted with her were equally as guilty, the difference being that they are not in the running for the SUpreme court. The fact that the higher court reversed their decision is evidence that they were attempting a reverse-discrimination tactic that didn't work.

As far as the rest of your comment, lengthy as it is, I find little that has anything to do with this particular case. At the risk of sounding tedious, let me repeat that this was NOT a case of racial profiling or discrimination....period.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


52 posted 08-01-2009 01:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Do you remember Dogberry from Much Ado About Nothing?

     Your comment about tedium reminds me of him, a noble sheriff, of course.  I will write it down that I have made you risk tedium.  

     The horror!  The horror!,  Holmes, it was of a shape much like a gigantic hound rushing in a sort of grim silence, phospor dripping from its enormous jowls!  Then — horror upon horror! — it sat me down and tried to explain racism to me!  

     Of course my mind buckled, and I grew faint.

     But I grow tedious, and must stop before I endanger other innocent bystanders.

Forgive me if you can,

     Your obedient servant,

                                Robt. H. Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 08-01-2009 02:09 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Mike,

          As to Judge Sotomajor, The Christian Science Monitor reports on the matter.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/14/sotomayor-wont-bud ge-on-‘reverse-discrimination’-ruling/

quote:


“The issue was not what we would do or not do,” she said. “When you are on a circuit [appeals] court, you are obligated to follow a circuit’s precedent.”

Ms. Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who agreed with a trial judge that the white firefighters’ case should be thrown out of court. That decision was overturned by the nation’s highest court in a 5-to-4 opinion issued two weeks ago.




     In other words, as a strict constructionist, Judge Sotomajor's personal opinion didn't come into it.  She was forced to follow precedent, and she did to reach the decision she did.  She was not allowed to make new law, only allowed to see if the circuit precedent had been followed appropriately.  It had been, and she ruled to throw the suit out, which she was bound to do by the rules of the game.

     The Supremes, who are allowed to break new legal trail, did so.  Judge Sotomajor did not have that option.

     This is not called reverse discrimination; this is called following the law and upholding judicial responsibilities.  As the Christian Science Monitor said a bit further down the page, (rough quote, not exact), The senators were disinclined to dispute the law with her.  While you may read that differently, bless you, my reading is that they were pretty much aware that within the limits of politeness she would have eaten them for lunch if they'd have tried.  Certainly if you listened to the hearings, you would be aware that politeness would hardly have constrained them.

     So:  Reverse discrimination allegations equals unsupported nonsense and a smear campaign designed to turn Judge Sotomajor's loyalty to her calling into the exact opposite of what it was, namely a personal and arbitrary political rather than legal decision.  You are operating on disinformation here.  I don't know where you came up with it, but it's disinformation.

Yours, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 08-01-2009 07:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You're probably right, Bob. I don't know a lot about judicial things and prescendents. All I know in this uncultured mind of mine is that the firefighters who studied hard and scored the highest on the promotions test were rejected because there were not enough minorities represented and Sotomayor's vote sided with disallowing them to receive the promotions they deserved based on their race. If that is disinformation, please let me know. The firefighters who showed up at her confirmation hearing to protest her didn't think so.....but, being white, they were probably just confused and couldn't grasp the big picture.

It was also controversial because the Sotomayor appeals court panel initially dismissed the case by issuing an unsigned one-paragraph summary order. Such action is usually reserved for routine, unimportant decisions.

Hatch questioned why Sotomayor did not offer a more detailed analysis reflective of the difficult issues raised in the firefighters’ case. He said all nine Supreme Court justices took issue with Sotomayor’s approach to the case.


I can't seem to find the precedent that the judges cite they had to follow. Can you?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


55 posted 08-01-2009 08:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Bob/Mike

Odd as may seem I think you're both right.

The decision was wrong and right at the same time.

Sotomayor was compelled to make a ruling based on current law and previous precedent, she made the right decision. As did the court the case was referred from, based on the law and precedents set in previous cases from equal or higher courts.

The Supreme court isn't compelled to abide by previous precedent, or even laws if they contradict the constitution. They looked at the case and basically said that the decision was correct based on current law and previous precedent but that the conclusion derived from those sources produced the wrong result.

Sotomayor applied the law the only way she could, it just produced the wrong result.

The supreme court set a new precedent for lower courts to follow, basically they said "This was a correct decision but the criteria for reaching that decision is wrong - here's a new one - fill your boots". (ok maybe not in those exact words).



