theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 1, 2009 12:12:36 GMT -5
This horse is pretty dead.
Cambridge, I will say that the paragraph which invited your criticism was my effort to outline the conservative viewpoint, which is logically consistent. It frustrates me that people keep on bringing up overturning this case as "judicial activism".
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 1, 2009 12:39:36 GMT -5
"I don't think you read my actual opinion on the underlying matter at all. My only disagreement is with your assertion that the Constitution, or the law for that matter is so clear cut on this issue. You can say it is clear all you want, but there are so many decisions, so many statutory convulsions, so much judicial rhetoric clouding this issue by so many well-intentioned people, that I fail to see how it is a "simple" issue. You can keep hammering away at the text of the Constitution all you want - "it says EQUAL!!!" - however, the very idea of what is "equal" has perplexed this nation for over 200 years." You shall not discriminate on the basis of race. Only a lawyer could say it does not say you can't discriminate on the basis of race. I'm not sure what constitution you are reading from, but the phrase "you shall not discriminate on the basis of race" does not appear in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause is as follows: 14th Amend. Section 1 " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now, you may be referring to Title VII - The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does include a provision that prevents employers from discriminating on the basis of race when it comes to hiring decisions...but that is a statute, and a statute I might add that has been quite heavily criticized by this Court. So, I wouldn't put much stock in that phrase or that statute. You can't blast the statute when it is used by some, then applaud it when used by others, based solely on the outcome - that is arbitrary and unconstitutional. It's either broken or it ain't. Personally, I think it's broken. Also, your bluster and curmudgeonly shot at all lawyers is so tired. It cheapens you and makes you sound even more like Andy Rooney. Why is it wrong to have a nuanced view on something? I just can never quite understand why you demand we all take black or white positions when everything in this universe suggests that no issue enjoys such clarity. Is it not hubris to believe that we alone amongst all the chaos and humanity are the single individual with all the answers? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 1, 2009 13:18:01 GMT -5
I would like to take this moment to take a blustery and curmudgeonly shot at lawyers as well.
You all suck whale and the world would be a more excellent place without any of you.
And if I had a lawn, believe me, you would not be welcome on it.
Now. I need to go polish my "Lawyers will be shot on sight" sign hanging on my office door.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 1, 2009 14:29:03 GMT -5
For the record I was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the Constitution. It's the law and it says what Cambridge says it says. You shall not discriminate in hiring on the basis of race. My shot at lawyers is that they seem not to be able to read "shall not discriminate on the basis of race" and too often ignore what the law says while looking for "nuance". This is a black and white issue, not gray. You shall not discriminate on the basis of race. As a non-lawyer, I have no trouble knowing what those words say.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,486
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 1, 2009 20:38:06 GMT -5
I would like to take this moment to take a blustery and curmudgeonly shot at lawyers as well. You all suck whale and the world would be a more excellent place without any of you. And if I had a lawn, believe me, you would not be welcome on it. Now. I need to go polish my "Lawyers will be shot on sight" sign hanging on my office door. I poop on your lawn, if you had one. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 10, 2009 13:12:49 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jul 10, 2009 15:00:15 GMT -5
I'd strongly recommend reading the suit and the settlement. documents.nytimes.com/new-haven-connecticut-firefighter-frank-ricci-suit#p=1You could say that Mr. Ricci originally got a job with the New Haven Fire Department after obtaining his state fire fighter certification, serving several years with fire companies in Montgomery County, Marland, passing the New Haven civil service exam, and then passing the New Haven Fire Department's physical exam. The City of New Haven then committed a flagrant violation of Mr. Ricci's civil rights as codified in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which could only be remedied through trial litigation, which I think all of us around here agree is the highest and most noble calling to which our nation's intelligent professionals can aspire. Are you just opposed to civil rights for handicapped people or do you have some kind of anti-lawyer schtick like ed? ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Jul 10, 2009 18:42:13 GMT -5
I saw the list of people testifying at her confirmation hearings, most made sense. What David Cone and Frank Ricci could possibly have to offer about the jurisprudential abilities of a possible future Supreme Court Justice is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 10, 2009 21:01:04 GMT -5
I'd strongly recommend reading the suit and the settlement. documents.nytimes.com/new-haven-connecticut-firefighter-frank-ricci-suit#p=1You could say that Mr. Ricci originally got a job with the New Haven Fire Department after obtaining his state fire fighter certification, serving several years with fire companies in Montgomery County, Marland, passing the New Haven civil service exam, and then passing the New Haven Fire Department's physical exam. The City of New Haven then committed a flagrant violation of Mr. Ricci's civil rights as codified in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which could only be remedied through trial litigation, which I think all of us around here agree is the highest and most noble calling to which our nation's intelligent professionals can aspire. Are you just opposed to civil rights for handicapped people or do you have some kind of anti-lawyer schtick like ed? ;-) My comments had nothing to do with the merits of the particular case, having glanced through the complaint and settlement. I just found it interesting given the political dynamics of the hearings. I have to agree with lightbulb on it, however. Cone is undoubtedly there due to Sotomayor's handling of MLB litigation, but I would think that the attorneys involved in particular matters would make better witnesses. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 10, 2009 23:43:31 GMT -5
I'll just quote the noted jurist, Bender Bending Rodriguez: "This is the worst kind of discrimination: The kind against ME!" |
|
