Comments on: BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor in Firefighter Case

By: seesalrun

seesalrun — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:06:41 +0000

as they don’t even read the multi-trillion full of sh*t bills they pass destined to ruin our economy. Who cares about a SC Justice’s resume….next…

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:59:14 +0000

SCOTUS Empathy - SCOTUS Empathy +2001 Redistributive Justice video Obama's 2001 Redistributive Justice video +Identity Politics - Identity Politics +Hispanic SCOTUS nominee - first Hispanic on SCOTUS? +SoSo NOT the first (Benjamin Cardozo) - Yahoo: Is Sotomayor the First (or Second) Hispanic Pick for the Supreme Court? A:second (First was a Republican appointment) and of course, Obama should get his way? -- But he's Black: Stop Monkeying around Mulatto

By: wayneinnh

wayneinnh — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:58:02 +0000

I think it’s more like “Hold my beer, watch this.”

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:57:13 +0000

at least they could be excused if they were trying to impress a girl.

By: eburke

eburke — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:07:03 +0000

around Soto’s neck, and by extension Obama’s.

And it’s exactly why those who are saying we shouldn’t spend the energy on this are wrong. They may be, and are, correct when they say the average person is clueless about who’s on the SCOTUS, but this is one of those fundamental ‘fairness’ things that cause even American Idol folks to get their shorts in a wad. This case is a hanging curve ball for being able to quickly and easily talk about the kind of ‘justice’ that libs & Obama want.

But we can’t do that if we don’t fight the fight. You may not win every fight you get into but you lose 100% of the ones you take a powder on.

By: eburke

eburke — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:58:06 +0000

Reminds me of the old saw:

Q: What are the most oft spoken words by Darwin Award winners?

A: Watch this!

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:43:56 +0000

When unemployment, inflation, interest rates are all in high double digits.

Sadly, every generation or so people have to learn again the hard way just what hateful screw ups the lefties are.

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:38:12 +0000

it is hard to be a libertarian-conservative, a believer in the individual; yet also realize how our nation and people have become so stupid and thick. I know it was hard for me to come to this conclusion, but the Founders made one fatal flaw, they assumed an informed and caring populace. We just saw the largest government takeover vote in history, yet all anyone cares about is Michael Jackson and car chases. Fox, by the way is the worst offender. Here is an example of our nation of farmer idealists.

By: wayneinnh

wayneinnh — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:22:53 +0000

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:10:28 +0000

really… I’ve always known there were a good degree of folks asleep and the switch and looking to pull the JackAss lever so they could claim to “Care” and then go back to coasting by…. But I’ve gotta tell ya with the last Election I practically wept because of the realization that these folks are beyond lazy and asleep and just plain DUMB! Time goes by post election and we get more and more insult upon insult coming out of DC and so many Americans just prove they are just beyond STUPID! That Baracklash may not be coming, I fear for my Country really for the First Time! The SoSo purely Racist/Classism/Sexism appointment, and that many will still fall for it and say “sure, let’s let someone who just had their hand slapped for stupidity in a ruling” by the existing SCOTUS be seated upon it. There are a whole lotta folks that deserve the pain the have coming to them, but the trouble (of course) is that the rest of us have to suffer too for their stupidity (it is no longer a question of Ignorance, but wanton desire to remain Deaf, Dumb, and Blind).

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:10:28 +0000

By: Achance

Achance — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:34:50 +0000

By saying it was because the Blacks didn’t do well, they made it an illegal race-based reason. I think they could have even gone so far as to say that because of the result they were re-evaluating their selection criteria and testing scheme and been OK.

That said, on the question as the USSC framed it, I agree with the decision, but I’m not going to try to pretend there wasn’t a certain amount of judicial activism of the more conservative kind to get to a place where they could opine on it.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:18:43 +0000

New Haven was stupid to say that they would not promote those who passed the test because all the blacks failed to pass the test. They could have just said that at this time the money is not there for anyone to get a promotion. This answer goes more to the concern of the amicus brief allowing a local government some flexibility on decisions concerning promotions. There are usually words to the effect that passing a test is a requirement for promotion, but I have never seen words to the effect that passing a test is a guarantee to a promotion.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:14:20 +0000

if I understand you correctly the amicus was in support of the gov’t being allowed to hire/fire/promote as they see fit, like “right to work”. But the majority opinion didn’t really deal with the promotion from what I read, it dealt with the idea of the test being certified or not.

So the amicus and the majority opinion are not within conflict and further the amicus and Sotomayor’s summary order are not the same position.

Is that correct?

By: Achance

Achance — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:05:00 +0000

is that of the governmental amici. They are saying that promotion is a mere expectation, something very consistent with Alaska law, don’t know the others, and that the petitioners had suffered no immediate harm in that there wasn’t a present case or controvesy until such time as someone was actually discriminated against in conferring a promotion. Basically, they’re saying the US should stay out of the issue at this stage of the game, a position with which I agree. Go read the brief.

By: Achance

Achance — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:53:45 +0000

Theirs is a very narrowly tailored position in which they assert that the essence of the petioners’ theory is that since they passed, the respondent is obligated to promote them. Amici say they are under no obligation to promote anyone at any time, no matter what; a position with which I agree. I’ve been through lots of recruitments where because of a union contract, EEO, politics, whatever, we did not want to hire or promote whoever we would have been required or directed to hire or promote, so our answer was to not hire or promote anyone, just leave the job vacant or keep someone in acting.

I doubt anyone in the Governors Office knew or even cared about this case. This is the sort of thing that Administrations HR/LR people and Law’s Labor and State Affairs attornies would have known about and the acting AG would have had the discretion to do as he pleased.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:47:45 +0000

6eorge Jetson…candidate for Golden Glove 2009…Hundred plus tags embedded in titles…only 2 Errors…fielding percentage = 0.980

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:44:33 +0000

By: jimmyg

jimmyg — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:39:36 +0000

The governor appoints the AG who is part of the Executive Branch of govt..
This brief, which supported the respondents position, is the position of the State of Alaska, and specifially the Executive Branch of the State of Alaska. I don’t know Gov. Palin’s feelings about this breif, other than what her appointed Attorney General has put his signiture to. I don’t beleive the legislature can order the executive branch of govt. to file briefs in support of any position. The State of Alaska could have stayed out of this matter. It did not, their AG joined an amicus brief in support of the City of New Haven.
What I trying to say in answer to your first question, did Gov. Palin support this brief, She is the boss, and I would have to say she did. If she says she did not support the breif she is going to look silly, or asleep at the wheel.

By: red4ever

red4ever — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:24:53 +0000

But better than not even trying. Sotomayor just went “White guys have no case.” At least, according to what I have heard having not read the whole thing yet, Ginsburg tried to come up with some justification for “white guys have no case.’

This is a Constitution we are expounding — Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.