AfriGeneas Discuss! Forum Archive 2
Re: Why Say 'NO' To Sotomayor
In Response To: Re: Why Say 'NO' To Sotomayor ()
Now, see, Richard. You started out with an assumption, and that is something you haven't allowed me the luxury of doing. I shall address your comments one by one, if you don't mind.
First, I don't believe "white males are fair and just and color and gender blind". I would have thought you would know me better than that by now and know that I would never even be able to come to such a conclusion given the way I think. to you for that one.
Second, YOU must be aware that SHE AUTHORED the summary judgement upholding the lower court's ruling, in effect dismissing the case out of hand. While she spoke for the majority in that action, she should be held accountable just as any 'white male' judge would be had that white judge made such an error in adjudicating the case.
By the way, have you thought about what the Supreme Court ruling means for Affirmative Action initiatives? IF Sotomayor had exercised some judicial discretion [which she could have just as the Supreme Court found], she could have set a precedent. Instead, she chose to dismiss the case without even blinking an eye.
Don't forget that the 20 New Haven firefighters included one Hispanic and one Person With A Disability. However, they just happened to be MALE, not a gender she is inclined to support. In fact, it seems to me that she has her priorities straight when it comes to her discriminatory views: Latino women first, women second, Latino men next, THEN the rest of the world who happen to be classified as male.
THE CITY WAS NOT SURE THAT THE TEST MEASURED THE SKILLS NEEDED TO BE AN EFFECTIVE SUPERVISOR???? Something is rotten in Denmark, Hamlet. Here is a city that claimed it feared lawsuits from minorities because it had been sued in the past over race-based discrimination resulting from its [obviously] flawed Civil Service exams.
WHO prevented the city from taking action BACK THEN, when it was being sued, to correct the situation by revising their exams so that the exams met the standard of fairness? Why wait and decide we might get sued again so let's deny these men the promotions they worked so hard for.
Certainly, the city is adopting an in-your-face attitude when it comes to whether or not it will follow the Supreme Court ruling. An attorney for the city made remarks immediately following the court's decision that the city would have to see IF those men would be promoted and given back pay. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the court ordered them to do just that.
Anyway, Sotomayor's nomination [and certain confirmation] to the Supreme Court has made me re-think embarking on a criminal career.
Messages In This Thread