Sotomayor Reversed AGAIN!!!

[Damocles]

Again, you could just tell my why you think it was a "good" decision instead of doing your little dance. Why do you think it was a good decision? It's a simple question.

And by "people like you" I was referring to "conservatives." You claim to be one, right?

I did. You are such an idiotic pill.

And again, please show me where "people like me" argued that Sotomayor's decision was the right one and that racial injustice will be fixed by more racial injustice. I pointed out to you that your premise itself is off by a long shot. It is "people like you" who argue that because a "race" of people weren't well-represented that the results should be thrown out.

Or you believe that suggesting that I feel good because the result matched what feels fair this time I should reject the ruling? I don't reject the rulings of good decisions that have the opposite feeling, why should I reject those that serve both?

 

[Bonestorm]

I did. You are such an idiotic pill.

And again, please show me where "people like me" argued that Sotomayor's decision was the right one and that racial injustice will be fixed by more racial injustice.

No, you didn't. All you said was that the decision was "good" and "correct" without offering your reasoning. I just want to know what you base your assessment on. It's really not too difficult a task. Never mind, though. It's pretty obvious that it's purely result-driven. I don't need you to write it out for me.

And I'm not going to bother with that red herring you are throwing out, but thanks for offering.

 

[Damocles]

No, you didn't. All you said was that the decision was "good" and "correct" without offering your reasoning. I just want to know what you base your assessment on. It's really not too difficult a task. Never mind, though. It's pretty obvious that it's purely result-driven. I don't need you to write it out for me.

And I'm not going to bother with that red herring you are throwing out, but thanks for offering.

Three times I have asked you where "people like me" think the way you suggest they do, to point out the very premise of your question is flawed. You are pretending you've made a point that doesn't exist because your first suggestion that "people like me" think in some way is itself flawed.

You refuse to defend the position of "people like you", while pretending you know something about "people like me" without reading the fricking answer.

I like the decision because it was correct by law, and at the same time gives justice. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes correct decisions taste like bile, but are still correct. You surmise that I should reject a correct decision that I believe also brings justice because "people like me" reject results-oriented decisions, I reject that premise as silly projection. Either "people like you" really are bent on the emotive side, or you can understand but either way your "people like you" idiocy failed here.

 

[Socrtease]

Or you could read my answer.

Can you show me people that argued that the results of the tests should be thrown out and tell me who were making those arguments?

It wasn't "people like me", if you need a hint. Rejecting racism as a basis of false racial justice is a good thing and a good decision.

I want to know what magic world you live in that "people like me" think that racial injustice will be fixed by more racial injustice?

So no physical therapy for the runner that shatters his ankle? Hell no cast even, just tell him you are sorry that something you did shattered his ankle and tell him to get up and get back in the race? After the CRA or 64 cities still underfunded black school, still discriminated in jobs placement to the detriment of blacks. Racism was not cured over night and its very real affects did not go away the next day. It didn't go away in the next decade. Our government and the government of many states actively worked to disadvantage blacks to the benefit of white society, and white society has never want to own that, or own that black america deserved a hand up from the hole white society created.

 

[Damocles]

So no physical therapy for the runner that shatters his ankle? Hell no cast even, just tell him you are sorry that something you did shattered his ankle and tell him to get up and get back in the race? After the CRA or 64 cities still underfunded black school, still discriminated in jobs placement to the detriment of blacks. Racism was not cured over night and its very real affects did not go away the next day. It didn't go away in the next decade. Our government and the government of many states actively worked to disadvantage blacks to the benefit of white society, and white society has never want to own that, or own that black america deserved a hand up from the hole white society created.

Silliness. You don't fix his ankle by breaking another runner's ankle. It might make the race more even, but it didn't fix the ankle. Everybody that tested had the same training, a minimum of experience required, the same ability to study, the same capacity to do well. It is good that the results of the tests were upheld under such circumstance.

 

[Bonestorm]

Three times I have asked you where "people like me" think the way you suggest they do, to point out the very premise of your question is flawed. You are pretending you've made a point that doesn't exist because your first suggestion that "people like me" think in some way is itself flawed.

You refuse to defend the position of "people like you", while pretending you know something about "people like me" without reading the fricking answer.

