Its never about what is right and wrong with some people, its about power and getting what you want.
I could not find one single person who thought those tests should be thrown out just because some blacks couldn't pass it...none.
The Supreme Court didn't agree, not even the descent agreed with Sotomayor...
She is only seeing things through a race colored lens.
To people like her and Obama, everything is about race.
Its nice to see that even the liberals I know understand that this is dead wrong
Problem is you see the bad behavior and what type of people support someone like Sotomayor, and she will be a person that is on the highest court in the land..
Its scary, its sad, and its our own faults...
Another consequence of Obama
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
You demonstrate once again that you don't know what you are talking about but following the Hannity blather.
In the past the Supreme Court ruled that a fire department could throw out a test if they feared that they might be sued because minorities didn't pass it. That's called "precedent", and appellate courts are bound to follow Supreme Court precedent rather than "make laws" themselves.
And that's what Sotomayor and the majority of her court did-ruled according to Supreme Court precedent. The fact that the current Supreme Court CHANGED its standards for municipalities in these cases, as they did here, does not make Sotomayor wrong.
So it is false to claim that she was "seeing things through a race colored lens". She was seeing things as she was bound to by precedent.
The rest of your bad liberal diatribe is just the usual BS.
How can anyone be so "jumbled" and
yet...so amusing...no imagination in that...
Jim, what precedents liberals choose to follow depends on their ideology. For example, if we followed the 9th and 10th amendments, most federal bureaucracies would be illegal.
In the same vein, precedent says we shouldn't consider homosexual unions as marriages.
Barack Obama, btw, will forever be the best argument against affirmative action.
Please cite any evidence of the President personally benefitting from affirmative action. Makes your last sentence really seem pretty dang racist, and I don't throw the race card out there for fun.
I don't believe the supreme court has ruled on homosexual unions and marriage. Can you cite the case?
If the Republicans want to bring Ricci into the hearings to "beat up" on Sotomayor, then he's fair game. Seems like HE's OK with claiming discrimination if it benefits him.
Sotomayor benefitted from affirmative action. Mullah Obama hand picked Sotomayor. Hence, Obama benefitted by being able to pick a fellow racist.
You have no proof of racism by either. And I don't think you can show any proof that Sotomayor benefitted from affirmative action. Where's the proof?
No offense? OK, up yours! No offense.
Her own words quoted in your article are ambiguous. Nowhere does she clearly say that she wouldn't have gotten into Princeton or Yale if it were not for affirmative action. In fact, she says, "With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates."
Finally, you are a moron. There, I don't have to prove it, I can just say it, right?
Sorry Jim, facts are facts...she said it herself
I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton and Yale, not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions.
She was not smart enough to get in, the fact she was a minority was the only reason she was accepted, period, fact, end of story, accepted by her.
Now, this is a real fact, not a global warming kind of fact...so you might not understand.
"She was not smart enough to get in, the fact she was a minority was the only reason she was accepted, period, fact, end of story, accepted by her."
Not so. See the quote in my previous post: "With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates."
That's a fact, too.
No, seriously. I didn't mean any offense. I just want everyone on your side to literally print off all the racism accusations, crumple them up, or roll them up, and stick them up your butt. Really, please do it. I don't want to ever hear about racism on the right ever again, unless you have proof. So, please, go ahead, start printing. I would suggest a rather lightweight paper.
Jim, I'm astounded by your disdain toward HH's position!
"I can't prove my exact claims of racism so you prove ambiguous claims first" is inherently logical.....
No, I didn't say I can't prove exact claims of racism. What I said is that it is impossible for anyone to prove racism, except when the perpetrator actually admits to it. Otherwise you, me, or anyone else evaluating someones motivation.
So, no, I don't know Obama'a heart, I don't know Soto heart. I just called them racists because the I am a bitter clinger.
And look, Obama choose a black woman to marry. What, couldn't be have found a nice white girl? Where is his list of applicants? Did he even interveiw a caucasian? What, is he going to say that Michelle was the best qualified for the job? Did he use a race neutral interview process? I just think it is tooooooo convenient that he ended up with a whole black woman when he is only 1/2 black.
Yikes!
Jim, that is just what I thought when I hear about Garafalo's unfounded claim that everyone who attended a tea party was a racists. Then, Olbermann didn't refute it, YIKES is precisely what came to my mind.
I hope I am not making an assumption, you did mean what I think you mean. I would hate to make a ass out of u and mption. You couldn't possibly have been yikesing my caricature, could you?
Post a Comment