not surprised, she allowed something to happen that was expressly disallowed by written law.
Just like many lefties around here, she has that gift for reading between the lines. LOL
BTW: I still expect for her to be confirmed, and by a comfortable margin. Although I'm still waiting for that "Gang of 14" to do their thing. Do you think John McCain now realizes how much they played him like a fool?
Another one that tried to initiate bipartisan policies, only to learn they won't reciprocate. They'll just use you when they have to. See Poppy and tax cuts.
Just like many lefties around here, she has that gift for reading between the lines. LOL
BTW: I still expect for her to be confirmed, and by a comfortable margin. Although I'm still waiting for that "Gang of 14" to do their thing. Do you think John McCain now realizes how much they played him like a fool?
Another one that tried to initiate bipartisan policies, only to learn they won't reciprocate. They'll just use you when they have to. See Poppy and tax cuts.
can't believe it was as close as 5-4. Read Ruth Ginsburg opinion.how fuckin stupid is that?
No you dumb c-unt.They didn't recieve promotions only because of color.They threw the test out altogether after the results were not a "colorful" as they hoped.
How these liberals minds function are incredible.
No you dumb c-unt.They didn't recieve promotions only because of color.They threw the test out altogether after the results were not a "colorful" as they hoped.
How these liberals minds function are incredible.
June 28, 2009, 11:48 a.m.
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday said the Senate needs more time to review the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
“Just a day or so ago, we discovered that there are 300 or so boxes of additional material that has just been discovered from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” McConnell said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who is up for a lifetime job,” McConnell said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up the nomination on July 13. Republicans have complained bitterly about the timetable for considering the nomination. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is aiming for a floor vote before the Senate breaks in August.
Sotomayor served on the group’s board of directors from 1980 to 1992.
Conservatives opposed to her nomination have seized on a 1981 memo signed by her and two other directors of the group, which is now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In it, the directors argued against reinstating the death penalty in New York state, making the case that capital punishment is racist because it is disproportionately imposed on minorities. :grandmais
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday said the Senate needs more time to review the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
“Just a day or so ago, we discovered that there are 300 or so boxes of additional material that has just been discovered from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” McConnell said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who is up for a lifetime job,” McConnell said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up the nomination on July 13. Republicans have complained bitterly about the timetable for considering the nomination. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is aiming for a floor vote before the Senate breaks in August.
Sotomayor served on the group’s board of directors from 1980 to 1992.
Conservatives opposed to her nomination have seized on a 1981 memo signed by her and two other directors of the group, which is now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In it, the directors argued against reinstating the death penalty in New York state, making the case that capital punishment is racist because it is disproportionately imposed on minorities. :grandmais
hno:
Justices Reject Sotomayor Position 9-0 -- But Bigger Battles Loom
What's more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel's specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit -- regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.
This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: "Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed... opinion" by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.
Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.
Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly -- as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief -- that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city's claimed motive -- fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions -- was a pretext. The jury's job would have been to consider evidence that the city's main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano's political base.
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/justices-reject-sotomayor-posi.php
What's more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel's specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit -- regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.
This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: "Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed... opinion" by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.
Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.
Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly -- as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief -- that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city's claimed motive -- fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions -- was a pretext. The jury's job would have been to consider evidence that the city's main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano's political base.
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/justices-reject-sotomayor-posi.php
