DescentBB

it seems the Current SCOTUS has reversed Sotomayors decision on the New Haven Firefighters. does this hurt her nominations???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

I know how they feel. I am constantly overlooked in the Gov't because I'm male, white and speak both official languages in Canada. Yet they hire minorities constantly even if they are not qualified for the jobs.

Depends what you mean by hurt.

Does it make it less likely she will get on the court? Nope.

Does it give something for the conservative entertainment shows to chew on the next few days? Yep.

I am proven right

A 5-4 ruling? Yeah, I guess that settles it once and for all.

In fact, not even should Sotomayor not be appointed to the court for her decision on this issue, but the four Justices that made the same decision should be removed from the court for agreeing with her!

Gooberman wrote:Depends what you mean by hurt.

I guess what I meant was is there a chance that it will effect the vote talking much if at all and will it cause more people to question her judgement on discrimination issues?

Gooberman wrote:Does it make it less likely she will get on the court? Nope.

agreed the Dems have enough votes to push her through regardless of any possible qualification issues.

Gooberman wrote:Does it give something for the conservative entertainment shows to chew on the next few days? Yep.

agreed but my question was a legtimate one

Jeff250 wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH

when you want to join the conversation feel free

I doubt it will have any affect.

CUDA wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH

when you want to join the conversation feel free

No need for taking shots. He has a point, or at least a valid question:

If one believes her stance on the subject should be enough to ask for rejection of her appointment, why not the same logic to ask for the removal of the current justices who agreed with her?

Foil wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH

when you want to join the conversation feel free

No need for taking shots. He has a point, or at least a valid question:

If one believes her stance on the subject should be enough to ask for rejection of her appointment, why not the same logic to ask for the removal of the current justices who agreed with her?

I'm not rejecting the question. I'm rejecting manner in which it was asked. and to qualify the initial question was NOT does this disqualify her for the SCOTUS. the question was does this hurt or affect her nomintaion.

Lol, now your not even allowed to discount sarcasm.

Spidey wrote:Lol, now your not even allowed to discount sarcasm.

sacrcasm is usually followed with a ,

these forums have gotten so that if ANYONE asks a question no matter how legit. SOMEONE will be there to flame you on it. they might not like your political stances on issues, or your religious stance, they just want to attack because they dont like a certain group. I've been guilty of it as much as the next guy. WE ALL NEED TO STOP.

I've had people PM me and tell me how much they hate My self, Lothar and a few others because of our faith. and after you get a couple of those you tend to get a little defensive. my response was a reaction to past events and not meant as a dig at Jeff personally. My appologies if it came across that way

Ok, seems to be some confusion here.

I was suporting you when you wrote BLAH BLAH BLAH, as a perfectly good response to what was said.

His question was obviously rhetorical, because you can’t remove SCOTUS members for such things.

EDIT:

In fact, he didn’t even ask a question. (if he did, I missed it)

Spidey wrote:Ok, seems to be some confusion here.

I was suporting you when you wrote BLAH BLAH BLAH, as a perfectly good response to what was said.

His question was obviously rhetorical, because you can’t remove SCOTUS members for such things.

HEH OOPS

Thx Spidey

Ah, quite true. Guess my sarcasm-detector needs a little tuning.

Nothing is ever "just" sarcasm. This thread is about Sotomayor not being qualified, not because she made a bad decision per se, but because she made a dissenting decision. If making one dissenting decision, especially in a close case, disqualifies you, then no one is qualified for the Supreme Court.

What is a much more interesting debate is discussing the merits of her decision in themselves, since a 5-4 decision by the Supreme court hardly settles the issue.

Spidey wrote:His question was obviously rhetorical, because you can’t remove SCOTUS members for such things.

Yes, technically you cannot remove them, but is that technicality the only thing stopping you from calling for their removal?

Jeff250 wrote:

Spidey wrote:His question was obviously rhetorical, because you can’t remove SCOTUS members for such things.

Yes, technically you cannot remove them, but is that technicality the only thing stopping you from calling for their removal?

Who me? Not me...(not calling for any removals…that was your idea )

Oops, I think I misidentified you as a person against Sotomayor's appointment because of the Court's decision. Cuda can answer it then?

Jeff250 wrote:Oops, I think I misidentified you as a person against Sotomayor's appointment because of the Court's decision. Cuda can answer it then?

I think you need to Re-Read my post and qualifiers, I was Not against her appointment. my question was "could" it affect it. as you know being appointed to the SCOTUS, is not about qualifications. its about political objectives

Ah, so the question is will the decision affect her appointment even though it shouldn't? Well, I'll defer to Goob's post on that one.

Too bad Ms Sotomayor based her decision regarding the white fire fighters on her female latina angst and not on dispassionate legal anti racist law. I guess the white male judges really know law better than she.

You know that her ruling also prevented the promotion of two latino firefighters?

Yes, pity that they too studied and passed the test.