woodchip wrote:A member of SOCTUS can have no opinion regarding race/gender/ethnicity. Any indication that any of those three will enter into her rulings makes her unfit to serve on the highest court.
Well, that's what I tried to say: there is no indication at all that any of this enters into her rulings. Also, in the relevant quote, she said that she HOPES that she may make better rulings --- that's rather an aspiration to make good judgments rather than any evidence of bias.
And even if it would show a bias: I would rather have somebody who is aware of her biases than someone who claims she has none, but is actually full of them (as we all are).
By the way, just to be clear, I am not arguing that she is super qualified for her job. I am just saying that this particular angle of attack is totally ridiculous. Its just based on quote mining a person, interpreting it in the worst possible way, but without looking at any of her actions. I really hope that conservative criticism of the current administration will pick up in the future and stops being so freaking lazy.
\"After the tests were scored, no black candidates scored high enough to qualify for consideration for the promotions. In response, the city decided to throw out the test and not promote anyone, citing a desire to avoid violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[3][1]\"
\"The lead plaintiff in the case is Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. He placed 6th among 77 people who took the lieutenant's test.\"
\"New Haven had hired a consultant to create the test with the goal of eliminating any potential bias that might cause minority applicants to score lower. The consultant advised the city to approve the test results and promote the firefighters who passed.\"
To which Sotomayor voted to approve throwing out the test. So here's what bothers me. If the white boy had not studied hard to pass the test and a black boy did study and passed...what then? Would the test have been declared legit? If the blacks had all passed ahead of the whites and the city threw out the test results, lawsuit filed on behalf of the blacks \"who studied hard for the test\", would Sotomayor voted the way she did?
In short, by voting that to throw out the test was legal, Sotomayor has shown that in the very least she favors reverse discrimination against whites in cases where blacks are either incompetent or too lazy
to prepare for a test to further their career. In short she is racist in so far as she views blacks as needing quotas or specialized tests to compete with their white/yellow or brown counterparts. America will not proceed forward on the race issue until it is clearly understood that there is a baseline level of competency we should all profess to and that level should not be geared to the lowest common denominator. Once again, by her decision, Sotomayor has failed in the color blind requirement and thus is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
you're cherrypicking, Woodchip. Look at her whole record, especially the link I provided above. You'll find a case where she dissented from the majority of judges and sided with the WHITE guy in a discrimination suit.
In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.
Again, this whole race argument has no leg to stand on, particularly if you consider that in the Ricci suit, Sotomayor followed the law in her ruling, but weirdly enough, gets brandished an 'activist judge'.
\"However, the test questions have not been made public, so it is undetermined by the media if the questions were in fact biased or not.\"
From your link:
\"In part, the city’s reaction was defensive. Because of the magnitude of the racial disparity on the exams, which would have ensured that white firefighters received the great majority of the promotions, an attorney for the city concluded that there was a strong likelihood of a lawsuit by African American and Latino firefighters if the promotion list generated by the test were used. Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.”\"
In short Pandora, if the test is not made public, how does the guy in your link even have a clue as to whether the test had a \"unjustified racially discriminatory effect\" ?
no, Woody, you should examine links more closely. The link I gave you has a further link with background (that is quoted in the article). A few quotes from this link
The exam at issue in Ricci was given in 2003 to more than 100 New Haven, Conn., firefighters competing for eight vacant lieutenant positions and seven vacant captain positions. But although a number of African American and Latino firefighters passed the exam, only two Latinos and no African Americans scored high enough to make the promotion list.
so there you have your \"discriminatory effect\".
The fact that whites were disproportionately represented among the top scorers on the test is not surprising. Whites and some Asian American groups, on average, score higher than African Americans, Latinos and other Asian American groups on fill-in-the-bubble tests. Researchers have offered a host of reasons to explain racial gaps in test scores, including disparities in financial, educational and cultural resources, as well as psychological phenomena.
so it is established that the test used is racially biased.
and finally:
But New Haven did not scrap its promotion list simply because whites had higher scores on the test than minorities. The city understood that Title VII does not automatically prohibit employers from using tests on which whites do better than minorities. In fact, the law acknowledges that tests are useful for evaluating and comparing job applicants. But, under Title VII, it would be illegal for a city to promote firefighters based largely on a test that is not a good measure of a junior firefighter's worthiness to be promoted. New Haven's attorney correctly interpreted Title VII to mean that the city's firefighter test should measure \"who is going to be a good supervisor ultimately, not who is going to be a good test-taker.\" In other cases, judges have concluded, based on expert testimony, that written, multiple-choice tests for firefighter promotion like the one in this case contain the \"fatal flaw\" of failing to test for \"supervisory ability.\" The company that made the New Haven Fire Department exam acknowledges that its test does not include any questions that measure a test-taker's ability to supervise or lead other firefighters in the line of duty.