It's how the legal system works, they look at the law, how it was applied previously, and rule based on those previous precedents. When a case turns up that deviates enough from the previous cases it gets bumped up through the court system until someone decides that the case is sufficiantly different and has created an unjust result, at which point they set a new precedent.

That's why the law is likened to an ass, it plods on in one direction until it's told to alter course.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Charles Dickens

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


56 posted 08-01-2009 11:31 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Gates was being a jerk. That's not illegal.

The cop shoulda walked after verification, and let Gates make an even bigger arse outta himself than he already was.

The cop was a jerk to arrest Gates, and no I don't think it was because he was black. He let Gates' mouth get the best of him and he  made a bad call. Cops do that sometimes.

Obama was a jerk to even entertain the mention of it on national TV. He was an opportunistic fool who used the media to coddle the twaddle of a bro who pitched a silly fit. Both appeared uneducated and low class to me for two men of their standing/ backgrounds. About the way Clinton looked when he said "I did not have sex with that woman," on national TV. I guess everyone has a buffoon day.  

And Bob?

quote:
We owed the Blacks then and we owe them today,...


I owe the blacks about as much as the whites owe me. Nothing.

Kick in a few other colors, too. I've got about all races covered in my blood.

I'm entirely sick of the notion that someone owes me something due to the sins of past persecutors & forefathers and even EVE for God's sake. She really messed things up for women, so every female oughta get reparations regardless of race, creed or religious belief?? No.

As far as reparations goes? I'm disappointed in a lot of history, but using history as a constant bemoaning leg-up tool for the present is just infantile and self-retarding.

The White house was white a long time. That's over and people just need to get over it.




Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


57 posted 08-01-2009 12:34 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Even I can't argue with that Rwood.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


58 posted 08-01-2009 06:05 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

[Edit - Comments aimed at another poster's behavior will be removed. - Ron]

[This message has been edited by Ron (08-01-2009 06:46 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


59 posted 08-01-2009 07:22 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Good luck maintaining that Ron.  But you can do so without me breaking the "rule" again.  I am done at this forum when it becomes that unreasonable. I don't have any disrespect for you and respected your judgement about a comment of mine you removed the other day.  But this one is going too far and is no longer reasonable.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


60 posted 08-01-2009 07:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Sorry to disagree, rwood.

     There are lots of folks who agree with you.  

     Part of the problem is that by saying the White culture owes the Blacks is that it says there's something "less than" about Black Culture, Black society or Black anything.  I don't know if that's part of what you may be getting at in your comments or not.  If not, I urge you to consider the validity of that point of view in addition — not instead of — your own.  It certainly seems reasonable to me as well as what you suggest.

     Part of what I think Whites owe Blacks here is an extra moment of thought and consideration

     Accusations, like Mike's, that Judge Sotomajor was engaging in "reverse discrimination" really need to be looked at with an extra dose of critical thinking, if only to make sure that the facts are correct.  As both Grinch and I pointed out, Mike was suffering from an attack of disinformation.  He thought that both the initial judicial finding in the case and the appeals court finding would naturally go with what seemed to him to be the correct (Moral? Political?) outcome.  Mike has been somehow given the notion that Judges can and should make arbitrary changes in the law from the bench, and that they do it all the time.  It doesn't seem very much of a leap from that position to believe that Sotomajor's decision was a racist swipe at White folks.

     Fortunately, Mike was mistaken.  Judges are very much bound by precedent in making their decisions, and Sotomajor's decision stuck very close to precedent, from what I saw in the hearings.  The Republican Senators were pretty much unwilling to discuss her assertions about that with her.  Apparently the more legally trained among them, at least, knew better.  The fact that the there wasn't much of a write up on the matter by her appeals court was because the lower court had done a decent job of that and because there was no new legal issues being brought in for consideration.

     Given our history of race relations in this country, we owe a closer and more considered examination of issues around race, the laws congress has passed to help deal with relationships among races, and the legal decisions that are a record of how these laws have been interpreted and carried out.  This is simply one of the things that White culture owes Blacks.  White Culture owes Black Culture this because the historical record has shown that Whites have been very shaky in their ability to deal with other folks in any sort of consistent and just fashion, before we were a nation on this continent, and certainly afterward.

     I am pleased that you have no wish for special favors, of course.  I would be even more pleased if it was clear to me that everybody else shared your point of view.

