What is Digg?203 Comments
- drmangrum, on 07/01/2009, -3/+82There is no such thing as reverse-racism. There is only racism.
The correct phrase would be: Affirmative Action is just government sanctioned racism. - Elranzer, on 06/30/2009, -20/+72Affirmative Action™ is just reverse-racism.
- allocate, on 06/29/2009, -7/+48All these statistics about Sotomayor's cases are somewhat self-selecting as the Supreme Court generally doesn't take cases unless there's a decent chance that they'll reverse.
- JoeMondo, on 06/30/2009, -20/+59She did the right thing by upholding the precedent.
The court did the right thing by overturning it. - skelooth, on 07/01/2009, -4/+37Well, affirmative action fails hard when it prevents qualified hardworking people from the jobs and promotions they deserve. There are all sorts of percentages of non white hirings that government and equal opportunity employers have to fill as quotas. It's wrong. As an old coworker once put it, "Everyone who interviews should just come in dressed as a clown so you don't know what ethnicity they are."
- drmangrum, on 07/01/2009, -6/+38I'm glad this case got overturned, people who deserve a promotion should get it. As long as the criteria and selection process are fair, the law shouldn't be involved.
However, this case isn't what bothered me about her. She had precedent and law on her side; There wasn't much she could do. What does bother me is her statement that insinuated that all white men had bland lives free of life experience and Hispanic women are the polar opposite. Rationale like that disturbs me. - GriffCo, on 07/01/2009, -2/+27Reverse-Racism is used because if someone says something is "racist against caucasians" because most people think racism is only possible against minorities....
- schragnasher, on 07/01/2009, -2/+26Don't care about soto, i just simply must applaud the overruling and wonder how on earth the other 4 justices can justify such a blatant act of race discrimination. For gods sake they said they were specifically avoiding a lawsuit because of the race of the men.
- yunus, on 07/01/2009, -3/+26So your saying the system worked. But we can't have that we need controversy!
- skyjis6, on 07/01/2009, -1/+23As a black male the fact that it's so hard for black people to understand this disheartens me. The sooner minorities (and the courts) understand it, the better off this country will be.
- Tehngion, on 07/01/2009, -2/+23And reverse racism is still just racism. Why bother with the "reverse" moniker?
- novenator, on 06/29/2009, -6/+26you a betting man?
- novenator, on 06/29/2009, -15/+34you don't know what you're talking about. Sonia Sotomayor rejected the New Haven firefighters' claim because it threatened to burn down civil rights law: http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
(And aren't conservatives always going on about how they think judges should interpret the law, not make new law?) - BigVi, on 06/30/2009, -8/+22Im sorry, but you hae to live up to your own standards. Thats why the SC Gov deserves to get called out, and its why Obama needs to give more than a BS answer like his press secretary did today. People need to be held up to their OWN standards at the very least.
- falafelkiosken, on 07/01/2009, -1/+15fighting discrimination with discrimination is like... fighting fire with fire
- davebg8r, on 07/01/2009, -2/+16For those of you calling the Supremes 'activist judges' for this: what is the supposed 'new law' they are creating? There is no new law. The actions taken by New Haven were discriminatory. They unfairly treated the most qualified people based on race. That is illegal.
What should concern you is that almost half of the Supremes felt is was ok to discriminate against people based on race. - Rotzooi, on 07/01/2009, -1/+14After reading JoeMondo's comment, most Diggers just divided by zero and crashed.
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -3/+15"As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American."
Those who want racism to end certainly do a good job of keeping it alive by defining people along race lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M - h8f8kes, on 07/01/2009, -3/+14Dugg for a decision that judges people on thier character and not the color of thier skin. While we still have a long ways to go in eliminating descrimination and racial politics this is a step in the right direction.
- Ellipsys, on 07/01/2009, -1/+12I was looking at the specifics of why the decision was made. The thing that bothers me the most is that there were actually two concepts that sotomayor and later the supreme court had to look at when dealing with issues of race and fairness. One is actual justice - that no person be treated different because of their race. That's fine, that's great.
The second however, is "disparate impact" meaning that even if things are totally just, fair and equal, if that justice means that a specific racial group isn't equal, the decision can be made to "help" equalize. That was the crux of the case here. I don't think anyone will object to the fact that firefighters had to score high enough on the exams, but once Sotomayor saw that the only people that scored high enough were whites, she ruled that it would have "disparate impact" on other minorities. The Supreme Court only reversed that decision because 5 justices didn't feel it met that qualification. In fact, if you look at Ginsburg's statement, she objected because of disparate impact, not justice itself.
This is the real demon we have to fight. When minorities feel that equality isn't good enough, lots of discrimination suits are based on this flimsy principle. - CySailor, on 07/01/2009, -1/+10MLK had it right: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Color, sexual preferance, relegion should not be qualifiers for sucess. - irvman21, on 07/01/2009, -1/+10Racial discrimination is wrong, even when it's government sponsored and called "affirmative action"
- dekuscrub, on 07/01/2009, -0/+8I think a wise white male would be a better fit for a supreme court judge.
sounds pretty racist when I say it like that doesn't it? ....so what's the difference? - KimmyGibbler, on 07/01/2009, -3/+11Upholding the law is upholding precedent
- jdh24, on 07/01/2009, -7/+15proving my point. once people (like you) stop thinking they're so much ***** better and smarter and more moral than the other side, we could get to real debates about which policies, people, and ideologies are better for progress, the economy, people, etc without sticking to the unreasonable for fear of admitting parts of one side's ideas are wrong
- GriffCo, on 07/01/2009, -3/+11Had she never said that this case wouldn't have been such a big deal. But knowing that she feels that way about white men really showed this case, which is basically about white men, in a different life.