I like the decision because it was correct by law, and at the same time gives justice. Sometimes that doesn't happen. Sometimes correct decisions taste like bile, but are still correct. You surmise that I should reject a correct decision that I believe also brings justice, I reject that premise as silly projection. Either "people like you" really are bent on the emotive side, or you can understand.

What the fuck are you babbling about? You seem to have really taken offense to the "people like you" comment when all I had in mind is "conservatives." Relax.

And again, you haven't really answered the questions. You just keep asserting that the decision was correct (or now, "correct by law") without offering any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.

As I said, nevermind. It's quite obvious that you like the result and that's good enough for you, an odd position for a "conservative."

 

[Damocles]

What the fuck are you babbling about? You seem to have really taken offense to the "people like you" comment when all I had in mind is "conservatives." Relax.

And again, you haven't really answered the questions. You just keep asserting that the decision was correct (or now, "correct by law") without offering any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.

As I said, nevermind. It's quite obvious that you like the result and that's good enough for you, an odd position for a "conservative."

I want to know what "people like you" means. What "people like me" reject decisions based in law because the result also provided justice?

You are an emotive idiot who believes he caught a conservative out in hypocrisy because he likes a decision that he feels also brings a good result.

Again: (caps lock is a shortcut to cool).

NOT EVERY DECISION WORKS THIS WAY, SOMETIMES CORRECT DECISIONS AREN'T ONES THAT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL GOOD, I DON'T REJECT THOSE DECISIONS WHEN THEY HAPPEN.

In short, your inference of, "You're such a hypocrite" is just more emotive rubbish based on what you want me to be rather than what I am.

 

[Canceled2]

So no physical therapy for the runner that shatters his ankle? Hell no cast even, just tell him you are sorry that something you did shattered his ankle and tell him to get up and get back in the race? After the CRA or 64 cities still underfunded black school, still discriminated in jobs placement to the detriment of blacks. Racism was not cured over night and its very real affects did not go away the next day. It didn't go away in the next decade. Our government and the government of many states actively worked to disadvantage blacks to the benefit of white society, and white society has never want to own that, or own that black america deserved a hand up from the hole white society created.

Those that did well on the test studied hard. They robbed their families of time, lost sleep, and basically gave 150% to pass the test. They deserved the promotions. To be a firefighter requires an intelligence to pass initial examinations. Those that failed advancement tests need to study more, as they are obviously not stupid. Maybe they are disadvantage i.e. they are not good readers. So go to your local library and take a remedial reading course. In other words take the bull by the horns. Many american's, black, white and inbetween have poor reading and study skills as test scores show.

 

[Bonestorm]

I want to know what "people like you" means. What "people like me" reject decisions based in law because the result also provided justice?

You are an emotive idiot who believes he caught a conservative out in hypocrisy because he likes a decision that he feels also brings a good result.

Again: (caps lock is a shortcut to cool).

NOT EVERY DECISION WORKS THIS WAY, SOMETIMES CORRECT DECISIONS AREN'T ONES THAT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL GOOD, I DON'T REJECT THOSE DECISIONS WHEN THEY HAPPEN.

In short, your inference of, "You're such a hypocrite" is just more emotive rubbish based on what you want me to be rather than what I am.

Like a dull knife, you just ain't cuttin . . .


I expected at least an attempt to answer the question though.

 

[Damocles]

Like a dull knife, you just ain't cuttin . . .


I expected at least an attempt to answer the question though.

Again, I expect an attempt to explain how "people like me" should reject this ruling because of the result as you have suggested "people like me" should. The central premise of your assertion about myself is flawed. Once we get to the center of the supposed egregious error I have made as "people like me" should be rejecting this opinion, then we can begin to start into a more complex conversation about the law and then what I believe was right about the ruling.

First though, I reject your premise that "people like me" should reject all rulings that have a result they like. I want to know where you base this premise, how it was formed, and why you assert that it is only "people like me" that should reject rulings based on the result being good.

 

[Socrtease]

Silliness. You don't fix his ankle by breaking another runner's ankle. It might make the race more even, but it didn't fix the ankle. Everybody that tested had the same training, a minimum of experience required, the same ability to study, the same capacity to do well. It is good that the results of the tests were upheld under such circumstance.

You don't have to break anyone's ankle and that is no what AA does. It gives historically discriminated against minorities a hand up, which is only bad if you are in the group that historically benefited from holding them down. NE police and fire departments have had a long history of using written tests to keep minorities out, the decision of the appellate was consistent with previous SCOTUS decisions, which were in part overturned today, so the decision of the lower court was correct given the guidance they had from the Supreme Court.

 

[Damocles]

You don't have to break anyone's ankle and that is no what AA does. It gives historically discriminated against minorities a hand up, which is only bad if you are in the group that historically benefited from holding them down. NE police and fire departments have had a long history of using written tests to keep minorities out, the decision of the appellate was consistent with previous SCOTUS decisions, which were in part overturned today, so the decision of the lower court was correct given the guidance they had from the Supreme Court.

I'm not arguing against all instances of Affirmative Action. That is also a false premise. If people of other races had not had the same access to study, didn't have the same requisites, were incapable of passing because of an action by the people who gave the test I might agree. But in this case there was no evidence of any of that.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, I expect an attempt to explain how "people like me" should reject this ruling because of the result as you have suggested "people like me" should. The central premise of your assertion about myself is flawed.

I'm not saying (and never said) that you (or "people like you" aka "conservatives") should reject the ruling because of the result. I just wanted to know why you think it is a good decision aside from the result. Apparently, you have no other reason.

"Conservatives" claim to reject result-based judicial decisions because deciding cases based on a judge's preferred result as opposed to the law is "activist." That's all.

Me, I think the case was wrongly decided, largely because the burden the court imposed on the city is unlike the burden the court imposes on employers in Title VII discrimination cases generally. But that's just me. Of course, the Court could impose the same burden on employers generally but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not saying (and never said) that you (or "people like you" aka "conservatives") should reject the ruling because of the result. I just wanted to know why you think it is a good decision aside from the result. Apparently, you have no other reason.

"Conservatives" claim to reject result-based judicial decisions because deciding cases based on a judge's preferred result as opposed to the law is "activist." That's all.

Me, I think the case was wrongly decided, largely because the burden the court imposed on the city is unlike the burden the court imposes on employers in Title VII discrimination cases generally. But that's just me. Of course, the Court could impose the same burden on employers generally but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Okay, so you don't think "people like me" should reject the decisions based on result. Now we're getting somewhere.

As for further opinions on the actual law you can read some of the conversation that Socrtease and myself are having, or you can continue to pretend that I haven't gone any further than you want to believe that I would.

 

[Bonestorm]

Okay, so you don't think "people like me" should reject the decisions based on result. Now we're getting somewhere.

As for further opinions on the actual law you can read some of the conversation that Socrtease and myself are having, or you can continue to pretend that I haven't gone any further than you want to believe that I would.

Actually, we're getting nowhere. We're still left wondering why you think it was a good decision other than your agreement with the result.

And as far as I can tell you and Soc are talking about runners and broken ankles. No thanks.

 

[Jarod]

Silliness. You don't fix his ankle by breaking another runner's ankle. It might make the race more even, but it didn't fix the ankle. Everybody that tested had the same training, a minimum of experience required, the same ability to study, the same capacity to do well. It is good that the results of the tests were upheld under such circumstance.

But those who came from an opressed minority, on the average, beat greater odds to get the same results!

 

[Jarod]

If I were interviewing two canidates for a job at my firm. They both scored the same on the criteria I was using... but one came from a very difficult and oppressed background... Id hire the one who got through more obsticals but still scored the same on my crititeria!

 

[Damocles]

If I were interviewing two canidates for a job at my firm. They both scored the same on the criteria I was using... but one came from a very difficult and oppressed background... Id hire the one who got through more obsticals but still scored the same on my crititeria!

I probably would to, if I knew of the circumstances and obstacles. Such as Lt. Ricci in this particular case who overcame much to do as well as he did on the test.

 

[Damocles]

But those who came from an opressed minority, on the average, beat greater odds to get the same results!

In this case they did not get the same results, nor can you assume that hardship based solely on race. "On the average" notwithstanding.

 

[Jarod]

In this case they did not get the same results, nor can you assume that hardship based solely on race. "On the average" notwithstanding.

Thats true, its why I belive "affirmative action" should be based on economic situation you were born into, not race.