No Sotomayor Threads? Guess I'll start.

#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
You are half right.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. Both have graduate degrees from Harvard and both have proven to be idiotic presidents. How was I only half right.

I assume you're going to say Obama absorbed what was being taught better than did Bush, but I have seen absolutely nothing that provides any merit whatsoever to that POV.
 
#53
#53
To me even the faintest whiff of racial or gender bias puts me off of any judicial nominee. Throw in even a molecule of "legislate from the bench" attitude and I don't want them anywhere near SCOTUS.
 
#54
#54
hndog609 said:
To me even the faintest whiff of racial or gender bias puts me off of any judicial nominee. Throw in even a molecule of "legislate from the bench" attitude and I don't want them anywhere near SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it only seems to matter if the candidate is a white male. Otherwise, seemingly all commentary is fine.
 
#55
#55
BigPapaVol said:
I agree, but it only seems to matter if the candidate is a white male. Otherwise, seemingly all commentary is fine.
Click to expand...

Well, there is some forgiveness to be had if you're a white male. Of course, you have to be throwing all those "other" white males under the bus.
 
#56
#56
all four of obama's finalists were women. nice to see he believes in equal opportunity.
 
#59
#59
not to sound like a moderate here, but this is a fight the GOP doesn't need to get too involved in. Sure, grill her during her confirmation hearings and maybe let her pass out of committee on a party-line vote, but once her nomination reaches the full senate, don't engage in any of the tactics the dems pulled during the Alito and Roberts' nominations.

I hate identity politics, but the GOP has already lost 90% of the black vote, it doesn't need to lose a constituency that by and large shares much of the party's social platform.
 
#61
#61
MG1968 said:
not to sound like a moderate here, but this is a fight the GOP doesn't need to get too involved in. Sure, grill her during her confirmation hearings and maybe let her pass out of committee on a party-line vote, but once her nomination reaches the full senate, don't engage in any of the tactics the dems pulled during the Alito and Roberts' nominations.

I hate identity politics, but the GOP has already lost 90% of the black vote, it doesn't need to lose a constituency that by and large shares much of the party's social platform.
Click to expand...

90%? it never had 90%. the only reason blacks don't vote for republicans is republicans don't believe in giving handouts. the dems do.

it's the same with the mexican vote, they expect the government to make them citizen, and give them welfare. Once hussein makes them citizens and gives them the right to vote, they'll never be another republican president again and we'll become france or mexico

America as we know it is almost dead, hussein will drive the final nail in the coffin.

the only good thing about this racist nominee is that hopefully, the majority of Americans will finally see and understand what type of radical agenda hussein has. hopefully, enough will see it to change the look of congress and the senate in 2010. i doubt it will happen but you never can tell.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

what a joke

She DOES go on to admit that SOMETIMES those all white male supreme courts got things right like in Brown v Board of Education, etc...

Nice of her to throw us white guys a bone
 
#63
#63
I'm enjoying obama having to defend this idiot.

newt is 100% right. if a white person said the same thing they would have already resigned.
 
#64
#64
More evidence this women is a race baiter:

A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny - WSJ.com

"We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired," Judge Sotomayor told Ms. Torre at the argument's end. But "if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?"

Brilliant argument. If the right people don't get high scores than let's rewrite the test.
 
#66
#66
droski said:
More evidence this women is a race baiter:

A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny - WSJ.com

"We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired," Judge Sotomayor told Ms. Torre at the argument's end. But "if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?"

Brilliant argument. If the right people don't get high scores than let's rewrite the test.
Click to expand...


That is a misreading of the comment.

The knock on standardized tests is that they have an inherent bias. While its perfeclty legitimate for you to criticize changing the inherent bias to something else (which is apparently what you believe, i.e. that its result driven), the question she is REALLY asking is whether a test can be divised that has no inherent bias, at all?

Look at it this way: If the test results perpetually result in zero minority advancement, and if the sample size is large enough to merit at least some just on pure statisticial chance, the issue is whether the test is really measuring what you think you are measuring.

