Politics: Sonia Sotomayor Decision Overturned - Supreme Court rules in favor of white firefight - Page 2

swoop10 · June 29th, 2009, 05:34 PM

	Quote:	derek4tide
	In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority that denied a rehearing of the case by the full court. She wasn't the only justice in the ruling, so why the misleading title to your thread? Judge Sotomayor and the other 6 were simplying upholding federal law. She was doing her duty as a judge by not creating new law or reinterpreting the law as so many judges do today.

How were they upholding fed law when they were overturned. Seems to me that if they were upholding fed law then the SC would have decided on their side. I don't really expect an answer because you and some others here seem to never answer when you asked some tough questions.

jthomas666 · June 29th, 2009, 07:13 PM

	Quote:	swoop10
	How were they upholding fed law when they were overturned. Seems to me that if they were upholding fed law then the SC would have decided on their side. I don't really expect an answer because you and some others here seem to never answer when you asked some tough questions.

I love your blind acceptance that whatever the majority rules is "upholding the law". I somehow doubt you have been as blindly accepting of all SC decisions.

As for your question: Different people have different opinions about the same subject. As amazing as it may seem, rational, educated people can read the same law and reach different conclusions as to its meaning. As a result, there are many times in which even judges disagree on a point of law; that's one of the reasons we have a group of justices instead of a single justice. The group of appellate judges (one of which was Sotomayor) that reviewed the initial decision, ruled 7-6 to turn down a request for a re-trial. As a rule, retrials are generally granted on procedural errors or misconduct--not because of a particularly murky point of law.

Even the SC had trouble with the case; not only was the final rulling 5-4, but even the justices who voted to overturn had no real consensus on the matter. IIRC, only one justice (Alito) found fault with the appellate court's ruling.

JagTider · June 29th, 2009, 07:31 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	I love your blind acceptance that whatever the majority rules is "upholding the law". I somehow doubt you have been as blindly accepting of all SC decisions. As for your question: Different people have different opinions about the same subject. As amazing as it may seem, rational, educated people can read the same law and reach different conclusions as to its meaning. As a result, there are many times in which even judges disagree on a point of law; that's one of the reasons we have a group of justices instead of a single justice. The group of appellate judges (one of which was Sotomayor) that reviewed the initial decision, ruled 7-6 to turn down a request for a re-trial. As a rule, retrials are generally granted on procedural errors or misconduct--not because of a particularly murky point of law. Even the SC had trouble with the case; not only was the final rulling 5-4, but even the justices who voted to overturn had no real consensus on the matter. IIRC, only one justice (Alito) found fault with the appellate court's ruling.

How in the world does that show that she was upholding the law? Not all judges agree, so it's not law? Where would this leave Roe vs Wade? I guess it's not law because there would not be a consesus opinion? Or would it only be law if they had confirmed her decision? That "blind acceptance that whatever the majority rules is "upholding the law"", is the law. Just like conservatives have to do when the SC comes down with a ruling we don't like, accept it. The SC decided that she was wrong and therefore not upholding the law because she did not interpret (use whatever legal term you want to here) it correctly.

jthomas666 · June 29th, 2009, 08:09 PM

	Quote:	JagTider
	How in the world does that show that she was upholding the law? Not all judges agree, so it's not law? Where would this leave Roe vs Wade? I guess it's not law because there would not be a consesus opinion? Or would it only be law if they had confirmed her decision? That "blind acceptance that whatever the majority rules is "upholding the law"", is the law. Just like conservatives have to do when the SC comes down with a ruling we don't like, accept it. The SC decided that she was wrong and therefore not upholding the law because she did not interpret (use whatever legal term you want to here) it correctly.

Oh, for the love of God.

Let's try this a little more slowly.
The 2nd appellate court made its ruling in the PAST. The ruling was made on the accepted interpretation of that law AT THAT TIME.

The Supreme Court made it's ruing TODAY. That interpretation of the law did not exist until TODAY.

