It seems that every day, we are learning more and more about Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that serves to do nothing but raise more questions about who she is, as opposed to settling any issues about her ...
According to analyses from people who have covered her judicial career, she is adept at covering her tracks, so that her true character as a judge is shrouded in mystery ....
But somebody can only shroud things to a degree, and so it is with Sonia Sotomayor ....
And by extension, Barack Obama ...
In November of 2005, I stood in federal court as an observer when a disabled veteran from upstate New York, one Paul R. Plante, appeared before Sotomayor in the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City to request a JURY TRIAL in a civil rights action stemming from a series of assaults against Plante that culminated in him being unlawfully imprisoned in the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
It was that unlawful imprisonment which led Plante to be appealing to Sonia Sotomayor in November of 2005 for a jury trial ...
In response to his request, Sotomayor openly mocked him in court, telling him that he had not been harmed by the experience, to include the assault, which is on videotape, and which Sotomayor was well aware of, since that videotape was front and center in the record before her as evidence of what was transpiring in Rensselaer County in the days leading up to Plante's unlawful imprisonment in the Stratton VA in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
In an unpublished summary order ( http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740# ) denying Plante a jury trial in the matter, Sotomayor clearly indicated knowledge of the videotape assault as follows:
Additionally, to the extent that Plante has attempted to assert claims against Jeffrey Pelletier for assault, he has not alleged that Pelletier is a state actor liable under § 1983.
The assault that Sotomayor is referring to in that statement is on YOUTUBE at this URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M
When you hear Pelletier speaking in there, the person he is calling a "******* RETARD" is Plante, who suffered a serious head wound in Viet Nam ....
As you consider Sotomayor's FITNESS to serve as a U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, keep these words from this videotape in mind ....
THIS IS WHAT SONIA SOTOMAYOR HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH WHEN IT COMES TO PREJUDICE!
And violence against a protected class of persons in the USA ....
And so ...
Full Version: VIDEO OF ASSAULT APPROVED BY SOTOMAYOR ON YOUTUBE
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court—in Barack Obama’s America.
Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.
To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.
Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”
Alito would have been toast.
No explanation, no apology would have spared him.
He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Indeed, she sees this as her mission.
Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made."
"I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.”
She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at?
Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America.
Not a single male was in the final four.
And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.”
Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.
Lay out the lady’s record.
And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court—in Barack Obama’s America.
Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.
To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.
Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”
Alito would have been toast.
No explanation, no apology would have spared him.
He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Indeed, she sees this as her mission.
Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made."
"I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.”
She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at?
Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America.
Not a single male was in the final four.
And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.”
Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.
Lay out the lady’s record.
And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(rla @ May 31 2009, 03:44 PM) 
I would read it but Buchanan sometimes make me puke...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ May 29 2009, 12:10 PM)
Sonia Sotomayor was one of three judges hearing the appeal...
The other two judges...if they had rejected Judge Sotomayor's decision in the case could have overruled her.
They did not.
They agreed with the lower court's decision.
You keep forgetting that for an appellate case to be disposed of it takes more than one judge's actions.
Well, here it seems it was unanimous.
The other two judges...if they had rejected Judge Sotomayor's decision in the case could have overruled her.
They did not.
They agreed with the lower court's decision.
You keep forgetting that for an appellate case to be disposed of it takes more than one judge's actions.
Well, here it seems it was unanimous.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
You don't need to read the entire article, rla ....
The relevant part is right above here for you ...
It goes to Sotomayor's MODUS OPERANDI in dealing with these appeals on constitutional issues ....
What happened in this case of the firemen is the same thing that happened in the Plante appeal under discussion in here ...
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
It is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY on the hoof, rla ...
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY is unacceptable in a college dean or college professor or college president ....
Why should INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY be cherished as a quality in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, then?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 1 2009, 04:54 AM)
prove that no other supreme court judge did the same thing in other cases (or some of the same things)
betcha you can find the same thing in every single judge in the nation
betcha you can find the same thing in every single judge in the nation
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 12:07 PM)
THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:
John Galt posted at May 30, 2009, 1:56 PM: And BLUE ....
Looking at this from the dispassionate perspective of a court martial proceeding ...
When Sotomayor says: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" ....
The question that arises in my mind is:
HAS THAT THESIS OF HERS EVER BEEN TESTED IN REAL LIFE WHILE SHE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE?
And that answer is in the AFFIRMATIVE, BLUE, in at least one case which came before her for what is called de novo review, which is a fresh look at a case from front to back, supposedly, anyway ....
And that case was the case of disabled Viet Nam veteran Paul R. Plante ...
Specifically, we are talking about a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick McGrath concerning his review of the same evidence that was before Sotomayor in November of 2005 in federal court in NYC ...
That letter from Judge McGrath was at p.456 of the 609-page RECORD submitted to Sotomayor in the Plante appeal by Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ..
That McGrath letter states as follows:
"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."
"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."
end quotes
Now, it cannot be argued in good faith that Patrick McGrath is anything other than a WHITE MALE ...
He is not pasty white, but the dude is clearly white, if you ever saw him and he is a male ....
And what Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino wanted Sotomayor to do in that Plante appeal was to take another look through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" at the evidence which Judge McGrath had looked at to conclude that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino was allegedly involved in state and federal crimes in connection with the false imprisonment of Plante in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center ...
And Jimino wanted Sotomayor, through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences", to reach a better conclusion for Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino than a white male like Patrick McGrath who hasn't lived that life could reach ....
WHICH IS TO SAY, MAKE THE EVIDENCE OF HER ALLEGED STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMES THAT McGRATH HAD REVIEWED GO AWAY ....
And the rest is history, BLUE ....
Here we are tody ....