The exam at issue in Ricci was given in 2003 to more than 100 New Haven, Conn., firefighters competing for eight vacant lieutenant positions and seven vacant captain positions. But although a number of African American and Latino firefighters passed the exam, only two Latinos and no African Americans scored high enough to make the promotion list.
so there you have your "discriminatory effect".
So Latinos can pass the test but not blacks. Is the test discriminatory or are the people who failed not capable of preparing to take a test?
Pandora wrote:
The fact that whites were disproportionately represented among the top scorers on the test is not surprising. Whites and some Asian American groups, on average, score higher than African Americans, Latinos and other Asian American groups on fill-in-the-bubble tests. Researchers have offered a host of reasons to explain racial gaps in test scores, including disparities in financial, educational and cultural resources, as well as psychological phenomena.
so it is established that the test used is racially biased.
No it is not "established". All I see is if your culture does not promote education as a goal for getting ahead in life then instead of focusing on failed tests, perhaps someone should call a horses ass a "horses ass". If Sotomayor is going to propagate this "Poor baby's are too dumb" mentality then we do not need her on SCOTUS.
Pandora wrote:and finally:
But New Haven did not scrap its promotion list simply because whites had higher scores on the test than minorities. The city understood that Title VII does not automatically prohibit employers from using tests on which whites do better than minorities. In fact, the law acknowledges that tests are useful for evaluating and comparing job applicants. But, under Title VII, it would be illegal for a city to promote firefighters based largely on a test that is not a good measure of a junior firefighter's worthiness to be promoted. New Haven's attorney correctly interpreted Title VII to mean that the city's firefighter test should measure "who is going to be a good supervisor ultimately, not who is going to be a good test-taker." In other cases, judges have concluded, based on expert testimony, that written, multiple-choice tests for firefighter promotion like the one in this case contain the "fatal flaw" of failing to test for "supervisory ability." The company that made the New Haven Fire Department exam acknowledges that its test does not include any questions that measure a test-taker's ability to supervise or lead other firefighters in the line of duty.
Nice try, but from my experience, there is not predictive test made that will determine how well you will perform in the line of duty. In my USMC experience I've seen corporals step up and take command when a platoon was getting hit, and I've seen Lieutenants with all the training and testing for leadership accomplished, fail miserably in the line of duty.
The first area the black applicants failed in their future role for leadership, was not studying for the exam. If they cannot decide to study to the degree that Ricci did then I'd say they have no real desire nor any real qualities where someone would want to place them in a role of responsibility. Not to say they wouldn't make good leaders...just they have not given any indications.
Woodchip, this is all just your opinion, and you may well be right. However, Sotomayor is bound by the law in her rulings, and this clearly states that tests with discriminatory bias should not be used. You may disagree with the law, but then change the law, don't go after the judge who uses it --- especially if you (or Cuda, actually) at the same time blames her for not being in tune with it!!! Otherwise it just suggests that you DO want an activist judge after all, but one that is activist for your side.
Also, the case was specifically about whether the firemen were racially discriminated against. When you read these links, there does not seem much ground for arguing for racial discrimination, does it? The council has just been utterly stupid in their test. But that was not what the court decided about.
Finally, even if you could come up with a reliable story that the court reached the wrong (meaning: unlawful) conclusion here, this still does not in ANY WAY indicate a racist bias in Sotomayor's rulings. Again, go through my link above. Her racial judgment record is fairly good, and you'll find a case in which she was the one outlier of the panel who actually sided with the white guy.
Spidey wrote:I think we should do away with the confirmation process altogether, because as far as I’m concerned it’s the president’s prerogative to appoint anybody they please.
I don't know... I'm pretty glad the Senate didn't get behind Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.