It is patently ludicrous to claim that the 2nd appellate court failed to uphold the law based on an interpretation of the law that did not exist when they made their ruling.

swoop10 · June 29th, 2009, 08:17 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	Oh, for the love of God. Let's try this a little more slowly. The 2nd appellate court made its ruling in the PAST. The ruling was made on the accepted interpretation of that law AT THAT TIME. The Supreme Court made it's ruing TODAY. That interpretation of the law did not exist until TODAY. It is patently ludicrous to claim that the 2nd appellate court failed to uphold the law based on an interpretation of the law that did not exist when they made their ruling.

So until today it was okay to discriminate against white people.

Please this was a Title VII law and that law has been around for quite some time. This may be the first time it has become an issue for the SC,as far as the discriminating against white people goes, but for you to say that the law didn't exist is wrong.

Relayer · June 29th, 2009, 08:49 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	Oh, for the love of God. Let's try this a little more slowly. The 2nd appellate court made its ruling in the PAST. The ruling was made on the accepted interpretation of that law AT THAT TIME. The Supreme Court made it's ruing TODAY. That interpretation of the law did not exist until TODAY. It is patently ludicrous to claim that the 2nd appellate court failed to uphold the law based on an interpretation of the law that did not exist when they made their ruling.

Oh boy, is that weak (not to mention arrogant).

The Supreme Court is just that because they ultimately determine if a lower court has made the correct interpretation/application of the law.

The verdict in this case: INCORRECT interpretation by Sotomayor. She/they failed to uphold the law.

jthomas666 · June 29th, 2009, 08:51 PM

	Quote:	swoop10
	So until today it was okay to discriminate against white people. Please this was a Title VII law and that law has been around for quite some time. This may be the first time it has become an issue for the SC,as far as the discriminating against white people goes, but for you to say that the law didn't exist is wrong.

And if I had actually said that the law didn't exist, you would have a point. However, I never said that Title VII did not exist. Never said it. You can go peddle that strawman somewhere else.

Pay attention: The interpretation of the law is what changed.

swoop10 · June 29th, 2009, 09:10 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	And if I had actually said that the law didn't exist, you would have a point. However, I never said that Title VII did not exist. Never said it. You can go peddle that strawman somewhere else. Pay attention: The *interpretation* of the law is what changed.

I'm not trying to peddle anything so you can take that somewhere else. The interpretation of the law hasn't changed, just because it is the first time it has been used in this way doesn't mean it has changed.

jthomas666 · June 29th, 2009, 11:08 PM

	Quote:	swoop10
	I'm not trying to peddle anything so you can take that somewhere else.

Whatever. You attributed claims to me that I did not make in order to strengthen your position. That's pretty much the definition of a strawman.

	Quote:
	The interpretation of the law hasn't changed, just because it is the first time it has been used in this way doesn't mean it has changed.

If we cannot agree on the definition of the word "interpret" there is little point in continuing this discussion.

RamJamHam · June 30th, 2009, 12:24 PM

The real tragedy here is that the SC has once again ducked the real issue, that being whether discrimination is allowable in any form.

Whether you call it affirmative action or some other euphemism, if you get the job and I don't, then I have lost and you have won. If you got the job for any reason other than you superior perceived ability to perform said job, that is discrimination pure and simple. It was discrimination when white folks wouldn't give jobs to black folks simply because they are black, and it is discrimination when the government gives jobs to black folks simply because they are black. Whether you are for it or against it, the only thing that changes under affirmative action is the result; there is still a clear winner and a clear loser.

It appears that most of the reason for invalidating the test consisted of (i) it came out wrong (i.e., didn't meet the quotas), and (ii) a black minister was threatening to cause political problems for the mayor if no black folks got any of these promotions in spite of their inability to pas a test that had been processed for fairness within an inch of its life and was available for everyone equally.

I found it interesting that the one black fire captain (I believe) pretty well said the test was what it was, and the folks that passed it deserved to be promoted. Especially when 40% of the test was oral, there was a pretty comprehensive study guide, and the designers of the test had apparently gone above and beyond in following actual supervisors around to determine what their jobs actually entailed and to tailor the questions accordingly.

