Comments on: Firefighter to Testify Against Sotomayor
Senate Republicans Plan Testimony from White Conn. Firefighter Whose Reverse Discrimination Case Was Rejected by Nominee
Add a Comment See all 78 Comments
- Wow! This is why i can no longer relate to the Republican Party (think before you speak/type). First off, just because you are working on a case that involves a racial discrimination clame (Lawyer, Judge, etc) doesn't mean you are a racist. Don't forget there was a panel of judges that decided. Also, you make it seem as it was a unanimous ruling in the supreme court. It wasn't, the ruling was 5-4. Therefore it is based on interpretation law and not predjudice. Maybe the 4 need to be thrown out as racists. if that is the case, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas need to be thrown out for being on the losing side of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) because they are obviously racist.
- Reply to this comment
- Grab at straws? Then why even bother with confirmations in the future. Just let whoever the President is nominate whoever they want to nominate every time. No more complaining when a republican nominates a SC justice in the future.
- Reply to this comment
- The republicans are so terrified that Sotomayor will be confirmed that they will try anything to smear her. The problem is that they just can't find anything to use so they are bringing this fireman in as a last resort. I do not believe for one minute that Sotomayor is a racist. She ruled on this case based on the law as it was at the time. I believe that promotions should be based on merit and on who scored best on the exams. However, had this been the case, it would not have been necessary to have laws to enforce this. There was a time when minorities were denied advancement even though they deserved it. So laws had to be written to level the playing field. But the republicans are going to use this to try to block Sotomayor's confirmation. Just politics folks.
- Reply to this comment
-
- "...I believe that promotions should be based on merit and on who scored best on the exams..."
Then why are you defending Sotomayor? The firefighter DID score best on the exam. Sotomayor's position here was that the best scorers should NOT be promoted, that's why she ruled in favor of the city.
Your problem is you are completely ignorant of this case and you just want to sound off. Your making us real Democrats who actually study the issues look like fools. Please educate yourself before posting here, you don't want to be mistaken for a Republican.
- "...I believe that promotions should be based on merit and on who scored best on the exams..."
- What Sotomayor and others believe in is that it's wrong for whites to excel and be promoted when blacks who fail can't cut it. Blacks had access to the same types of information and preparatory mechanisms as did whites and browns. If blacks still fail given these equalizers, then they deserve not to be promoted. Presumably blacks wanted the basis for passing to be one of verbal communication, rather their intellectual brain power. Why must everything be dumbed down to the level of underachievers in order for racists like Sotomayor to feel that that is the only way equality can be achieved? This twisted mentality diminishes equality, punishing the truly qualified in favor of the unqualified.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Wow! This is why i can no longer relate to the Republican Party (think before you speak/type). First off, just because you are working on a case that involves a racial discrimination clame (Lawyer, Judge, etc) doesn't mean you are a racist. Don't forget there was a panel of judges that decided. Also, you make it seem as it was a unanimous ruling in the supreme court. It wasn't, the ruling was 5-4. Therefore it is based on interpretation law and not predjudice. Maybe the 4 need to be thrown out as racists. if that is the case, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas need to be thrown out for being on the losing side of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) because they are obviously racist.
- I fully support this fireman and agree that we should never allow any promotion (public-safety position or not) based on race.
- Reply to this comment
- Excellent point.....Judical activism and racism against anyone from the Majority.....however, your insult is offensive to people of Hispanic heritage.
- Reply to this comment
- Well Liberals ????
Where is the attack on the Fireman......that's what you do best...the art of personal destruction
Don't dare to defy or question the Liberal machine, you will be attacked and destroyed....just wait and watch - Reply to this comment
-
- You hit your head recently?
Nobody here has said anything negative against these heros. Show me one post that has spoken negatively about them.
You can't, and you won't be able to.
This isn't about them, it's about the MORONIC GOP looking for ANYTHING to tear this women down.
She'll be the next SC Justice, and you'll be cryin in your 36 pack.( clearly, an 18 pack won't do anymore for someone like you).
Bitter beer face...
- You hit your head recently?
- Maybe they're going to light a fire in a wastebasket and have him put it out.
- Reply to this comment
- The argument is that promotion should be based on who is most qualified for the promotion - not based on being a MAJORITY. Especially when it comes to safety of the public.
Look at our country's history and understand that that's why we're having this discussion. - Reply to this comment
- This would validate that the Republican party has evaporated. What a pointless exercise, as if a firefighter would have even a semblance of an idea as to what the law is or how it should be interpreted. Maybe he disagrees with the way the law was ruled on. What value does that have in judging Ms Sotomayor's qualifications for Supreme Court justice?)
- Reply to this comment
-
- Simply put, because the laws that go to the US Supreme Court are GREY, meaning, that the legislative meaning of the law is NOT DETERMINABLE. The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to take a POORLY WRITTEN, UNCLEAR law that is interpreted many possible ways, and draw a line in the sand and say "this is what the law means"
If congress doesn't like the Supreme Court being "activist" and changing around the meanings of their laws that they write then they can simply write better and more specific laws. If the general public doesn't like judicial activism then they can demand their congresspeople do a better job.
But if congress acts like lazy slobs unwilling to tackle the hard issues, then someone has to make a decision - and that's the court. And that is why issues like this are relevant. The court should be interpreting these poorly-written statues based on a fundamental issue - fairness.
