Off Topic- Sotomayor Hearings

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.[/quote]

I agree that confirmation demands due diligence. But are you suggesting that her nomination was solely because she is female and latina? She has more bench experience than any nominee in the last 50 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.[/quote]

I agree that confirmation demands due diligence. But are you suggesting that her nomination was solely because she is female and latina? She has more bench experience than any nominee in the last 50 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.[/quote]

I agree that confirmation demands due diligence. But are you suggesting that her nomination was solely because she is female and latina? She has more bench experience than any nominee in the last 50 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

Good points above and don’t leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.[/quote]

I agree that confirmation demands due diligence. But are you suggesting that her nomination was solely because she is female and latina? She has more bench experience than any nominee in the last 50 years.

[Author]

Posts