What was "unfair" or "discriminatory" about this test was that a black minister there thought the results were wrong, he threatened the mayor with political reprisal, and the mayor and his legal staff chose to hide behind the disparate impact analysis for political cover. To be fair, the trial court and the appellate court agreed, with the SC stepping in and saying that the fear of a disparate impact lawsuit is not of itself a disparate impact.

CrimsonNan · June 30th, 2009, 02:53 PM

	Quote:	RamJamHam
	The real tragedy here is that the SC has once again ducked the real issue, that being whether discrimination is allowable in any form. Whether you call it affirmative action or some other euphemism, if you get the job and I don't, then I have lost and you have won. If you got the job for any reason other than you superior perceived ability to perform said job, that is discrimination pure and simple. It was discrimination when white folks wouldn't give jobs to black folks simply because they are black, and it is discrimination when the government gives jobs to black folks simply because they are black. Whether you are for it or against it, the only thing that changes under affirmative action is the result; there is still a clear winner and a clear loser. It appears that most of the reason for invalidating the test consisted of (i) it came out wrong (i.e., didn't meet the quotas), and (ii) a black minister was threatening to cause political problems for the mayor if no black folks got any of these promotions in spite of their inability to pas a test that had been processed for fairness within an inch of its life and was available for everyone equally. I found it interesting that the one black fire captain (I believe) pretty well said the test was what it was, and the folks that passed it deserved to be promoted. Especially when 40% of the test was oral, there was a pretty comprehensive study guide, and the designers of the test had apparently gone above and beyond in following actual supervisors around to determine what their jobs actually entailed and to tailor the questions accordingly. What was "unfair" or "discriminatory" about this test was that a black minister there thought the results were wrong, he threatened the mayor with political reprisal, and the mayor and his legal staff chose to hide behind the disparate impact analysis for political cover. To be fair, the trial court and the appellate court agreed, with the SC stepping in and saying that the fear of a disparate impact lawsuit is not of itself a disparate impact.

Applause...applause. So simple the way you put it.

cbi1972 · June 30th, 2009, 02:54 PM

Apparently, reality's bias is not as liberal as we have been told.

JagTider · June 30th, 2009, 03:21 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	Oh, for the love of God. Let's try this a little more slowly. The 2nd appellate court made its ruling in the PAST. The ruling was made on the accepted interpretation of that law AT THAT TIME. The Supreme Court made it's ruing TODAY. That interpretation of the law did not exist until TODAY. It is patently ludicrous to claim that the 2nd appellate court failed to uphold the law based on an interpretation of the law that did not exist when they made their ruling.

You can "oh, for the love of god" and make all sort of condesending remarks about having to slow things down for those of us that aren't quite as self righteous or elitist as yourself, but I think it falls into the common sense department to accept that the old girl interpreted the law wrongfully according to the SC. I don't care whether she made her interpretation 20 yrs ago and the SC just yesterday said she interpreted it wrong - it's still wrong today. She interpreted it one way. The SC says that is to be interpreted another. SC trumps her. Her interpretation of the law and how it was applied to this case was wrong according to the SC! What don't you see? Do I need to slow it down for you?

You have to remember that this was the interpretation of a specific law being applied to a specific case. Your argument doesn't logically make sense by saying that she isn't wrong now because, at the time, the SC had not yet decided that she was wrong. With that logic, no interpretation of the law can be wrong (or right) since all of our laws are open to future interpretation and review.

Still trying to understand this little dig: "I love your blind acceptance that whatever the majority rules is "upholding the law". That's pretty much how our legal system works. And I'm still waiting on your response to what difference does it make whether the decision is unanimous or a majority. You wrote a whole paragraph on it so were you hunting some moral victory for her or something?

BTW, I'm sure she's not the first judge to have a decision reversed and then went on to become a SCJ (which I believe she will), so don't let her being wrong get your knickers in such a twist.

And as long as you are wanting to talk about fallacies of arguments - you need to check out the ones on ad hominem, diversion and selective reading just to start.