What will tomarrow be?
And so ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...-thread-21.html
John Galt posted at May 30, 2009, 1:56 PM: And BLUE ....
Looking at this from the dispassionate perspective of a court martial proceeding ...
When Sotomayor says: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" ....
The question that arises in my mind is:
HAS THAT THESIS OF HERS EVER BEEN TESTED IN REAL LIFE WHILE SHE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE?
And that answer is in the AFFIRMATIVE, BLUE, in at least one case which came before her for what is called de novo review, which is a fresh look at a case from front to back, supposedly, anyway ....
And that case was the case of disabled Viet Nam veteran Paul R. Plante ...
Specifically, we are talking about a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Court Judge Patrick McGrath concerning his review of the same evidence that was before Sotomayor in November of 2005 in federal court in NYC ...
That letter from Judge McGrath was at p.456 of the 609-page RECORD submitted to Sotomayor in the Plante appeal by Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino ..
That McGrath letter states as follows:
"This will acknowledge the court's receipt of your letter dated July 9, 2004, and the attachments thereto, all of which I have reviewed."
"Needless to say, your allegations are disturbing, especially as they encompass potential federal, as well as state, criminal charges, in that they include, among others, an allegation of false imprisonment in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center."
end quotes
Now, it cannot be argued in good faith that Patrick McGrath is anything other than a WHITE MALE ...
He is not pasty white, but the dude is clearly white, if you ever saw him and he is a male ....
And what Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino wanted Sotomayor to do in that Plante appeal was to take another look through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" at the evidence which Judge McGrath had looked at to conclude that Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino was allegedly involved in state and federal crimes in connection with the false imprisonment of Plante in a federal facility, Stratton VA Medical Center ...
And Jimino wanted Sotomayor, through the eyes of a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences", to reach a better conclusion for Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino than a white male like Patrick McGrath who hasn't lived that life could reach ....
WHICH IS TO SAY, MAKE THE EVIDENCE OF HER ALLEGED STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMES THAT McGRATH HAD REVIEWED GO AWAY ....
And the rest is history, BLUE ....
Here we are tody ....
What will tomarrow be?
And so ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...-thread-21.html
No, you can't, graham ...
I can attest to that from personal experience ....
And in this particular case under discussion in here, democrat Rensselaer County Court Judge and WHITE MALE Patrick McGrath acted with INTEGRITY in his review of the same evidence that Sotomayor was later confronted with, including a graphic video of "PROTECTED PERSON" Jeffry Pelletier physically and verbally assaulting Plante while he was documenting the construction of a piping system to dump human sewage into the stream that flows along Plante's property .....
McGrath called it as it was - POTENTIAL STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMES IN CONNECTION WITH PLANTE'S FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN THE SECURE MENTAL FACILITY OF THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ON 8-22-01 ...
To PROTECT the PROTECTED PERSON who had assaulted Plante, Sotomayor BURIED Judge McGrath's written report and the evidence upon which it was based ....
Judge McGrath was against the criminal law violations ...
Sotomayor was for them ....
And she was the judge with the bigger stick ....
So she whomped some ignorance into Judge McGrasth with it ....
And here we now are, graham, with her being CELEBRATED for that act by none other than Barack Obama himself .....
And well ....
Okay ....
Yourself and Arneoker and tazvil04, as well ....
But you all have to do that, since you are rabid Obama partisans ....
So I am cool with that in your case ....
And so ...
it is the fatal flaw the FOUNDING FATHERS made when they did not anticipate the party system.
How could they be so brilliant, yet so stupid they did not account for it.
Because where you have one party, you get two
and the two together conspire to stop any other because with 3 you only need 331/3 percent.
with two you have 90% already in the bag
because the only one more stupid is the public at large
One day I would love to kwo THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth on what really went down with Ross Perot and why he really
quit like he did the first time
Because Clinton was finished, deeply in 3rd place that April and Perot was leading then he quit
it could have changed America (though he would have had happen what Jimmy and Barack have happen-
the congress would not have been his anyhow
which is why no democracy has lasted much longer in history than ours. Doomed to fail.
How could they be so brilliant, yet so stupid they did not account for it.
Because where you have one party, you get two
and the two together conspire to stop any other because with 3 you only need 331/3 percent.
with two you have 90% already in the bag
because the only one more stupid is the public at large
One day I would love to kwo THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth on what really went down with Ross Perot and why he really
quit like he did the first time
Because Clinton was finished, deeply in 3rd place that April and Perot was leading then he quit
it could have changed America (though he would have had happen what Jimmy and Barack have happen-
the congress would not have been his anyhow
which is why no democracy has lasted much longer in history than ours. Doomed to fail.
btw-
FEDERAL CRIMES
What is a federal crime.
We all know what Nixon said
and Nixon was pardoned by Ford (who Bush41 said was an honorable honest man who told the truth in the warren commission)
and Bush/Cheney have said the same thinjg
if that's the case...
FEDERAL CRIMES
What is a federal crime.
We all know what Nixon said
and Nixon was pardoned by Ford (who Bush41 said was an honorable honest man who told the truth in the warren commission)
and Bush/Cheney have said the same thinjg
if that's the case...
btw-don't lump me in w/arneoker and taz or anyone else (including some of my friends to the left of me) and some even like mag or jimi
because I don't think Obama is perfect
however, I never thought he would do 100% of anything, because that is impossible.
so even 1% of 100 is better than it was.
