Rick Santorum accuses the conservative liberal justices on the Supreme Court of reversing supporting Sotomayor's decision for partisan reasons

Why is submitter so illiterate?

SANTORUM: I could be wrong on this,

Well then why do you even say it? Guy has farking diarrhea of the mouth.

EverWatcher: Why is submitter so illiterate?

subby was just being sarcastic? of course he would have to be literate to comprehend it. so he must not have been.

No one cares about you anymore, Rick. That's why you lost.

Subby, you're gonna need a bigger boat. +1

Oh, incidentally, if this Supreme Court decision affects your opinion of Sotomayor in any way, you are officially a f*cking idiot.

Couldn't you easily make the counter argument that the conservative justices made their ruling in order to hurt Sotomayor's nomination? A claim of conservative judicial activism is far easy to defend than the reverse since Sotomayor's ruling was based on the law and established precedent.

The GOP is being very quiet about one thing here. Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings. The Supreme Court overturned sets of rulings here made in the past. So the GOP is attacking Sotomayor for not being an activist judge, while still claiming she is at the same time. Fun, isn't it?

I can't wait for the confirmation hearings, should be interesting to watch. When do they start, anyone know?

GAT_00: Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings

Her ruling was mainly an affirmation of the trial court's reasoning, which the Court said violates Title VII. How do you equate that to "Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings?"

KaponoFor3: Her ruling was mainly an affirmation of the trial court's reasoning, which the Court said violates Title VII. How do you equate that to "Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings?"

I mean arguably all rulings a judge makes is based in some point on previous rulings (like anytime they cite a case). Sometimes those judges interpret the cases incorrectly or use the incorrect standards or focus on the incorrect issue while ignoring the more important one.

KaponoFor3: Her ruling was mainly an affirmation of the trial court's reasoning, which the Court said violates Title VII. How do you equate that to "Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings?"

It was more that she wasn't guilty of the so-called "legislating from the bench."

EverWatcher: Rick Santorum accuses the conservative liberal justices on the Supreme Court of reversing supporting Sotomayor's decision for partisan reasons

Why is submitter so illiterate?

Why do you lack a sense of juxtaposition? Its a very powerful literary tool.

So what is Rick's take on why the SCOTUS reversed 100% of Scalia's decisions prior to his joining?

I'd love to hear that one.

Subby is very clever. +1

Santorum = teh stupid

Seriously, why bother listening to anything he says?

kleppe accuses the liberal justices on the Supreme Court of supporting Sotomayor's decision for partisan reasons

The "Conservative" justices ignored congresse's law *and* stripped local hiring control from the municipality.


The hypocrisy is so blatant as to defy belief, but this is neo-liberal America. Home of the Reaganite liar.

"More Cheese Gromit"

DarnoKonrad: The "Conservative" justices ignored congresse's law *and* stripped local hiring control from the municipality.

No, they didn't. I just read the opinion 30 minutes ago. Please print out where the majority ignores Congressional law.

They only "stripped local hiring control from the municipality" in the sense that they told the employer that they couldn't use intentional race based measures in an attempt to remedy unintentional race based consequences -- while "attempt to avoid liability" is a defense, it is only legitimate if there is significant evidence to support that there is a realistic chance that the anticipated lawsuit would result in a finding of liability (and in this case there wasn't, because the record showed that steps were taken during the development of the test to insure that it wouldn't be statistically biased based on race). Essentially what the SCOTUS did in this opinion is reviewing the judgment of the attorneys who advised the entity that they would be liable.

At least, that's what I read.

KaponoFor3: Please print out where the majority ignores Congressional law.

Title VII.

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or (new window)


Now. Notice that Ginsburg directly addressed this. Hardly *anyone* uses a multiple choice test to hire for a postion like this anymore. For *exactly* what is cited above.

And Scalica even goes so far as to wish he can take the whole civil rights act of 1964 on.

sacrileg: EverWatcher: Why is submitter so illiterate?

Why do you lack a sense of juxtaposition? Its a very powerful literary tool.



That is not the least bit cromulent here.

kronicfeld: Oh, incidentally, if this Supreme Court decision affects your opinion of Sotomayor in any way, you are officially a f*cking idiot.



What if I felt she sucked before the ruling? What if the ruling affirms her suck.

