Guest
Guest
;D
Sotomayor, Racist.
- Thread starter CrapFactory
- Start date
CrapFactory
Member
mawk":1j7y8gn4 said:
It does NOT MATTER. She's specifically saying she'd make better decisions than the white guys. THAT IS RACISM. I'm not running around saying I'll make better decisions than all the black guys.
Can someone actually talk about her HISTORY of upholding racism? Or why I can't say with my richness of experience I would make better choices then a black man without being called a racist?
CrapFactory
Member
││█║▌│║▌║ ▌│║▌║ ▌││":11yokcb3 said:
I understand what you guys are saying completely. I'm just saying you're dead wrong.
what he said.││█║▌│║▌║ ▌│║▌║ ▌││":3edc28ae said:
chill out on the sensationalism. get informed. step back and look at the news as the news stations don't present it because it's the sensationalism that pays for their suits. if you flip shit like this over every possibility, you're in for a hard life.
p.s.
if you'd actually cite some of the sources you're creaming yourself over, that'd help things.
There's no way to determine her true intentions behind her words--all you can go on are her words and her track record.
Her ruling for blatent affirmative action many times in the past, paired with her statement placing her own opinions in higher regard than others, obliterates her objectivity, thereby deeming her unfit to preside as a judge.
I, personally, am not calling her racist. I am saying she is not objective enough to be on the panel.
Of course, this is coming from someone who is against affirmative action, regardless of gender, race, creed, or age.
Her ruling for blatent affirmative action many times in the past, paired with her statement placing her own opinions in higher regard than others, obliterates her objectivity, thereby deeming her unfit to preside as a judge.
I, personally, am not calling her racist. I am saying she is not objective enough to be on the panel.
Of course, this is coming from someone who is against affirmative action, regardless of gender, race, creed, or age.
CrapFactory
Member
But WHO WOULD SAY "I can run better than my best friend who is black"?
Seriously who would say that? Even as a nod? What relevance does it have? And can we LOOK at the firefighter thing?
"if you'd actually cite some of the sources you're creaming yourself over, that'd help things."
I've cited one. Please read it.
Seriously who would say that? Even as a nod? What relevance does it have? And can we LOOK at the firefighter thing?
"if you'd actually cite some of the sources you're creaming yourself over, that'd help things."
I've cited one. Please read it.
CrapFactory
Member
Venetia":1m8p2tu6 said:
Pretty much. But I'm willing to call her racist. Heck, affirmative action itself is horribly racist and she's made rulings several times that could be viewed as affirmative action.
Well then if this is purely about racism and not about political positioning then yeah this isn't much of a debate :/ sorry @ mawk & arb, I was trying to see it for something deeper 
even if a judge were racist personally, as long as they ruled in accordance to the letter of the law and didn't let their opinions get in the way they'd still be fit to judge ...
even if a judge were racist personally, as long as they ruled in accordance to the letter of the law and didn't let their opinions get in the way they'd still be fit to judge ...
CrapFactory
Member
Venetia":17jbu029 said:
It's not purely about racism. People just magnified by slight exaggeration (any degree of racism in my eyes no matter how minor is still racism and invokes the racist status).
I'm wondering how anybody could support affirmative action-like judgments or her ideology. Heck, I consider affirmative action racist itself. And her act of supporting the city for the city's blatant reverse discrimination is another act of reverse discrimination. I'm glad it got overthrown by a higher court. However if she gets on that same court that overthrew her insane decision I'm afraid we might see more "firefighter fiasco" type rulings that DO make it past the supreme court.
Reverse discrimination is racism.
Guest
Guest
;D
I did some reading up on this case and I think it's a difficult one to judge on. Let's put some context and history in this before going for the strawman, eh?
This test was created by an outside source, the New Haven fire department wanted a simpler way to determine qualification for promotion. (Not entitlement, an important distinction that I'll address later.) When test time came around, 8 of the 41 captain's test takers were black and 19 of the 77 lieutenants test takers were black. It should go without saying that all of the folks studied for this test and worked hard. But the end result is none of the 27 black firefighters passed the qualification exam.
The first difficulty this situation brings is the type of test it was. Written tests have been used historically to bar minorities from positions. There used to be literacy tests required for voting in the 1800s, considering the influx of new black voters who didn't have an education many of them failed it. The reason this is considered a racist move is because of the grandfather clause saying that if your grandfather was eligible to vote, you are. So it protected all whites who failed the literacy exam. (They actually didn't have to take it.)
Because of this history with written examinations, there is some ground to say that it may have been designed to bar minorities from success. What's more, this test doesn't take into account the firefighter's field experience. What was their performance like? How long have they worked in the field? These are other factors that many would consider important to a test, yet were surprisingly absent.
All of that being said, when the final results for this test came out, there were 20 firefighters that were deemed qualified for a promotion. When the higher ups looked at this, they thought that there were possible racial problems with the test and threw out the results. The 20 firefighters sued, saying that due to the 14th amendment they had equal protection under the law just like anybody else, a reasonable argument. And coupled with the time investment they took in order to study for the examination, you could see why they felt throwing these tests out was such a grievous action.
Now comes the difficulty. Whose side do we take?
The appellate court upheld the New Haven department's decision to throw out the decision. Sotomayor was on that bench and gave a non-signatory agreement with the decision.
When it came to the supreme court, it was voted on by a 5-4 decision to go with the firefighters, because they were right that the 14th amendment does come into play.