And i think we are getting about 30 to 60% of the change, we shall see
I never thought the system would overnight change
(ala the torture stuff),
so I am not disappointed that parts of what he says are not different
you either have to be a fool, or using hyperbole, or not a fan to start off with, to think June 1 would have enacted 100% change and Bush/Cheney would be rotting in jail for war crimes.
but life goes on
(or it doesn't)
in 125 years, no one on the planet today will be on the planet then anyhow.
because I don't think Obama is perfect
however, I never thought he would do 100% of anything, because that is impossible.
so even 1% of 100 is better than it was.
And i think we are getting about 30 to 60% of the change, we shall see
I never thought the system would overnight change
(ala the torture stuff),
so I am not disappointed that parts of what he says are not different
you either have to be a fool, or using hyperbole, or not a fan to start off with, to think June 1 would have enacted 100% change and Bush/Cheney would be rotting in jail for war crimes.
but life goes on
(or it doesn't)
in 125 years, no one on the planet today will be on the planet then anyhow.
by the way-
you are a genius, but don't let it be said it goes over my head
Your quoting me from the other quote to this thread makes this thread top of the line and be seen
don't think I don't know it
and I wouldn't let say beamer get away with this and help achieve her goal
however, I will let you and have you keep this on the top
just so you knows that I know though and you don't think I am naive or you are pulling one over on me
(by the way- on the blogs of the newspapers, I bet you can post under 10 or 100 names and they don't check, so long as the email is good, they don't check isp like say this board is suppose to do to prevent one person from posting under 10 names)
you are a genius, but don't let it be said it goes over my head
Your quoting me from the other quote to this thread makes this thread top of the line and be seen
don't think I don't know it
and I wouldn't let say beamer get away with this and help achieve her goal
however, I will let you and have you keep this on the top
just so you knows that I know though and you don't think I am naive or you are pulling one over on me
(by the way- on the blogs of the newspapers, I bet you can post under 10 or 100 names and they don't check, so long as the email is good, they don't check isp like say this board is suppose to do to prevent one person from posting under 10 names)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 06:40 AM)
What happened in this case of the firemen is the same thing that happened in the Plante appeal under discussion in here ...
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
You are talking about that unappealable decision (concerning the firemen, I don't want you confusing the issue) that was appealed to the Supreme Court and is now before them?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 07:13 AM)
Yourself and Arneoker and tazvil04, as well ....
But you all have to do that, since you are rabid Obama partisans ....
But you all have to do that, since you are rabid Obama partisans ....
Actually I am more of rabid partisan of keeping the story straight no matter what that does to someone's propaganda line.
arneoker-
though I gotta tip my hat to livy for getting this thread continuously bumped, maybe as the two are interspersed, we should combine the two threads
(though that would defeat the genius of what livyjr pulled this morning, worthy of myself by the way) (a playful mood i am in, dontcha think?)
though I gotta tip my hat to livy for getting this thread continuously bumped, maybe as the two are interspersed, we should combine the two threads
(though that would defeat the genius of what livyjr pulled this morning, worthy of myself by the way) (a playful mood i am in, dontcha think?)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 07:13 AM)
Yourself and Arneoker and tazvil04, as well ....
But you all have to do that, since you are rabid Obama partisans ....
Actually I am more of rabid partisan of keeping the story straight no matter what that does to someone's propaganda line.
Being rabid is relative, Arneoker ....
Like yin and yang ....
They cannot exist without each other, but at the same time, they are not at all absolute ....
Compared to me, who am very yin, you are rabid .....
But perhaps compared to someone like tazvil04, who is more rabid than you, I would say, then you are yin compared to his yang ....
So as you can see, it is a state of relativity that we are talking about in this thread when we talk about being rabid Obama supporters ...
And I think that the people who come here to this forum are mature enough to be able to separate out you from the positions that you take in here to keep the dialogue lively, interesting and moving along ....
So I wouldn't worry too much about being rabid if I were you ....
It is a part of your aura in here ....
Your charisma ....
It is what keeps the at-home audience coming back for more ....
And so ...
Yes Livyjr, you are very mild when it comes to supporting Obama. I would never confuse you with being one of his rabid supporters.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 06:40 AM)
What happened in this case of the firemen is the same thing that happened in the Plante appeal under discussion in here ...
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
You are talking about that unappealable decision (concerning the firemen, I don't want you confusing the issue) that was appealed to the Supreme Court and is now before them?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
HEY!
Folks at home!
How about that Arneoker, ain't it?
Let's raise and put together some hands for the dude!
YES!
For what he has done for us in his inestimable way is to draw us right on into the heart of the matter here with his timely and cogent question about the firefighter's appeal that is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court .....
So let us have a real American SHOUT OUT for Arneoker in here ....
SALUTE!
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 01:50 PM)
It seems that every day, we are learning more and more about Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that serves to do nothing but raise more questions about who she is, as opposed to settling any issues about her ...
According to analyses from people who have covered her judicial career, she is adept at covering her tracks, so that her true character as a judge is shrouded in mystery ....
But somebody can only shroud things to a degree, and so it is with Sonia Sotomayor ....
And by extension, Barack Obama ...
In November of 2005, I stood in federal court as an observer when a disabled veteran from upstate New York, one Paul R. Plante, appeared before Sotomayor in the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City to request a JURY TRIAL in a civil rights action stemming from a series of assaults against Plante that culminated in him being unlawfully imprisoned in the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
It was that unlawful imprisonment which led Plante to be appealing to Sonia Sotomayor in November of 2005 for a jury trial ...
In response to his request, Sotomayor openly mocked him in court, telling him that he had not been harmed by the experience, to include the assault, which is on videotape, and which Sotomayor was well aware of, since that videotape was front and center in the record before her as evidence of what was transpiring in Rensselaer County in the days leading up to Plante's unlawful imprisonment in the Stratton VA in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
In an unpublished summary order ( http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740# ) denying Plante a jury trial in the matter, Sotomayor clearly indicated knowledge of the videotape assault as follows:
Additionally, to the extent that Plante has attempted to assert claims against Jeffrey Pelletier for assault, he has not alleged that Pelletier is a state actor liable under § 1983.
