Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
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
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jul 1 2009, 07:35 AM Post #32
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM
dreach, having a few cases overturned by a slim margin is one thing, but having almost all of your rulings overturned is quite another. If the Supreme Court consistently says that your interpretation of the law of the land is flawed or incorrect, it has to make anyone seriously consider that person's qualifications for the highest court in the land.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 1 2009, 09:47 AM Post #33
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
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.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 1 2009, 10:17 AM Post #34
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
yawnzzz
Jul 1 2009, 07:35 AM
aaronk2727
Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM
dreach, having a few cases overturned by a slim margin is one thing, but having almost all of your rulings overturned is quite another. If the Supreme Court consistently says that your interpretation of the law of the land is flawed or incorrect, it has to make anyone seriously consider that person's qualifications for the highest court in the land.
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.
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.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jul 1 2009, 10:30 AM Post #35
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 1 2009, 10:17 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 1 2009, 07:35 AM
aaronk2727
Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM
dreach, having a few cases overturned by a slim margin is one thing, but having almost all of your rulings overturned is quite another. If the Supreme Court consistently says that your interpretation of the law of the land is flawed or incorrect, it has to make anyone seriously consider that person's qualifications for the highest court in the land.
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.
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.
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.
Posted Image

"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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jul 1 2009, 11:48 AM Post #36
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 1 2009, 10:17 AM
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 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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM Post #37
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 1 2009, 01:08 PM Post #38
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
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.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 1 2009, 01:19 PM Post #39
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jul 1 2009, 01:08 PM
HoosierLars
Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
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.
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.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jul 1 2009, 01:27 PM Post #40
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jul 1 2009, 01:08 PM
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?
I believe you are correct, sir.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 1 2009, 01:31 PM Post #41
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 1 2009, 01:19 PM
dreachon
Jul 1 2009, 01:08 PM
HoosierLars
Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
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.
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.
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.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 1 2009, 03:57 PM Post #42
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
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.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 1 2009, 04:06 PM Post #43
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 1 2009, 03:57 PM
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.
Well said. I agree.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 1 2009, 04:18 PM Post #44
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 1 2009, 03:57 PM
HoosierLars
Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2009, 09:19 PM
brumdog44
Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
I didn't bother to look up the voting record for this case. Which side of this argument do you some down on, Brum?
Brum, where do you come down on the discrimination vs reverse discrimination argument?
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.
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! ;)
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 1 2009, 04:24 PM Post #45
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
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)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:45 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy