Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2009, 07:33 AM (478 Views) | |
| HoosierLars | Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM Post #31 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum? |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jul 1 2009, 07:35 AM Post #32 |
|
Coach
|
I was just thinking about your quote above, and it made sense when I read it.... then it settled in, and I realized isn't that why Supreme Court justices are picked now? Justices clearly vote down party lines, and there's tons of data to back that up, so to say her 'judgment' is flawed really just means her political disposition is different than the current majority of justices. |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 1 2009, 09:47 AM Post #33 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
I'd still like to see the statistics on her having almost all of her cases overturned and more consistently than current judges have dissenting opinions. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 1 2009, 10:17 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Coach
|
I don't think the supreme court justices "clearly vote down party lines" yawnz. Big politically polarizing issues, like abortion, get party line attention in the supreme court, but that certainly isn't the norm and most of their cases are based on non-partisan interpretation of the law. Her's is clearly flawed IMO. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jul 1 2009, 10:30 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
I tend to agree with Yawnzz. The Supreme court is highly partisan. However, Aaron is spot on in my feelings about Sotomayor's interpretation of the law. Her interpretation is flawed. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jul 1 2009, 11:48 AM Post #36 |
|
Coach
|
The thing that most people forget is that by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, in most cases it's been heard several times, and there was still disagreement. There's very few cases that are clearcut in the eyes of the law, or they wouldn't be to the Supreme Court in the first place. So, when something reaches the Supreme Court, it generally is an interpretation of the law, and interpretations are always prone to personal bias. In cases where you see an overwhelming majority, you rarely see party lines, but the overwhelming majority of cases are split decisions. Now it's been several years since I've read these journals, but I do remember looking at the statistics gathered of 5-4 decisions, and a ridiculous percent (seemed like 98% if not higher...) of the time, justices voted down party lines. I'm having a hard time searching for these journals, since I don't have any academic subscriptions anymore, but I think you'd be shocked how little 'law' or the 'constitution' has to do with Supreme Court decisions in the past century. As to her opinion being 'flawed', it's flawed to me as well, but that's only because I disagree. There were 4 justices who just agreed with her opinion, so being flawed is in the eyes of the beholder. |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM Post #37 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument? |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 1 2009, 01:08 PM Post #38 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
You know read the details of this case yesterday and I gotta say that I was torn on it. I mean Sotomayor was right that no one is "entitled" to a promotion. I can imagine the several business owners we have in here being forced to give promotions to their employees and the shitstorm that would follow. That said, if the state is going to create a test to determine promotions, then shit you have to promote whoever passes the tests don't you? The real issue here is the stupidity of the state's promotion criteria, which hopefully will change and make this case moot. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 1 2009, 01:19 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Coach
|
no one is entitled to a promotion, however in this country one cannot have their promotion revoked based on the color of their skin. I'm not sure how you or anyone could be "torn" on that, unless you are a racist. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jul 1 2009, 01:27 PM Post #40 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I believe you are correct, sir. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 1 2009, 01:31 PM Post #41 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Agree. Torn because I don't think someone should be entitled to a promotion just for passing a test. I mean WTF is that about? The guy who shows up late and half asses it all the time gets promoted because he can answer some questions correctly? Shouldn't there be some other factors involved here? But you are right, you absolutely cannot revoke the promotion once it's given. If the test is flawed, fine. You have to fix it for next year then. You can't retroactively say it's invalid. So in the end, I'm in agreement with the Supreme Court's final decision. It's the states own fault for creating a retarded promotion process. But they created it, so they have to live with it. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jul 1 2009, 03:57 PM Post #42 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of color...I really think we need to get rid of the term 'reverse discrimination' because it clouds the issue. Both issues deal with the same thing: not getting the same rights based solely on race. If you are asking if whites can be discriminated against, then my answer is yes. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 1 2009, 04:06 PM Post #43 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Well said. I agree. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 1 2009, 04:18 PM Post #44 |
![]()
Coach
|
wouldn't reverse discrimination be treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on individual merit rather than based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs? If so, I'm all for it! ;) |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jul 1 2009, 04:24 PM Post #45 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
aaron, don't know if you are joking or not, but I do not think what you are giving the accepted definition. yourdictionary.com: discrimination in hiring, college admissions, etc. directed against members of certain social or racial groups, as white males, thought of as being dominant or having benefited from past discrimination against minority groups who are now favored, often as a result of affirmative action websters.com: discrimination against whites or males (as in employment or education) |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:45 PM Jul 10
|













7:45 PM Jul 10