The assault that Sotomayor is referring to in that statement is on YOUTUBE at this URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M
When you hear Pelletier speaking in there, the person he is calling a "******* RETARD" is Plante, who suffered a serious head wound in Viet Nam ....
As you consider Sotomayor's FITNESS to serve as a U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, keep these words from this videotape in mind ....
THIS IS WHAT SONIA SOTOMAYOR HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH WHEN IT COMES TO PREJUDICE!
And violence against a protected class of persons in the USA ....
And so ...
According to analyses from people who have covered her judicial career, she is adept at covering her tracks, so that her true character as a judge is shrouded in mystery ....
But somebody can only shroud things to a degree, and so it is with Sonia Sotomayor ....
And by extension, Barack Obama ...
In November of 2005, I stood in federal court as an observer when a disabled veteran from upstate New York, one Paul R. Plante, appeared before Sotomayor in the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City to request a JURY TRIAL in a civil rights action stemming from a series of assaults against Plante that culminated in him being unlawfully imprisoned in the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ....
It was that unlawful imprisonment which led Plante to be appealing to Sonia Sotomayor in November of 2005 for a jury trial ...
In response to his request, Sotomayor openly mocked him in court, telling him that he had not been harmed by the experience, to include the assault, which is on videotape, and which Sotomayor was well aware of, since that videotape was front and center in the record before her as evidence of what was transpiring in Rensselaer County in the days leading up to Plante's unlawful imprisonment in the Stratton VA in Albany, New York on 8-22-01 ...
In an unpublished summary order ( http://vlex.com/vid/paul-r-plante-eugene-b...dants-20096740# ) denying Plante a jury trial in the matter, Sotomayor clearly indicated knowledge of the videotape assault as follows:
Additionally, to the extent that Plante has attempted to assert claims against Jeffrey Pelletier for assault, he has not alleged that Pelletier is a state actor liable under § 1983.
The assault that Sotomayor is referring to in that statement is on YOUTUBE at this URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89m5TEuu3M
When you hear Pelletier speaking in there, the person he is calling a "******* RETARD" is Plante, who suffered a serious head wound in Viet Nam ....
As you consider Sotomayor's FITNESS to serve as a U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, keep these words from this videotape in mind ....
THIS IS WHAT SONIA SOTOMAYOR HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH WHEN IT COMES TO PREJUDICE!
And violence against a protected class of persons in the USA ....
And so ...
Not this again Livyjr...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 06:40 AM)
What happened in this case of the firemen is the same thing that happened in the Plante appeal under discussion in here ...
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
You are talking about that unappealable decision (concerning the firemen, I don't want you confusing the issue) that was appealed to the Supreme Court and is now before them?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Yes, folks at home ....
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
And God bless our Arneoker, too, for the guidance and direction and yes, wisdom, that he gives us in here ....
The SEGUES!
The beauty of the position of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor right now is based on NUANCE ....
And a lack of understanding by the majority of the American people as to HOW our system of alleged justice at the federal level is supposed to work, and what the role of a PROFESSIONAL judge with INTEGRITY truly is in that process ....
And without someone like Arneoker in here to properly steer us into the very heart of the ballpark, we would have NO CLUE as to the game judge Sotomayor is playing with these two appeals, one by these firefighters and one by the disabled veteran Plante, who is seen being assaulted by PROTECTED PERSON Jeffry Pelletier of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, State of New York ....
And so ...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 1 2009, 11:22 AM)
Not this again Livyjr...
And let us once again put some hands together for the esteemed tazvil04, who has just taken his place at the debating table in here ....
We are truly blessed in this forum to have someone of the caliber of tazvil04 debating with us in here ....
As the esteemed Cicero called Julius Caesar the most powerful and best orator in the history of Rome, so too do I name tazvil04 in here ...
So now that the circle is complete or complete enough with graham, Arneoker and tazvil04 in here, we can proceed ....
And so we shall ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 06:40 AM)
What happened in this case of the firemen is the same thing that happened in the Plante appeal under discussion in here ...
The unpublished SUMMARY ORDER written in such a fashion as to be unintelligible, and therefore unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court ....
You are talking about that unappealable decision (concerning the firemen, I don't want you confusing the issue) that was appealed to the Supreme Court and is now before them?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Arneoker .....
What I think has happened here is two-fold ....
First of all, there is the presence of tazvil04 ....
I think that with the sheer power of his oratory, that he has spun your head completely around, so as to hopelessly confuse you ....
So my job, as I see it, it to be compassionate with you in order to UN-CONFUSE you and help you see the very light of day ....
And the other thing is the NUANCE ...
So let us break things right on down to basics in here, where we are exploring the FITNESS or LACK THEREOF of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the REPUBLIC of the United States of America ....
WHY WERE THE FIREMEN FINALLY ABLE TO APPEAL THEIR CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, Arneoker?
And so ...
Livyjr, for the sake of argument let us grant that Sotomayor could very well have sought to "bury" the New Haven case.
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"? If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"? If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
Hey bigtom! nice to see you looking in.
why don't you join us
I can't (and neither can livy) understand why people go away, but then don't actually go away).
Just to prove a picciune point or something?
makes no sense.
ghosts passing in the night. Say hello to mtmagic when you two blues pass in the intersection.
might as well just do the adult thing and be here dontchathing
why don't you join us
I can't (and neither can livy) understand why people go away, but then don't actually go away).
