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

[JagTider]

Share
 

Well said, RamJamHam.

[cbi1972]

Lower court follows precedent.
SC changes precedent, reversing lower court.
Lower court is "wrong" in retrospect, but not at the time the decision was made.

What the heck is there to argue about, other than definitions and preconceptions of "law" and "interpretation"

[Bamabuzzard]

What amazes me is the people FAILED the test. What's there to argue about? I mean if we're going to start changing every single "process" every time blacks don't pass then hell we might as well stop all the red tape and trying to hide behind what's really trying to be done. Just GIVE IT to them. Passing tests, not passing tests, qualified or unqualified really doesn't matter. If we're that hell bent on making sure blacks are "equally represented" in every single area of society then just give it to them. Geez, enough is enough.

[Islander]

	Quote:	cbi1972
	Lower court follows precedent. SC changes precedent, reversing lower court. Lower court is "wrong" in retrospect, but not at the time the decision was made. What the heck is there to argue about, other than definitions and preconceptions of "law" and "interpretation"

SC did not change the precedent but ruled that the precedent decision was wrong to begin with and since when did we need a reason to argue-I believe many here argue just to get under other peoples skin.

[JagTider]

	Quote:	cbi1972
	Lower court follows precedent. SC changes precedent, reversing lower court. Lower court is "wrong" in retrospect, but not at the time the decision was made. What the heck is there to argue about, other than definitions and preconceptions of "law" and "interpretation"

It was a 7-6 split in the lower court, so about half weren't following precedent and therefore about half were wrong. Just because the SC made a ruling doesn't mean that they changed the interpretation (which would change precedence). They may have just as well been ruling that the previous precedent was not being followed by the lower court.

[Vinny]

These firemen were on Cavuto a few months ago, I caught the end of the interview and did not know they were from CT. I hope to god this woman does not get on the USSC.
Posted via Mobile Device

[bamacon]

	Quote:	JagTider
	Well said, RamJamHam.

While I am happy for the firefighters I was disappointed that the SC didn't address Title VII. To all the Sotomayor supporters you need to read the opinions because they were all critical of how dismissive the lower court had been of the Constitutional issues that were easyily found in this case.

Scalia wanted to address the issue really at hand also and said the day of reckoning on Title VII was coming and I think it is.

"Justice Antonin Scalia wanted to go further in the Ricci ruling.
He wrote, in a concurring opinion, that the majority opinion merely “postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?”
Scalia suggested that the two notions — avoiding a racially “disparate” result on a test, and protecting people’s rights — are at odds."

WINNER WINNER! CHICKEN DINNER!

Link here

[TommyMac]

	Quote:	JagTider
	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.

That was masterful.