What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
95 Comments
- novenator, on 05/27/2009, -14/+35It didn't take the wingnuts long to start regurgitating their attack talking points. They are so predictable.
- teebird, on 05/28/2009, -4/+18If it were as easy as you say it is, we wouldn't need a constitutional court because there would be no constitutional issues to decide.
- kasjogren, on 05/28/2009, -3/+16The only reason Thomas is on the court is that people go so distracted by his pubes on a coke can that they forgot to figure out if he was a good juror or not (answer=no)
- novenator, on 05/27/2009, -10/+22anyone who calls that marxist is obviously a fascist.
- Hetman, on 05/28/2009, -2/+14That kind of changed after the civil war. That war was fought over state rights.
- teebird, on 05/28/2009, -2/+13How does Judge Sotomayorr stating that her background as a Hispanic shapes her perspective make her a racist? Each of us is the total of our experiences and and race is a component of experience for all of us, even though we might not always be aware of the fact.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -7/+17LOL join us once again for another multi-part episode of "When Right Wing Fruitcakes Whine And Cry"
- USArugula, on 05/28/2009, -3/+13@ jsffive
Are you saying we should scrap everything else and rely solely to the law contained within to the constitution? Does that include the part that says black people are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population? - USArugula, on 05/28/2009, -2/+12"It's people like you who keep this garbage alive by reaching into history for things that are no longer relevant, again and again."
Are you a constitutionalist or are you not, sir? You argue that is the only relevant law. Then, by God, stand by your words and stand by the full constitution. You cannot have it both ways. - hawkspur, on 05/28/2009, -13/+23The right-wingers on Digg hide in the upcoming section, clinging onto their increasing lack of mainstream support as they fade into a deep hole of down shovels. It's like a microcosm of real life!
- Batfishy, on 05/28/2009, -1/+11@Erich -
Here's one of your friend's submissions -
http://digg.com/educational/THIS_IS_A_REAL_1876_CA ...
Talk about keeping garbage alive. - kemp34, on 05/28/2009, -1/+10mgraham: FWIW, I did not bury you and can see some sense in your position. However, I think policies that promote race-based decision making (as opposed to simply treating people objectively as individuals) is in fact racist. Upholding such laws is then a form of racism. If two people take a test on nuclear physics (an objective knowledge test of INDIVIDUAL expertise) and one scores a 95 and the other scores an 85 and the 85 score earner is chosen solely because he is black and the 95 scorer is white, that is blatant racism. You can try to rationalize it by saying "so and so had to overcome so much to achieve the 85 and therefore that 85 is more valuable than the other guy's 95" but then you are judging all sorts of NON-OBJECTIVE factors and throwing out the clear objective individual facts. While I think all folks should work individually to help uplift individuals of groups who may have faced historical difficulty, it is destructive to our system of laws to try to insert this thinking into a legal system. Once the legal system loses its objective nature of treating each person as an INDIVIDUAL you have really thrown out a key aspect of the rule of law and are headed to an ugly swamp of individual bias. Needless to say, each individual (regardless of race) should be behind the idea of treating people based on their objective individual merits as opposed to giving benefits based on their phenotype.
- teebird, on 05/28/2009, -4/+12Race is a factor in American society and it affects all of us and our way of looking at the world. That would be true even if the country were populated by people who were all of the same race because that would affect our way of viewing countries populated by races different from ours. Much of what we do and who we are is determined by difference and identity and how we deal with them To say that this is true doesn't make a person a racist. To deny that this is true make you a blind fool.
- booksnmore4you, on 05/27/2009, -16/+24Stick http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whitep ... in your hat and call it macaroni.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+9Irony
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
What alais stated being ironic, isn't. - johnnyg113, on 05/28/2009, -2/+9Do you have any proof she was chosen based on race and gender and that she's less qualified then the other candidates?
She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, went to Yale Law school where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. She was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush.
So what exactly about her is unqualified?
And no, she is not racist, assuming you are referring to the quote taken out of context by the right. Unless you have some whitey tape like Michelle Obama's supposed one. - TheNik, on 05/28/2009, -3/+9Right wing: "Socialist! WARRGARBLRLGLR!!"
Left wing: "Fascist! Racist!... FASCIST!"
Libertarian: "The Federal Reserve is the cancer of our ecom--Wait, bro, you're suppose to pass it to the left." - Batfishy, on 05/29/2009, -1/+7Erich - I have taken her submission out of context? That’s not a good defense of Lizbett's position. Clearly, she won't even debate a liberal, see her profile.