- iamthearm, on 07/01/2009, -5/+12lol Dugg.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -6/+13It's not like any of the other justices haven't had a ruling overturned. It's pretty common.
- tribtal, on 07/01/2009, -1/+8"Reverse racism" is such a stupid concept. Racism is racism.
- DaviDTC, on 06/30/2009, -11/+18I don't think it will mean much when the vote was 5-4. If it 8/1 or 9/0 there might be something there. Also if we assume she would of voted in the dissent the outcome would not have changed. If nominated, the judge she would be replacing voted in the dissent also. If she was in on this vote, the outcome would be the same. There is also no reason why this should be ammo for the Republicans as she agreed with a guy the Republicans put into power.
- Chestnutridge, on 06/30/2009, -13/+20Actually she was being anti-activist. She (and the rest of the appeals court she was serving on) upheld an established precedent. As she has usually done in her career. The only reason you think it was "activist" was that the precedent they were upholding was one you don't like.
- KimmyGibbler, on 07/01/2009, -2/+9Most judges aren't Federal Appeals Court judges, who tend to see cases that are more likely to be overturned, hence the "Appeals" in their title
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -2/+9i love the internet lawyers who come out of the wordwork to add their worthless 2 cents.
- bmcnally, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7There is a difference between clarifying points of law, overturning previous decisions, going through the process of Judicial Review, and legislating from the bench.
Legislating from the bench occurs when there is no precedent set in law and the Constitution points toward the authority of a separate branch/process for introducing something into the legal code. In some cases, it's a fine line. In others, it is very blatant.
Not always a bad result, but it's a bad idea. - GriffCo, on 07/01/2009, -2/+8Not only is that article unusable as proof considering the author goes on a personal rant about racism
" in the era of Obama, we no longer need such proactive policies to promote racial equality. But racism isn't a thing of the past yet.......etc"
But the law says you can't discriminate inadvertently. Any test can in no way discriminate because it is a test of performance. And in this case you can NOT say anything about them having better schools because we are talking about firefighters...not scientists. These men all had the same opportunities. - drmangrum, on 07/01/2009, -10/+16because it simply MUST be a racially motivated, right?
- QueenTiye, on 07/01/2009, -0/+5As far as education goes, instead of people complaining about affirmative action, if they were really interested in "equality for all" they would put funding into updating and making inner-city schools and schools in poor areas (which is largely comprised of minorities and some whites also) better, to make the competition amongst people later on in college/the workplace fair. You can't expect a student that came from a piss poor school and ***** ass teachers and outdated books to be on par with students who were more fortunate. Affirmative action was put in place to help the poor in the first place.
- jdh24, on 07/01/2009, -9/+14and how about the left-wing idiots showing up in force, frothing at the mouth, to blindly defend sotomayor before the right-wing idiots show up to blindly attack her? it's the same on both sides.
- shrontzy, on 07/01/2009, -1/+6I bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were notified as soon as the verdict came in. I hope they ***** a brick when they heard it.
- etatheta, on 07/01/2009, -4/+9See this is exactly why she can not be seated. She basically called herself a racist in the speech where she accepted the nomination, and in the same speech she said she rules on feeling. Last i checked all courts, especially the highest court in the land have to rule based on the law not feelings...In my opinion she should have never held a judges seat in any court, her speech and this ruling only confirmed that for me. Now lets just wait for the other cases she ruled on that are coming up to the supreme court and see how they turn out.Last i heard there is 2 or 3 more.
- yan89, on 07/01/2009, -0/+5"Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination," Henderson said. "Employers are looking for bright lines ... they're looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions."
*****! There are bright lines to follow, it's called common sense: hire people completely based on their abilities and test scores, just give a damn about their race, sex or sexual preference and there is no discrimination.
What blurs these bright lines are affirmative action, gender quotas and other forms of reverse discrimination. - inactive, on 07/01/2009, -1/+6Not a single judge agreed with her rationale. Obama's own DoJ filed a brief against it.
Specifically her opinion, not the case as whole. When 9 SCOTUS judges and the DoJ say you're wrong, you're probably wrong. - friday1970, on 07/01/2009, -6/+10We've been the minorities for years now. We're not allowed to have an opinion on anything. We're always last in line in places to get in, such as colleges despite test scores. We're not allowed to "understand" anything. We're hated, discriminated against, no one cares about our votes. And if you wander from the plantation, people like Kingofinternet above slams you for thinking for yourself.
Prove me wrong on this one. - norman619, on 07/01/2009, -5/+9Appearantly the American people are. They chose an unqualified man for president based only on personality did they not?
- broncfan23, on 07/01/2009, -3/+7why is this being buried?
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -2/+6Because it is in direct contradiction to the Obama White House approved spin on the matter.
- TimtheTaxMan, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4Legislated from the bench?
To quote a portion of the 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I’d say racial preferences in any form violate the plain language of this amendment. This is a return to Constitutional values not activism. - scoottie, on 07/01/2009, -1/+5Too bad they cant reverse the decision to nominate her.
- rblancarte, on 07/01/2009, -3/+7You understand this is how the judical process works? Lower cases make judgments, and they are rejudged later. And in the end, they are judgments/opinions. Neither right nor wrong, but they are interpretations. By your comment, you are also saying that the 4 dissenting opinions on the SCOTUS are wrong too and shouldn't be on the court now.
Does this kill Sotomayor's nomination? Not in the least. - MxM111, on 07/01/2009, -1/+5It is 5 to 4 decision, so it does not say anything about who is right as oppose to wrong, but rather who right as oppose to left, i.e. about court composition.
Saying that, I personally agree with the supreme court, but I am a libertarian. -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is