Just to prove a picciune point or something?
makes no sense.
ghosts passing in the night. Say hello to mtmagic when you two blues pass in the intersection.
might as well just do the adult thing and be here dontchathing
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 11:43 AM)
WHY WERE THE FIREMEN FINALLY ABLE TO APPEAL THEIR CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, Arneoker?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
It is said in the United States of America that IGORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE ....
And I am cool with that myself ....
EXCEPT ....
How do we citizens ever hope to cure our ignorance if federal appeals court judges like Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor BURY what the law is in UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDERS?
That is the ISSUE in this particular thread, which as graham notes, was split off of another thread on Sonia Sotomayor that is more general in nature than this thread is ....
This thread intends to focus in on this thing of these UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDERS ....
The other thread on Sotomayor can then remain general in nature ....
Which seems fair to all parties to me ....
As rla would say, from the abstract in the other thread to the very specific in here ....
And so ...
Hello, BigTom ....
Hope all goes well with you and your little dog ...
Hope all goes well with you and your little dog ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 01:53 PM)
Hello, BigTom ....
Hope all goes well with you and your little dog ...
Hope all goes well with you and your little dog ...
41 guests, 10 members, 0 anonymous members
graham4anything, rla, Livyjr, bigtom, billfmsd, Arneoker, xyzse, TheRestofUs, GOPGuy, Istoodforu
The case of the Firemen is being appealed to the Supreme Court largely because the GOP sees a wedge issue here.
Sotomayor was merely upholding existing law. Let the GOP once again show their hypocrisy in criticising her "Judicial Restraint".
Just my opinion.
Sotomayor was merely upholding existing law. Let the GOP once again show their hypocrisy in criticising her "Judicial Restraint".
Just my opinion.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:44 PM)
Livyjr, for the sake of argument let us grant that Sotomayor could very well have sought to "bury" the New Haven case.
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"? If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"? If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
i vote yes
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 11:44 AM)
Livyjr, for the sake of argument let us grant that Sotomayor could very well have sought to "bury" the New Haven case.
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"?
If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"?
If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
You are LAWYERING me here, Arneoker ....
And you know what?
You are not half bad at it, to be truthful!
tazvil04 has been schooling you well on the intricacies of LAWYERING, and there can be no better teacher on that in America than our own beloved and highly esteemed tazvil04 ....
BUT ....
TRICKY, TRICKY, Arneoker ....
Your question IS NOT a simple YES or NO answer ....
IF you look at the HISTORY of how that firefighter's case came to finally be before the U.S. Supreme Court, you have to note that it was a LUCKY TWO-STEP PROCESS for the firefighters ....
HAD IT BEEN UP TO SOTOMAYOR, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLY SCREWED, AS WAS PLANTE, BY THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER IN THE MATTER!
BUT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF FEDERAL APPEALS COURT JUSTICE JOSE CABRANES, THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED SCREWED, Arneoker ....
Look at this language from the news article right above here, for example:
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
end quotes
Had it not been for Judge Cabranes, Arneoker, who ended up providing the firefighters with a record of a divided appellate court, THEIR CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED AS DEEP AS PLANTE'S WAS BURIED BY THAT UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER ....
Which brings us back to NUANCE, and why the common American citizen is so easily SNOWED when it comes to deciphering court cases like these ....
And so ...
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 1 2009, 11:55 AM)
The case of the Firemen is being appealed to the Supreme Court largely because the GOP sees a wedge issue here.
HUH?
Where are you getting that information from, TROU?
Do you think that the republican party conjured this firefighters case up from whole cloth, with some republican ringers or bit theatrical actors posing as firefighters in a bogus lawsuit so that the republicans can embarass Barack Obama?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 1 2009, 11:55 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:44 PM)
Livyjr, for the sake of argument let us grant that Sotomayor could very well have sought to "bury" the New Haven case.
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"?
If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
i vote yes
BLAAAAATTTTTT!!!!!
Wrong answer!
Next contestant, please ....
And so ....
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 1 2009, 11:54 AM)
41 guests, 10 members, 0 anonymous members
graham4anything, rla, Livyjr, bigtom, billfmsd, Arneoker, xyzse, TheRestofUs, GOPGuy, Istoodforu
graham4anything, rla, Livyjr, bigtom, billfmsd, Arneoker, xyzse, TheRestofUs, GOPGuy, Istoodforu
Good catch, graham ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 11:09 AM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 1 2009, 11:55 AM)
The case of the Firemen is being appealed to the Supreme Court largely because the GOP sees a wedge issue here.
HUH?
Where are you getting that information from, TROU?
Do you think that the republican party conjured this firefighters case up from whole cloth, with some republican ringers or bit theatrical actors posing as firefighters in a bogus lawsuit so that the republicans can embarass Barack Obama?
Just my opinion. And yes I think the GOP saw an opportunity here to pit "working class whites against blacks" and Affirmative Action. New Haven had the existing law on their side and even though Republican judges agreed with her the GOP cannot resist race-baiting regardless of their disingenuous battle cry against "Judicial Activism".
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:44 PM)
Livyjr, for the sake of argument let us grant that Sotomayor could very well have sought to "bury" the New Haven case.
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"?
If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
But isn't it a contradiction in terms to call a case that is before the Supreme Court "unappealable"?
If not why not?
Now the first question can be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
How Cases Make Their Way to the U.S. Supreme Court
Each year, about 4,500 cases are requested for review by the Supreme Court.
Less than 200 cases are actually decided by the Court each year.
There are three ways for a case to make its way to the US Supreme Court.
1) There are cases in which the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (heard there first).
Cases in which a state is a party and cases dealing with diplomatic personnel, like ambassadors, are the two examples.
2) Those cases appealed from lower federal courts can be heard at the Supreme Court.