     As in, for example, the understandable wish for police officers to be treated the same way that everybody else is treated at a party, for example, while expecting to be able to continue to act as police officers while doing so.  In my youth, I can remember a lot of parties with recreational substances thick on the ground.  I enjoyed them a great deal, and I assume that a police officer would have enjoyed them as well, had anybody there believed that the officer could be trusted to be there as a private citizen.  And if anybody there had gotten into a disagreement with such an officer about behavior at the party — the officer's behavior or anybody else's — the trust would have gone out the window in a second.

     The presence of an officer in any transaction will also result in special favors as well.  A neighbor of mine was a retired officer, and he was genuinely puzzled why other people no longer gave him free meals and discounts and did things for him that other people would have had to pay significant amounts of money for.  Parts for his part time electronic business suddenly began to cost the same as they did for other people.  He didn't get his smokes at a special price any more.  And so on.

     Rwood, you may not want special favors, many other people can't seem to get enough of them.

     You may think that it's a special favor that Blacks are given extra help in getting into some schools or in getting some jobs.  I don't think it'll go on forever.  In the meantime, when a company overcharges its customers, a lawsuit will require that that money be repaid.  When Tobacco companies knew that their product was killing people, lied about it and went on as though nothing was wrong, lawsuits required some sort of settlement there as well.  Think of this as the same sort of thing.  You don't have to accept the settlement, and the settlement won't continue forever, but the reason for it being there is fairly well established.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


61 posted 08-01-2009 11:51 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

,



Dear Mike,

          http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC02%5C2008%5C20080612_0001355.C02.htm/qx


     Here is the opinion from the appeals court.  It does have considerable precedent listed, but also it has some explanation about the legal frame of the case, which is helpful in understanding the whys and wherefores.

Hope you've good a good pair of waders,

All my best, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (08-02-2009 01:36 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 08-02-2009 02:15 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Although it is not disputed that the decision to discard the examination results was based on racial considerations, the District Court determined as a matter of law that no racial discrimination had occurred "because [all of] the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," and because "[n]othing in the record in this case suggests that the City defendants or CSB acted 'because of discriminatory animus toward plaintiffs or other non-minority applicants for promotion," The District Court also rejected plaintiffs' civil rights conspiracy and First Amendment claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state law tort claim.

So, since they decided not to hire anyone the white police officers could not claim racial discrimination, even though it is not disputed that the decision not to hire anyone was based on racial considerations....isn't that cute?

We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

So, because the board invalidated the results due to the fact that there was a racial disproportionate impact, Ricci had no case?

Defendants contend that their decision, though race-based, was necessary because compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws required them to reduce the number of eligible white candidates

And that is not called reverse- discrimination?

If too many white applicants obtained high scores, the City stood ready to nullify the results in the hope that non-white applicants would score relatively higher on a subsequent examination.*

And that is not reverse-discrimination?

The District Court also held as a matter of law that none of the City's reasons for disregarding the examination results amounted to intentional discrimination because the City had acted based on the following concerns: that the test had a statistically adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic examinees; that promoting off of this list would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department and would fail to develop managerial role models for aspiring firefighters; that it would subject the City to public criticism; and that it would likely subject the City to Title VII lawsuits from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the City did not want to defend.

Andthat is not reverse-discrimination?

Thanks for the link, Bob, although I had to hold my nose while reading it. Those are an awful lot of words to just say, "You didn't get the promotions because you are white but you can't claim discrimination because we are throwing out the results of ALL tests (because too many whites scored too high).

That is a sad example of our judicial system at work. As far as Sotomayor simply following precedents, what about her comment ""court of appeals is where policy is made" ? Making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book. Is it in yours?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


63 posted 08-02-2009 04:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

And that is not reverse-discrimination?



Dear Mike,

          Actually, no, it isn't.

     The Ricci folks were trying to prove it was, but weren't able to do so.  Given that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, its standing for being brought in front of the appeals court, was not very good to begin with; it would have been better if The Supremes had said whether they were going to take the case first, which might have saved everybody time and money.

     The suit was narrowly defined.  Ricci said Reverse Discrimination while the city said that in order for there to have been discrimination Ricci and friends had to prove that there had been damages.  Because the city had thrown the whole exam out, there was really no case for damages at that time.  That was the grounds on which, I believe, the suit was fought.  You can see if you look at the reference that it was a Title VII suit.  This means nothing to me either, by the way. But apparently there has to be some proof of damages.  Nobody got promoted.  

quote:


Thanks for the link, Bob, although I had to hold my nose while reading it. Those are an awful lot of words to just say, "You didn't get the promotions because you are white but you can't claim discrimination because we are throwing out the results of ALL tests (because too many whites scored too high).