Start using some critical thinking skills before you defend liz and her ideologies. - teebird, on 05/28/2009, -4/+10@apackofmonkeys
Yes, I do read the news, including the parts that you either didn't bother to read or didn't understand.
The city of New Haven threw out the results of the exam because, in their judgment, they constituted a possible violation of Title VII of the federal civil rights law.
Title VII requires employers to take into account the racial consequences of hiring and promotion decisions to avoid inadvertent as well as overt racism. - Kyzzyxx, on 05/28/2009, -3/+8Here is a more complete excerpt from that speech:
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you."
And here is the complete speech"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15ju ...
What she is trying to express is how she tries to stay diligent in NOT letting any prejudices and biases that she may have from her unique life experiences unfairly effect her rulings. So for you ***** to take one small paragraph of the entire speech and twist it's meaning to make her look like the racist to further your agenda is, in itself, a racist act and YOU are the true racists here. Her intellect in trying to explain a very subtle issue just goes to show how you ***** can't comprehend the subtlety of an issue and also shows the true failings of the people that are attacking her in this way. - deathandtaverns, on 05/28/2009, -3/+8how is that ironic?
- asgardshill, on 05/28/2009, -11/+16Ah, I see the butthurt little band of freepers has dragged itself out of bed and is busily posting on Digg.
- mgraham80, on 05/28/2009, -4/+9apackofmonkeys, so the other 5 judges on the court that made the same decision as Sotomayer, they're racist too? Including the white judges?
OK, if you say so! - ironhide, on 05/28/2009, -3/+8alais is confused by his/her handle. He/she thought they were Alanis.
- oldhick, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5With each comment you make, you're looking more and more ridiculous. I too do not like and never did like Alito. Calling him a Nazi is silly and ignorant.
- kingnova, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5She didn't rule on the merits of the case, oldhick. She ruled on whether, by law, they COULD take up the case and make a ruling.
Big difference. In this case, she may not have liked the decision, but was compelled, by law, to pass on it.
Kinda like how she empathized with the NYPD over the racist white cop, but felt compelled, by law, to not let him be fired, due to first amendment protection.
You are chastising her (rather harshly) not for a decision she made, but for following case law. - booksnmore4you, on 05/28/2009, -10/+15Someone who is so ignorant as to call the piece "Marxism" is not worth taking seriously in the slightest.
- mgraham80, on 05/28/2009, -2/+6Because he got the most votes?
That was easy. Next question? - kemp34, on 05/28/2009, -4/+8mgraham: I have a problem when folks practice objective racism. Her decision in the firefighting test case indicates a willingness to drift into race-based decision making in her role as a judge. This erodes an objective legal framework (any race-based decisions in any direction should be avoided, the court should focus on objective facts). If the firefighting test asked questions about some European ethnic cuisine or something, obviously that should be tossed out, but it appears as though the test represented true OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE of firefighting and it was tossed out because the top performers happened to be white. This is a problem and indicates race being placed above objective measures. This is racism. Additionally, she has been a member of the Latino group "La Raza", imagine the outcry (which I would be included in) if a white Supreme Court Nominee (!!) had been a member of a white advocacy group called "The Race"! I mean come on, let's be internally consistent in our thinking.
Finally, I am not a "righty" per se, more of an individualist libertarian constitutionalist. Maybe you consider that being a "righty" but I see the label "righty" applied to so many things that I AM NOT, that I do not like being called that. Package deal logical fallacy and whatnot... - danlowlite, on 05/28/2009, -7/+10@NeoConTyranny
One argument against white organizations as similar to the NAACP and so forth (and male ones similar to NOW and every other organization) is this: Those organizations already exist. They are called current establishments. White is considered the default. All year is white history, blacks get one month, etc.
I don't have an opinion on the argument, but if you don't think white privilege doesn't exist, I'm not going to even try to convince you here. - kasjogren, on 05/28/2009, -12/+15No. Not in context. Of course if everyone talked about words taken in context we wouldn't have this retarded sharks vs jets pissing contest every day and we might have to work.
OH THE HORROR - USArugula, on 05/29/2009, -1/+4Ah, yes, the 15th Amendment: when people woke up and said, "Hey, part of this document we've been living by for more than 100 years ago is very wrong and we need to write a new law to fix it."
Are you arguing for following the constitution, sir, or changing it? - oldhick, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4I'm a prejudiced piece of Republican trash? Well, we can rule the Republican aspect out right away. I'm NOT a republican. Haven't voted Republican in a long, long time.