Some laws obligate (or force) the Supreme Court to hear them.
But most come up for review on the writ of certiorari, a discretionary writ that the court grants or refuses at its own discretion.
The writ is granted if four of the justices want it to be heard.
3) The US Supreme Court reviews appeals from state supreme courts that present substantial "federal questions," usually where a constitutional right has been denied in the state courts.
In both civil and criminal law, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal.
http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 02:06 PM)
BUT ....
TRICKY, TRICKY, Arneoker ....
Your question IS NOT a simple YES or NO answer ....
TRICKY, TRICKY, Arneoker ....
Your question IS NOT a simple YES or NO answer ....
Of course it is, Livyjr. You just cannot answer it without contradicting something you have said. Now you could still make an argument that she tried to "bury" the case, but you would have to use more nuanced wording that she made the case unappealable, as it has been appealed, and is under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Graham, you were right. Obviously right, absolutely no question.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 1 2009, 11:22 AM)
Not this again Livyjr...
And let us once again put some hands together for the esteemed tazvil04, who has just taken his place at the debating table in here ....
We are truly blessed in this forum to have someone of the caliber of tazvil04 debating with us in here ....
As the esteemed Cicero called Julius Caesar the most powerful and best orator in the history of Rome, so too do I name tazvil04 in here ...
So now that the circle is complete or complete enough with graham, Arneoker and tazvil04 in here, we can proceed ....
And so we shall ....
And so ...
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 1 2009, 12:14 PM)
New Haven had the existing law on their side and even though Republican judges agreed with her the GOP cannot resist race-baiting regardless of their disingenuous battle cry against "Judicial Activism".
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CITY DID HAVE THE LAW ON ITS SIDE, TROU ....
ALL THERE WAS WAS AN UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER IN THE CASE ....
Thar sparked a revolt in the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals thanks to Judge Cabranes ....
And so ....
And it was a PROMOTIONAL EXAM, TROU ....
It was not an examination to see who was the smartest - black, white or brown ....
It was a specific examination to test your knowledge to be a lieutenant in a city fire department ...
There is not black knowledge to be a fire department lieutenant that is substantially different from how a white person would be a lieutenant in the same fire department ...
Or a Hispanic ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 12:27 PM)
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 02:06 PM)
BUT ....
TRICKY, TRICKY, Arneoker ....
Your question IS NOT a simple YES or NO answer ....
Of course it is, Livyjr.
You just cannot answer it without contradicting something you have said.
Now you could still make an argument that she tried to "bury" the case, but you would have to use more nuanced wording that she made the case unappealable, as it has been appealed, and is under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Stay put, graham, you are still wrong ....
And I'm not contradicting ANYTHING, Arneoker ....
I said that I was going to slowly develop my line of reasoning in here for the AT HOME AUDIENCE and the LAY PERSONS ....
And so I am ......
WHAT IS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, Arneoker?
And so ...
Hey Livyjr, who do you think should make the decision as to what tests city governments use to screen prospects for emploment and promotion, or whether to use a test for certain jobs at all? At least most of the time? And how do you think the law affects/should affect all of that?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 1 2009, 12:14 PM)
New Haven had the existing law on their side and even though Republican judges agreed with her the GOP cannot resist race-baiting regardless of their disingenuous battle cry against "Judicial Activism".
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
"Here Comes Sonia"
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
by Patrick J. Buchanan on May 29, 2009
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.
He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose.
Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that.
So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down?
She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/here_comes_sonia/
QUOTE(Livyjr @ May 30 2009, 04:54 PM)
"Key cases reveal few clues"
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Eamon Javers, Josh Gerstein
Tue May 26, 5:53 pm ET
Affirmative action
This case, more than any other in Sotomayor’s career, makes the right see red.
In it, Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that white firefighters who passed an exam to get promoted should have those promotions stripped — because no black firefighters passed the test.
It raised questions about Sotomayor’s views about whether anti-discrimination laws apply to all races and ethnic groups — or whether she was engaging in a sort of “reverse discrimination” against the white firefighters, as conservative critics say.
Legal commentator Stuart Taylor calls Sotomayor “a devotee of identity politics” and cited the firefighters’ case.
And it also fed into another line of attack by conservatives against Sotomayor, that her judicial opinions are overturned at a higher-than-usual rate.
This case was this: A number of white firefighters had sued the City of New Haven, Conn., after the city chose to drop a promotion examination after blacks and Hispanics scored so poorly that none of them would have been promoted.
A lower court threw out the firefighters’ lawsuit, and it came to the Court of Appeals in New York.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor used an unsigned “summary order” to uphold the lower court ruling throwing out the white firefighters’ suit.
The order — all of nine lines on a single page — called the district court’s opinion “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” and left it at that.
The terse order triggered a battle royale within the 2nd Circuit — where Sotomayor’s fellow judges were so upset at the order, they tried to have the case reviewed by all 13 judges on the court.
Joined by five other judges, Judge Jose Cabranes criticized the use of the summary opinion and said it’s normally used for cases that present straightforward questions, not one that are “indisputably complex and far from well-settled like these.”
But the judges split 7 to 6, and the ruling signed by Sotomayor stood.
For a while, at least.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Sotomayor’s panel initially resolved with a mere paragraph.
A decision is expected next month, well in advance of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CITY DID HAVE THE LAW ON ITS SIDE, TROU ....
ALL THERE WAS WAS AN UNPUBLISHED SUMMARY ORDER IN THE CASE ....
Thar sparked a revolt in the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals thanks to Judge Cabranes ....
And so ....
And it was a PROMOTIONAL EXAM, TROU ....
It was not an examination to see who was the smartest - black, white or brown ....