But what about the four other justices? Are they just as blatantly racist as the OP claims? Not so much. Justice Ginsberg wrote in her dissenting opinion that this was a test of qualification, meaning that nothing was taken from these 20 firefighters. There was no guarantee that these folks would receive the promotion anyway. So to throw out the test results was a reasonable course of action if you didn't think that it properly evaluated who is qualified for promotion. Also, the justice Sotomayor's nominated to replace (Souter) was a dissenter on this decision, so her opinion was matched by her possible predecessor.
I think it's hard to call her a racist, trying to take down the white man based on this ruling. This was a bad case to begin with that there were no winners. So when I look to Sotomayor, I see her long list of accomplishments and her experience is more than any nominated justice in the past 100 years. I think she's a decent candidate for the Supreme Court.
Some links with info on the story.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... JqGYzYmPjE
This test was created by an outside source, the New Haven fire department wanted a simpler way to determine qualification for promotion. (Not entitlement, an important distinction that I'll address later.) When test time came around, 8 of the 41 captain's test takers were black and 19 of the 77 lieutenants test takers were black. It should go without saying that all of the folks studied for this test and worked hard. But the end result is none of the 27 black firefighters passed the qualification exam.
The first difficulty this situation brings is the type of test it was. Written tests have been used historically to bar minorities from positions. There used to be literacy tests required for voting in the 1800s, considering the influx of new black voters who didn't have an education many of them failed it. The reason this is considered a racist move is because of the grandfather clause saying that if your grandfather was eligible to vote, you are. So it protected all whites who failed the literacy exam. (They actually didn't have to take it.)
Because of this history with written examinations, there is some ground to say that it may have been designed to bar minorities from success. What's more, this test doesn't take into account the firefighter's field experience. What was their performance like? How long have they worked in the field? These are other factors that many would consider important to a test, yet were surprisingly absent.
All of that being said, when the final results for this test came out, there were 20 firefighters that were deemed qualified for a promotion. When the higher ups looked at this, they thought that there were possible racial problems with the test and threw out the results. The 20 firefighters sued, saying that due to the 14th amendment they had equal protection under the law just like anybody else, a reasonable argument. And coupled with the time investment they took in order to study for the examination, you could see why they felt throwing these tests out was such a grievous action.
Now comes the difficulty. Whose side do we take?
The appellate court upheld the New Haven department's decision to throw out the decision. Sotomayor was on that bench and gave a non-signatory agreement with the decision.
When it came to the supreme court, it was voted on by a 5-4 decision to go with the firefighters, because they were right that the 14th amendment does come into play.
But what about the four other justices? Are they just as blatantly racist as the OP claims? Not so much. Justice Ginsberg wrote in her dissenting opinion that this was a test of qualification, meaning that nothing was taken from these 20 firefighters. There was no guarantee that these folks would receive the promotion anyway. So to throw out the test results was a reasonable course of action if you didn't think that it properly evaluated who is qualified for promotion. Also, the justice Sotomayor's nominated to replace (Souter) was a dissenter on this decision, so her opinion was matched by her possible predecessor.
I think it's hard to call her a racist, trying to take down the white man based on this ruling. This was a bad case to begin with that there were no winners. So when I look to Sotomayor, I see her long list of accomplishments and her experience is more than any nominated justice in the past 100 years. I think she's a decent candidate for the Supreme Court.
Some links with info on the story.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... JqGYzYmPjE
CrapFactory
Member
Long story short in her interview today she's pulled a complete 180 on most of her issues. Suddenly her mind has changed about anything that could ignite a debate. I'll post specifics when I get the time later.
You are way oversimplifying in your comparison. What made the New South's policy profoundly racist was not merely that there was a pre poll literacy test, but that the literacy test requirement was exclusive to African American voters because of the 1865 grandfather clause. Furthermore enfranchisement is a constitutionally protected right, access to a promotion is not.
Second, this is another example of affirmative action failing at promoting authentic equality and access to opportunity. Affirmative Action sees all twenty African Americans failing the same literacy test that many of their white compatriots were able to pass as the test itself being the object of racist exclusionism. It gets a few of these folks a promotion and pats itself on the back, but it will never be the force that brings parity to the seats of the powerful, where the laws of the land become more pliable and forgiving. It will always be the lone man shoveling dirt against the tie because what question it doesn't address and isn't designed to address: Why am I still neccessary? Or to make it more applicable to the firefighters, why did twenty African Americans fail a literacy test that many of their white counterparts passed?
If you read the rest of my statement in context, you'll see that I did mention the grandfather clause and its exclusive nature.
The reason I see it as applicable is because it makes written examination suspect. I'm not saying this examination was targeted at keeping minorities out, but when you consider that it deemed qualification purely on a written examination and doesn't consider other factors like leadership in the field, there are grounds to at least question it. Are the grounds strong enough to throw out the results? I'm torn, mostly because I think it was a bad test in general. But if you go with the side that deems the test invalid, does that make you a racist? I'd say no.
I agree with your analysis of affirmative action, though. We definitely are asking the wrong question with this issue.
The reason I see it as applicable is because it makes written examination suspect. I'm not saying this examination was targeted at keeping minorities out, but when you consider that it deemed qualification purely on a written examination and doesn't consider other factors like leadership in the field, there are grounds to at least question it. Are the grounds strong enough to throw out the results? I'm torn, mostly because I think it was a bad test in general. But if you go with the side that deems the test invalid, does that make you a racist? I'd say no.
I agree with your analysis of affirmative action, though. We definitely are asking the wrong question with this issue.