As for prejudiced... Well, if not being happy with her decision in this case makes it so in your mind, well then not much I can do about it. Have you seen the test? I haven't so I can't comment on it. There are hundreds of thousands of reasons why certain people didn't score high on an exam that we haven't seen.
If you can highlight the questions for me that you think specific minorities can't answer than we can discuss that. Until then you just get to call me names and charge me with being prejudiced.
My response is simply, no I'm not. I think my reputation speaks for itself. I'm far from perfect, but I'm not a Republican and I am not a bigot. - kingnova, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3@oldhick
"A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New York affirmed Judge Arterton’s ruling in an unusually terse decision. By a vote of 7 to 6, the full appeals court declined to rehear the case and issued a set of heated opinions in the process. The six dissenting judges urged the Supreme Court to step in."
The Supreme Court did step in. She didn't rule in favor of the decision. She was part of the group that declined to rehear the case. You can read the decision and opinions at uscourts.gov - AgeofMastery, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3They stay on the FP because of people recruited from other boards who come over, digg the story and leave, hence the lack of comments promoting the story.
- kemp34, on 05/28/2009, -6/+9How would a firefighting test, based on OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE of how to fight fires, be racist?
Seems to me, the merits of one's knowledge in the subject should be all that matter and it is up to each INDIVIDUAL to step it up and master the subject.
Then we could do as MLK advised and JUDGE EACH BY HIS OR HER CHARACTER based on objective criteria. - oldhick, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3@kingnova, excellent reply. I was looking forward to an explanation. I was looking forward to the "other opinion" and I'm grateful for your reply. I was not looking for a pathetic and ridiculous attack like eadint made. I know Novenator and I generally like the novenators reasoning and was interested. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I greatly appreciate a thought out and reasoned response. Thank you.
- oldhick, on 05/28/2009, -5/+8@novenator, so you're comfortable with her ruling aganist the firemen in CT? Help me understand how you can rationalize that. Seriously, that seems like one of the most disgusting and despicable rulings I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
It turns my stomach, but obviously not yours so help me out with your thinking on it. - teebird, on 05/28/2009, -2/+5@apackofmonkeys
Yes, I read the WHOLE statement and I spent some time thinking about its implications, which you obviously didn't, which is why you keep repeating the same empty nonsense instead of having anything intelligent to offer. - mrukz, on 05/28/2009, -10/+13Am I on another planet? What is all this crap about Marxism? It would be nice to know what one talks about before exercising the keyboard.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -6/+9She made the mistake of being honest and admtting it, but let the right-wingers blow off some steam, in the end, all their posturing will come to naught.
- mgraham80, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4Win.
- teebird, on 05/28/2009, -6/+8@kemp34
The legal issue wasn't whether the test was "racist," but that the city of New Haven believed that accepting the test results possibly put them in violation of Title VII of the civil rights act. To understand this, you have to be familiar with the language of Title VII and the way it's been applied over the years.
And note also, as someone else in the thread has done already, that Sotomayor was part of a panel of judges that ruled on the New Haven firefighter case, so she wasn't alone in her legal opinion. - normlsparky, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4hawkspur's observation is sound. The wingnuts band together on groups like diggcons to push their stories to the front page. When one of them does hit the FP, the story is usually buried by the masses or the right wing comments are buried into the triple digit range. Like this one:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/All_Christians_a ... - teebird, on 05/28/2009, -2/+3@scoottie
How did Don Imus get into this discussion? How is Imus or anything he says relevant to a discussion of the fitness of a federal judge to be a Supreme Court justice??? - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -7/+8Can you be more specific?
Last time I checked "immigrant" wasn't a race. - Erich100, on 05/29/2009, -1/+2Following the constitution is preferable to anything I am aware of.
Do you propose the scrapping of the constitution?
What are you trying to convey by harping on things that have already been remedied? What relevance does it have to today? - teebird, on 05/28/2009, -6/+7@rbiii
So...if someone has possibley gained a broader range of social experience because of having lived as a member of a minority in this country, it's "racist" to believe that it might have a positive affect on her decision-making? - apackofmonkeys, on 05/28/2009, -2/+3All I see from your "more complete excerpt" is a woman who repeatedly states that for a white man to actually be able to attain the inherent wisdom and understanding of a Latina woman takes a lot more "time and effort". That's called r-a-c-i-s-m.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is