It's just like the strip search of the 13 year old. It's unfair for a school to strip search a 13 year old without her parents being informed or present. That's why the court ruled that the search was unconstitutional - even though case law supported the opposite outcome - because fundamentally it was unfair. If Sotomayor cannot or will not apply basic fairness to her decisions then she is no better than Clarence Thomas - who alone of all other justices, also voted against the 13 year old who was strip searched.
Is this a decision that should make or break Sotomayor's nomination? NO. But, is it a VERY RELEVANT decision that Sotomayor should have to explain herself with? ABSOLUTELY. Unless she can look Ricci straight in the eye and explain in a logical fashion why her ruling was fair, she doesn't belong on the Court.
- Simply put, because the laws that go to the US Supreme Court are GREY, meaning, that the legislative meaning of the law is NOT DETERMINABLE. The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to take a POORLY WRITTEN, UNCLEAR law that is interpreted many possible ways, and draw a line in the sand and say "this is what the law means"
- If you take the time to read the Supreme Court's Opinion in the Firefighter case, the term it uses to describe New Haven's conduct is "Intentional Discrimination." That was, exactly, what it was. How Sotomayor could miss that is scary. The case is a pretty pure and direct single issue case - did New Haven use race as a factor in promotions? Obviously, yes. To miss that, Sotomayor either has to have a personal agenda that involves intentional racism, or she is just incompetent, or both. Either way, she has no business being on the Supreme Court. Pathetic.
- Reply to this comment
- So, Mr. Ricci is qualified to discuss the appellate court's interpretation of the relevant statute in his case?
Because that is what an appellate court and its justices do. And if he's not going to discuss that, there is no reason for him to be there. The issue is categorically not discrimination, even if the appellate court wanted it to be. The issue - just as all issues are before the Supreme Court and all courts of appeal - is the court's interpretation of the relevant statute. If the statute is flawed, a legislative body must repair it.
Got that? - Reply to this comment
- clubnik has it right. "reverse discrimination" implies that discrimination only goes one way. Discrimination is discrimination regardles of what protected class it falls under.
- Reply to this comment
- Firefighter Frank Ricci please do not permit yourself to be used by some group with an agenda the way the Republican party used ?Joe the Plumber.?
There is no reason for you to fly to Washington, D.C. to testify in front of the Senate Judicial Committee against Justice Sonia Sotomayor. You are being used! Judge Sotomayor rendered a decision supporting the law as it was written at the time your case was presented in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision, of the three-judge appellate panel, by writing new law, means Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues were not wrong, but the the Supreme Court felt the need to alter Title VII. - Reply to this comment
-
- I'm a Democrat and if I was Ricci I would testify in a heartbeat.
What fundamentally happened here is an issue of fairness. Ricci was told he had to take a test, he was willing to take it. He was told that this is the stuff he had to study, he studied it. He worked at this and passed the test. After passing, the city says to him they are going to invalidate the test, not because of anything he did - but because of what some other guys over here DIDN'T do - ie: they didn't pass.
OK, so maybe the test was flawed and the city didn't realize it until after Ricci was tested. Fine, then change the test and the next guy who hasn't taken the test yet, now he has different stuff to study. But don't go back to all the people who passed the test and tell them that they have to start over at the beginning. The city had plenty of chance BEFORE Ricci took the test to "fix" it.
Besides all of that, how exactly do you write a test about FIREFIGHTING so that white people can pass it and black people can't? The city's supposition - that the test was racially biased - is completely illogical.
- I'm a Democrat and if I was Ricci I would testify in a heartbeat.
- Jeeze, you'd think Republicans had never defended Harriet Miers.
- Reply to this comment
- The term, "Reverse Discrimination" to me is ridiculously racist. Discrimination is discrimination; plain and simple, no matter how you slice it.
- Reply to this comment
- Please, lets remember, the Supreme Court vote was 5-4. Four supreme court justices had a similar ruling. This is not a confirmation issue, but since there is so much support for her and little real negative things in her history, her opponents are left to grab at straws.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Grab at straws? Then why even bother with confirmations in the future. Just let whoever the President is nominate whoever they want to nominate every time. No more complaining when a republican nominates a SC justice in the future.
- And we should recognize that Sotomayer wasn't the only vote in the discrimination case for the Appellate courts, either. Considering the questionable history of Thomas and Roberts, this vote should not be any deciding factor.
- Promotion should be based on who is most qualified for the promotion not based on being a minority. Especially when it comes to safety of the public.
- Reply to this comment
-
- The argument is that promotion should be based on who is most qualified for the promotion - not based on being a MAJORITY. Especially when it comes to safety of the public.
Look at our country's history and understand that that's why we're having this discussion.
- jgreat - OK, name a country that has not been governed primarily by white European descendants that you would prefer to live in?
- This should be a review boards call, The board should consist of firefighters, former firefighters and city council members with lawyers mixed in. The srutiny has to decide if the test covered the requirements for the position being tested for. If the board sees the test as skewed in favor of one side or the other, they should "toss the results, redesign the test and re-administer it to "all" applicants.
What did the City do? Case closed.
- The argument is that promotion should be based on who is most qualified for the promotion - not based on being a MAJORITY. Especially when it comes to safety of the public.
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