Its a perfectly legitimate question.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
That is a misreading of the comment.

The knock on standardized tests is that they have an inherent bias. While its perfeclty legitimate for you to criticize changing the inherent bias to something else (which is apparently what you believe, i.e. that its result driven), the question she is REALLY asking is whether a test can be divised that has no inherent bias, at all?

Look at it this way: If the test results perpetually result in zero minority advancement, and if the sample size is large enough to merit at least some just on pure statisticial chance, the issue is whether the test is really measuring what you think you are measuring.

Its a perfectly legitimate question.
Click to expand...
have you not read any of the story. A specialist did come in to write the test for the purpose of avoiding bias. How is any judge in any position to to determine that the specialist was wrong? I know it's easier to assume him incompetent rather than any of the test takers, but maybe that's just her bias.
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
That is a misreading of the comment.

The knock on standardized tests is that they have an inherent bias. While its perfeclty legitimate for you to criticize changing the inherent bias to something else (which is apparently what you believe, i.e. that its result driven), the question she is REALLY asking is whether a test can be divised that has no inherent bias, at all?

Look at it this way: If the test results perpetually result in zero minority advancement, and if the sample size is large enough to merit at least some just on pure statisticial chance, the issue is whether the test is really measuring what you think you are measuring.

Its a perfectly legitimate question.
Click to expand...

but her assumption is that if there aren't any qualified minorities that it must have an inherent bias. which is of course ridiculous. just because there were no qualified minorities the one time it was given that doesn't mean that will hold true in the future. I don't know how you can argue that a fire fighters test is racially biased without sounding racist yourself. we're not talking about the gmat here.
 
#69
#69
Generally, the white firefighters are going to be able to come to better conclusions on these tests due to their life experiences.
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
That is a misreading of the comment.

The knock on standardized tests is that they have an inherent bias. While its perfeclty legitimate for you to criticize changing the inherent bias to something else (which is apparently what you believe, i.e. that its result driven), the question she is REALLY asking is whether a test can be divised that has no inherent bias, at all?

Look at it this way: If the test results perpetually result in zero minority advancement, and if the sample size is large enough to merit at least some just on pure statisticial chance, the issue is whether the test is really measuring what you think you are measuring.

Its a perfectly legitimate question.
Click to expand...

If a dyslexic individual can do well enough on the test to receive a promotion, I think the inherent bias argument is pretty weak.
 
#71
#71
You may well be right that the test is perfectly valid and that the minority candidates simply did not measure up and were therefore less qualified than their white counterparts. That is one explanation.

And certainly the fact that someone was hired to try to prevent it from carrying any bias is a relevant fact in that.

But another explanation is that, despite the effort to keep it from having a bias, it still had one. If the statistics (and I don't pretend to know what they were) showed that the result was highly suggestive of bias, then that's also a fact to consider.

My point is that the proponents should not assume that the minority candidates were not as qualified, and the minority candidates should not assume that the test was biased. It can be debated.

Now whether it should? Whole different public policy question. But really the assumption on that is in the law, not on the shoulders of the judge.
 
#72
#72
i find it disturbing that she thinks she has the right to rule on whether the test is racially biased.
 
#73
#73
Preferably, the test would be biased towards competence and merit, concerning the position it is used for. Beyond that, the rest is meaningless.
 
#74
#74
I'm having a hard time conceiving a way this test could be biased to allow white people to earn better scores. I don't really know what kind of content is on one of these firefighter exams, but I doubt it's trivia about Friends episodes.
 
#75
#75
I've heard that the New Haven, CT firefighters test ruling that she made, was in fact, a precedent ruling, that had been made before in a lower court.

Doesn't mean I condone throwing out the tests. Just relaying what I've heard.

I don't like that they just threw out the tests. They could have found some middle ground, such as promoting the top scoring firefighters, and hiring some minorities as well. There could have been a compromise that was reached.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top