     You may be right here, but I think not.  You'll probably hate me for suggesting what I think the difference is, but I'll take a shot.  I may be wrong about this anyway, but I think that you have a crucial clause wrong, this one: "You didn't get the promotions because you are white[. . . .]  I think that the more accurate reading would be something like, You didn't get the promotions because we became aware quickly that we were very vulnerable to discrimination litigation from minorities as well as the potential for litigation from White and Hispanic officers. . . .

     It appears that the city felt they were caught between a rock and a hard place, and tried to control damages as best they could by throwing out the whole examination.

     The fact that there was such a disparity in scores between Blacks and their White and Hispanic counterparts could well mean that the Whites and Hispanics were much the better candidates — the way I understand you to be reading the test results — or could just as well be evidence of an ill constructed and culturally biased test.  The SAT tests were apparently culturally biased until at least the early 1980s, according to the testing course I took for my EdM.  So were many IQ tests.  How to detect and eliminate this sort of bias is not something that I would even pretend to have expertise in; you would have to have major work in statistics and testing before you'd even be able to formulate the question in a decent fashion.

     The city, once they saw those results, would have a very good idea how good a case minority folks would have — I would suspect better than fair, and potentially very expensive.  It is likely a bias free test would show a much less skewed set of results.  In all honesty, it is not impossible that a fair test would show the results that did show up, by the way; it is merely unlikely.

     The likelihood of this being Reverse Discrimination as opposed to a poorly designed test?  I'd say it's more likely worry about the possibility of a poorly designed test and the monetary liability that could come from that.  

quote:


That is a sad example of our judicial system at work.




     How would I know?  I have very limited knowledge or understanding of the judicial system.  

     You did, however, ask to see the precedents, and I put several hours into digging this decision and the precedents listed on it for you.  Where is Judge Sotomajor going beyond her mandate and legislating from the bench, Mike?  It sure appears to me that she's laying out the precedents and following them.  What's more, four out of nine of the Supremes agreed with her.

     The judicial system, at her level, is not supposed to make law.  She gave a solid judicial opinion that you don't like.  Perhaps if the case had been presented differently, it might have been decided differently at that appellate level.  But it wasn't.

quote:

As far as Sotomayor simply following precedents, what about her comment ""court of appeals is where policy is made" ? Making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book. Is it in yours?




      I must have missed that quote.  Where, exactly, did you see that?  Was it in the reference I passed on? — because I didn't see it there.  If it wasn't, how about a bit more detail?  When I listened to the hearings, she said nothing like that that I remember, and she was questioned about that pretty closely.

     And no, making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book.

     Before starting to research the material for this thread, I had no idea that law should not be made at the appellate level.  It makes sense, I guess.  I had thought that things ran somewhat differently, however.  I'm glad to have had to get that bit of extra information and education; one of the things that pip does to keep my brain from turning entirely to cornmeal.  

     And you as well, you crusty old dog, you.

Best wishes, Bob Kaven
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


64 posted 08-02-2009 08:38 AM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

Why wasn't the woman (Lucia Whalen) who made the 911 call invited to the Obama beer fest?  Her character was much maligned and vilified in the press as being racist even though the tape of her call proves no such thing.

On the other hand, maybe she was invited and turned it down assuming if she showed up the BOYS would have her serving the beer.  Women are after all the waitresses at the banquet of life.

Two weeks after his arrest, Gates sent her flowers.  All woman sure do love flowers?  Uh-oh, a bit of genderism there?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 08-02-2009 08:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

must have missed that quote.  Where, exactly, did you see that?

All over the internet, Bob, but why not just hear it from the judge's own lips....?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 08-02-2009 08:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think that the more accurate reading would be something like, You didn't get the promotions because we became aware quickly that we were very vulnerable to discrimination litigation from minorities as well as the potential for litigation from White and Hispanic officers. . . .   and you claim that is different from saying because  they were white? If they had been non-white with those scores they would have gotten the promotions. Since they were white, they didn't....which means white made the difference, regardless of how the semantics are presented.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 08-02-2009 08:53 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

icebox, I have it on good authority that the lady was not invited because her favorite beer is BECK'S.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 08-02-2009 09:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and here, ladies and gentlemen we have Bob K, the amateur baseball player from Beatemup, California, who won a raffle and was chosen to participate in this year's home run derby with the greatest hitters in baseball. Alex Rogriguez has the lead with 7 out of 10 but, unbelievable as it may be, if Bob K its one more out of the park, this amateur will win one of the most coveted awards in baseball!! Bob had been practicing for months, hiring batting coaches, studying batting techniques and finding ways to overcome his myopia. What a moment! The whirr of the mechanical pitching arm, the ball in flight, the swing....AND THERE SHE GOES!...sailing over the left field fence and propelling the amateur Bob K into baseball legend. What a moment!! Bob K is jumping up and down, friends are patting him on the back and lifting him in the air and the home run crown of 2009 belongs to BOB K!!!!.....but wait. The officials have just declared that there will be no winner this year, not because Bob is an amateur but because "it would set a bad precedent" to have a non-professional hold the record and, since the honor will go to no one based on the tossing out of the results, Bob K has no avenue to protest.