It was a specific examination to test your knowledge to be a lieutenant in a city fire department ...
There is not black knowledge to be a fire department lieutenant that is substantially different from how a white person would be a lieutenant in the same fire department ...
Or a Hispanic ....
And so ...
Affirmative Action is a bitch, ain't it? Regardless of how unfair (and it is unfair on its face) New Haven cited its program of desiring to integrate the upper echelons of an "Institution" (the Fire Dept.) that has a long history of radical discrimination against qualified blacks. Do you dispute that history? If not this is the result when we as a society allow arrogance and racism to hold down an entire culture of people for generations. Affirmative Action is the law of the land and while NOBODY likes it, New Haven had the right to question the test due to a lopsided outcome.
I am in the middle here because of my mixed racial heritage. I understand the anger of whites who may have had nothing to do with the systemic racial discrimination of the past. But many things linger from that legacy and hopefully promotion based on race or preferences based on race from either "side" will soon become a thing of the past. And an object lesson for the future about the long term consequences of systemic racism.
Just my opinion.
And my opinion stands about the GOP's motives.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 12:36 PM)
WHAT IS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, Arneoker?
Certiorari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Certiorari is a legal term in Roman, English, and American law referring to a type of writ seeking judicial review.
Certiorari ("to be shown") is the present passive infinitive of Latin certiorare, ("to show, prove or ascertain").
A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review.
United States Federal courts
In the United States, certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error and review where no appeal is available as a matter of right.
Before the Evarts Act, the cases that could reach the Supreme Court were heard as a matter of right, meaning that the Court was required to issue a decision in each of those cases.
As the United States expanded in the nineteenth century, the federal judicial system became increasingly strained, with the Supreme Court having a backlog of years.
The Act solved these problems by transferring most of the court's direct appeals to the newly created Circuit Courts of Appeals, whose decisions in those cases would normally be final.
The Supreme Court did not completely give up its judiciary authority, however, because it gained the ability to review the decisions of the courts of appeals at its discretion through writ of certiorari.
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right.
A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court.
If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.
A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four."
The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari, meaning that the Court refuses to hear the case.
Approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but only 80 to 150 petitions (1-2 percent) are typically granted.
Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket.
The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources.
The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court.
Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.
Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court.
Such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times."
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and that the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the region of jurisdiction of that court.
Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as certworthy.
One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation.
Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 1 2009, 12:45 PM)
Affirmative Action is a bitch, ain't it?
Beats me ....
And I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion?
How do you arrive at that conclusion, by the way?
Livyjr, thanks for educating us in these legal terms in your diversion from the issue I have been questioning you about.
One thing you have also educated us about is how very few cases make it to the Supreme Court. However this one from New Haven made it. If Sotomayor tried to bury it she was certainly very unsuccesful in doing so, remarkably so...
One thing you have also educated us about is how very few cases make it to the Supreme Court. However this one from New Haven made it. If Sotomayor tried to bury it she was certainly very unsuccesful in doing so, remarkably so...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 12:37 PM)
Hey Livyjr, who do you think should make the decision as to what tests city governments use to screen prospects for emploment and promotion, or whether to use a test for certain jobs at all?
At least most of the time?
And how do you think the law affects/should affect all of that?
At least most of the time?
And how do you think the law affects/should affect all of that?
CIVIL SERVICE LAW, Arneoker ....
That is how I understand the system to work ...
And of course, there is always POLITICS involved in the case of certain promotions that are called MANAGEMENT CONFIDENTIAL, at least here in NYS ...
In the case of the firefighters, where there was a PROMOTIONAL EXAM, I would have to think that the state civil service board was somehow involved, but hey, I am not from there, so who really does know who came up with the exam ....
BUT IT WAS A PROMOTIONAL EXAM TO BE AN OFFICER IN A FIRE DEPARTMENT ....
So I would have to assume that ANYONE who wanted to be an officer in a fire department would try and have at least a smattering of a clue as to what officers in a fire department actually do before they tried to take an exam to be one ....
Unless of course, they were simply counting on AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to put them in on top of white folks who scored higher than they did ....
Hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained, you know what I am saying?
And so ...
Civil service law? Is that law immutable? Does it allow no leeway or judgment as to approach, such as say what test to use, or even to use a test?
At some point wouldn't human beings be involved in the answer to my question?
In the Federal Government tests are allowed, if they can be shown to be based on job requirments. You might require a test in Spanish for someone who wanted to be a Border Patrol Agent. But you couldn't have one for a prospective Marine Biologist working in Woods Hole, Mass. But the regs don't specify what specifict tests to use although they do set requirements and guidelines.
At some point wouldn't human beings be involved in the answer to my question?
In the Federal Government tests are allowed, if they can be shown to be based on job requirments. You might require a test in Spanish for someone who wanted to be a Border Patrol Agent. But you couldn't have one for a prospective Marine Biologist working in Woods Hole, Mass. But the regs don't specify what specifict tests to use although they do set requirements and guidelines.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 12:56 PM)
Livyjr, thanks for educating us in these legal terms in your diversion from the issue I have been questioning you about.
One thing you have also educated us about is how very few cases make it to the Supreme Court.
However this one from New Haven made it.
If Sotomayor tried to bury it she was certainly very unsuccesful in doing so, remarkably so...
One thing you have also educated us about is how very few cases make it to the Supreme Court.
However this one from New Haven made it.
If Sotomayor tried to bury it she was certainly very unsuccesful in doing so, remarkably so...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 12:47 PM)
Certiorari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error and review where no appeal is available as a matter of right.
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right.
A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court.
One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation.
Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error and review where no appeal is available as a matter of right.
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right.
A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court.
One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation.
Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
Arneoker .....
Shame on you for trying to FOOL people in here like that, but hey, WELL DONE!
Folks, let us put our hands together and give our own Arneoker a great big cheer here for his PROWESS at trying to lawyer me in here and confuse us in this matter of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court ...
ROUSING BIG CHEER!
THERE IS NO DIVERSION, Arneoker ....
This BACKGROUND is necessary in understanding the alleged DUPLICITY and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY of Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:05 PM)
Civil service law?
Is that law immutable?
Is that law immutable?
IT IS IMMUTABLY COLORBLIND, I would say ....
But of course, that is just me ....
You, having more ACTUAL experience in these matters will probably turn around and tell me that my premise is full of **** ....
And with partisan politics the way it is in America, especially with respect to securing public employment, I would not doubt you for a moment ....
And so ...
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 03:10 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:05 PM)
Civil service law?
Is that law immutable?
Is that law immutable?
IT IS IMMUTABLY COLORBLIND, I would say ....
But of course, that is just me ....
You, having more ACTUAL experience in these matters will probably turn around and tell me that my premise is full of **** ....
And with partisan politics the way it is in America, especially with respect to securing public employment, I would not doubt you for a moment ....
And so ...
Let me ask again with somewhat different words:
Are human beings, of whatever color(s) or combinations thereof, involved in these decisions? And what would their roles be, especially what would they typically be?
You know I provided some hints, even if they are not exactly directly applicable to local governments like that of New Haven.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:05 PM)
At some point wouldn't human beings be involved in the answer to my question?
One could make an assumption, that unless the city of New Haven was run by androids or computers or robots or zombies, which are dead people, that yes, somewhere along the line a human being said WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL TEST FOR PROMOTION TO FIRE LIEUTENANT, instead of leaving it up to some old waspy white folks to pick who they wanted for the positions ....
Having a test would be more fair, you see, Arneoker ...
At least on the surface ....
Of course, I suppose that it is somehow genetically impossible for either a black or a Hispanic to he capable of understanding what lieutenants actually do in a fire department, other than collect a high rate of pay with a good retirement included, in which case a PROMOTIONAL EXAM might not have been fair ....
NUANCE, Arneoker ....
Shades of grey ...
I bet you run into that all the time when some political big wheel is telling you to **** the exams and give them who they want, regardless of whether or not the person could actually do the job they are hired for ....
Which is probably an indication of why the federal government is so ****** up as it is ...
And so ...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:15 PM)
Let me ask again with somewhat different words:
Are human beings, of whatever color(s) or combinations thereof, involved in these decisions?
Are human beings, of whatever color(s) or combinations thereof, involved in these decisions?
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 1 2009, 01:19 PM)
One could make an assumption, that unless the city of New Haven was run by androids or computers or robots or zombies, which are dead people, that yes, somewhere along the line a human being said WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL TEST FOR PROMOTION TO FIRE LIEUTENANT, instead of leaving it up to some old waspy white folks to pick who they wanted for the positions ....
Call me CONSERVATIVE here, Arneoker ....
But I am standing fast right now with my answer right above here .....
And so ...
Well yes, I would also assume that it is the city officials, elected, appointed and civil service, who would make these decisions, (supposedly) within the applicable laws and regulations.
We have a similar situation in the Federal Government, except that it is almost all civil service types making these specific decisions, except at the higher levels. And we don't administer tests too often, in fact I have never been involved in designing or adminstering tests. I know that there is a typing test that is administered for the appropriate clerical jobs. We have other methods for assessing applicants, which are based on examining the applications/resumes sent by those competing for our job vacancies.
Yes there is pressure to serve favorites of the boss and gaming of the system, if not quite the way you were thinking.
We have a similar situation in the Federal Government, except that it is almost all civil service types making these specific decisions, except at the higher levels. And we don't administer tests too often, in fact I have never been involved in designing or adminstering tests. I know that there is a typing test that is administered for the appropriate clerical jobs. We have other methods for assessing applicants, which are based on examining the applications/resumes sent by those competing for our job vacancies.
Yes there is pressure to serve favorites of the boss and gaming of the system, if not quite the way you were thinking.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Jun 1 2009, 01:15 PM)
Are human beings, of whatever color(s) or combinations thereof, involved in these decisions?
And what would their roles be, especially what would they typically be?
And what would their roles be, especially what would they typically be?
As rla is always saying, Arneoker ....
There is a journey here from the abstract to the specific ....
Or the general to the specific ....
And right here, you are taking us on that journey ...
And I have a feel for both sides of the issue, to be truthful, having studied the evolution of Civil Service Law in the State of New York ....
In New York, there are civil service commissions, Arneoker ...
The state has one ....
Counties have them ...
And cities do too ....
These civil service commissions are political ....
They meet behind closed doors and in a county like Rensselaer County in New York State, especially in the light of this Sotomayor decision in the Plante case, it is not wise to go poking your nose too far into their business of how this person or that actually did manage to get a high-ranking civil service job in Rensselaer County, and why it is that you only find a few family names holding down all of these county positions ....
And so ...
Yes, what used to be called the Civil Service Commission for the Federal Government is now called the Office of Personnel Management. And they write the rules for what what agencies do in terms of personnel, and are supposed to enforce those rules. In some cases they actually review job applications themselves. But mostly the agencies themselves do their own personnel work. Those of us in the HR world, even contractors like me, are supposed to say what the proper implementation of the laws and rules is.
But within all of those rules and laws and what we tell what can and cannot be done it is the managers of the line operations who choose applicants for job openings. And usually they have a choice of several people to make.
But within all of those rules and laws and what we tell what can and cannot be done it is the managers of the line operations who choose applicants for job openings. And usually they have a choice of several people to make.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.