I think Santroum has sex with young boys, I could be wrong about this.


[this is fun, making up complete baseless allegations]

And submitter is a retard for reading the story wrong.

Phil Herup: kronicfeld: Oh, incidentally, if this Supreme Court decision affects your opinion of Sotomayor in any way, you are officially a f*cking idiot.



What if I felt she sucked before the ruling? What if the ruling affirms her suck.

You are aware the SCOTUS changed the case law?

That if she had ruled the other way she would of been an "activist judge"?

Oh yeah you don't actually give a shiat at all you just want to attack anything Obama does.

gnaunited: "More Cheese Gromit"

Ok, I laughed.

Corvus: you don't actually give a shiat at all you just want to attack anything Obama does.


No, I will praise him when he does something correct.

Phil Herup: correct

Penmanship?

Phil Herup:

while i agree cromulent is a wonderful word, you should learn to stop using it wrong

// its the last defintion

sacrileg: while i agree cromulent is a wonderful word,


can you define it for us?

Phil Herup: Corvus: you don't actually give a shiat at all you just want to attack anything Obama does.


No, I will praise him when he does something correct.

Great then answer me. What case law should Sotoamayor and the other 3 judges have used to overturn the lower courts decision.

We would love to hear.

Or are you just talking out of your ass and have no idea what you are talking about?

You will try to dodge this question.

DarnoKonrad: Title VII.

I'm well aware of what Title VII is -- you said that the conservatives ignores Congress' law. I'm assuming this is the law you are talking about.

DarnoKonrad: (i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or (new window)

Did you miss this part?

Section 2000e-2(k)(2): "A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter."

That necessarily implies that it IS a defense to a claim or finding of unintentional discrimination: that's the whole point. Here's how these cases switch with the burden of proof:

1. Plaintiffs must make out prima facie case
2. Defendants are allowed to present defenses
3. Plaintiffs can show that defense is just a pretext for discriminatory intent.

That's how it works. You only quoted the part about the "plaintiffs must make out a prima facie case", as if that ends the inquiry. It doesn't.

DarnoKonrad: Now. Notice that Ginsburg directly addressed this. Hardly *anyone* uses a multiple choice test to hire for a postion like this anymore. For *exactly* what is cited above.

What do you mean? The City had to use the exam because of its 20 year old contract with the firefighter's union: Instead, the City simply adhered to the testing regime outlined in its two-decades-old contract with the local firefighters' union: a written exam, which would account for 60 percent of an applicant's total score, and an oral exam, which would account for the remaining 40 percent.

The majority acknowledges that they made out a prima facie: These stark disparities, the Court acknowledges, sufficed to state a prima facie case under Title VII's disparate-impact provision. -- but like I said above, that doesn't end the inquiry. The City was allowed to present its defense, which the Court found to be lacking in evidence.

Nowhere did the majority violate Title VII.

Rick is an even bigger asshole than he used to be. But then his ass is mauch larger than it used to be. He has a truly gigantic ass. I mean this mother blocks out the sun. You heard we had an earthquake in northern Delaware last week? Yeah, that was Rick making an interstate Krispy Kreme doughnuts run. The governor of Delaware called Rendell afterward to complain.

Phil Herup: sacrileg: while i agree cromulent is a wonderful word,


can you define embiggen it for us?

sure:

cromulent

Phil Herup: can you define it for us?

i would, but it is a pretty complicated word.

sacrileg: Phil Herup: can you define it for us?

i would, but it is a pretty complicated word.

Procedural Texture-

Dan Savage would be proud.

Corvus: What case law should Sotoamayor and the other 3 judges have used to overturn the lower courts decision.


I don't know. I never completed my GDP in Law.

I'm just glad that justice was served, and that race preferences and Affirmative Action took a nice blow to the head.

GAT_00: KaponoFor3: Her ruling was mainly an affirmation of the trial court's reasoning, which the Court said violates Title VII. How do you equate that to "Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings?"

It was more that she wasn't guilty of the so-called "legislating from the bench."

Which is not what she's being accused of by detractors. She's being accused of a failure of impartiality (in this case, holding a grudge against certain parties and allowing procedural tricks to squash their case which, assumably, a more even-handed justice would not allow). Basically the same thing that Obama was claiming was a positive quality with the "compassion" BS.

I don't think she's a particularly bad choice, honestly, but the compassion thing has to be the worst argument in favor of appointing a judge ever. "Hey, you should let this woman preside over court cases, she prefers feelings to facts!" Yeah, good job supporting your nominees, executive branch.

Is the left on this site still calling the SC ruling "legislating from the bench"? No where did they legislate anything as Kapono has kindly pointed out. Is that really the only defense those defending Sotomayor have on this case?

She was wrong, it happens, it happens quite a bit. Accept it and get over it.

There's a GUY named Santorum? It must be embarrassing having the same name as a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. He must have caught hell in school.

MyRandomName: She was wrong, it happens, it happens quite a bit. Accept it and get over it.

maybe,maybe not. the original decision and her upholding of it was unanimous and not just her own.
the overturning was a 5/4 along ideological lines.

wrong is subjective. but since we determine rulings like this as objective fact you are correct in saying it. I just don't agree with it.

KaponoFor3: DarnoKonrad: The "Conservative" justices ignored congresse's law *and* stripped local hiring control from the municipality.

No, they didn't. I just read the opinion 30 minutes ago. Please print out where the majority ignores Congressional law.

They only "stripped local hiring control from the municipality" in the sense that they told the employer that they couldn't use intentional race based measures in an attempt to remedy unintentional race based consequences -- while "attempt to avoid liability" is a defense, it is only legitimate if there is significant evidence to support that there is a realistic chance that the anticipated lawsuit would result in a finding of liability (and in this case there wasn't, because the record showed that steps were taken during the development of the test to insure that it wouldn't be statistically biased based on race). Essentially what the SCOTUS did in this opinion is reviewing the judgment of the attorneys who advised the entity that they would be liable.


THIS

diadelsuerte: KaponoFor3: DarnoKonrad: The "Conservative" justices ignored congresse's law *and* stripped local hiring control from the municipality.

No, they didn't. I just read the opinion 30 minutes ago. Please print out where the majority ignores Congressional law.

They only "stripped local hiring control from the municipality" in the sense that they told the employer that they couldn't use intentional race based measures in an attempt to remedy unintentional race based consequences -- while "attempt to avoid liability" is a defense, it is only legitimate if there is significant evidence to support that there is a realistic chance that the anticipated lawsuit would result in a finding of liability (and in this case there wasn't, because the record showed that steps were taken during the development of the test to insure that it wouldn't be statistically biased based on race). Essentially what the SCOTUS did in this opinion is reviewing the judgment of the attorneys who advised the entity that they would be liable.


THIS

is wrong. The changes did not negatively impact the ones who sued except in the sense that they were sure that they'd have been able to pass the test before it was axed as a requirement for promotion. It's removal, regardless of the rationale for said removal, was wholey neutral in who benefitted and who didn't. This ruling essentially made it ok to sue your boss because he's making it easier for your professional competition to get the job you want.

Murkanen: It's removal, regardless of the rationale for said removal, was wholey neutral in who benefitted and who didn't.

No, it wasn't. The test clearly favored white and Hispanic candidates, both majority and dissent agree with that. It's removal was not wholly neutral in who benefitted (those who got a second chance to take the test) and those who didn't (those who already got a passing score but had it invalidated in fear of getting sued).

It didn't make it OK to sue your boss because he's making it easier for your professional competition to get the job you want. The fact you think that's what it allowed shows you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Hobodeluxe: MyRandomName: She was wrong, it happens, it happens quite a bit. Accept it and get over it.

maybe,maybe not. the original decision and her upholding of it was unanimous and not just her own.
the overturning was a 5/4 along ideological lines.

wrong is subjective. but since we determine rulings like this as objective fact you are correct in saying it. I just don't agree with it.

Unanimous in a 3 judge panel. All 3 judges were wrong. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of reasoning on laws. Ergo she was wrong.

All 9 of the justices didn't agree with the way the appellate court handled the decision. They however disagreed on the original ruling.

GAT_00: Sotomayor's ruling was based on previous rulings. The Supreme Court overturned sets of rulings here made in the past.

Which is exactly why the reactionary right would love to keep Americans in the dark about stare decisis. They don't want people to know how it actually works.