That's ok. Bob will understand, I'm sure  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


69 posted 08-02-2009 10:23 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Dear Bob,

quote:
Part of what I think Whites owe Blacks here is an extra moment of thought and consideration


What about the Mocha-Olive-Caramel-Peachy-Yellow-Red-Brown-Porcelain-(rainbow) skinned peoples?

And tall, little, skinny, hefty, plain, ugly, pretty, handsome peoples?

And heterohomobi’s??

and malefemherms?

etc, playfully, etc.

quote:
Given our history of race relations in this country, we owe a closer and more considered examination of issues around race, the laws congress has passed to help deal with relationships among races, and the legal decisions that are a record of how these laws have been interpreted and carried out.  This is simply one of the things that White culture owes Blacks.  White Culture owes Black Culture this because the historical record has shown that Whites have been very shaky in their ability to deal with other folks in any sort of consistent and just fashion, before we were a nation on this continent, and certainly afterward.


So…America is terribly inconsistent with cultural progress & justice compared to what other continent? Africa?

Sorry, Bob. Doesn’t fly with me.

I beg you to take a really good look at CONGRESS. They’re a colorful bunch. If that’s not a statement for progress upon race in the White House, then I don’t know what else is. Despite our tall, dark & handsome President, RACE is a bankrupted issue with me. But our economy being bankrupted? Now that’s an issue.

Special favors?

I like special favors from my loved ones and I like to pay them special attention, too. I just don’t want them from the Gov. They suck at getting to know me well enough to cater to my tastes and whims, but then that’s really not their job, now is it.  Nor should it be their job to look up my cultural skirt while overlooking my poor test grades!!

quote:
With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that - there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects. Sotomayor


I’m sorry. Affirmative action? So….Academically? She supports a system that devalues people for face value as if they could never know or achieve their own worth. And she accepted a position despite knowing she didn’t deserve it above her more qualified peers. AND THEN she wants to make negative statements toward the culture that basically made sure she was a shoe in.

You bet your bippy I question her balance on the bench and it ain’t got nothing to do with race but the foundations of her character. Period.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


70 posted 08-02-2009 10:23 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Bob,

That last post of yours was a well thought out and put together piece.

I just thought I'd mention it in case you got the impression that nobody read it.

Mike,

Nice baseball story. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how the legal system and how precedents work within that system but I guess you can't have everything.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


71 posted 08-02-2009 10:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Thank you for giving the EDITED and OUT OF CONTEXT version of the quote WITHOUT MENTIONING IT.

     Perhaps, once again, you were hoping that I wouldn't look or check.  

     If you decide to go back and check, it's the  quote next to the one you gave that says THE ENTIRE QUOTE under it.  Why they would try to hide it like that is beyond me.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


72 posted 08-02-2009 10:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    My mistake, it's labeled COURTS MAKE POLICY FULL CLIP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&NR=1

    There is a distinction she makes, by the way.

Dear Grinch,

           Thank you.  I was wondering what the connection was between what I was saying and the response I was getting.  

     It's nice to know that my prose was actually clear enough to be understood by somebody else, and that the logic was at least followable.  Thank you thank you and thank you again.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 08-03-2009 03:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, whenever I hope you won't look or check, I won't included the link.

Yes, I understand your "out of context" tactic. It's the same one you have used in the past. I remember it when I went back to display your comments in naming Clinton as a main contributor to the economic fiasco, as if whatever was said before or after changed the actual things you said. This is no different. She make a comment and then employs CYA to cover it.

Yes, we all have comments from others we admire. I think rwood's comments are right on, as well as Denise's. Sometimes they  get recognized and some times they don't. I always read your comments, Bob, although sometimes there are so many words I lose the point or meaning....call it my loss, if you will.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 08-03-2009 01:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Wow!

Sincerely, Bob Kaven    
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Racial Profiling inthe White House?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors