Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Actually, the debate's over. It's a ruling, and it overturned a previous ruling because it WAS discriminatory against white people.

But by that ridiculous standard, until the Supreme Court changed the ruling, the debate was "over" and the action WAS NOT discriminatory.

And before we blast that Sotomayor too hard, do remember that she's only guilty of affirming a decision made by an Arterton at the District Court...

[nikimcbee]

Too bad it wasn't 9-0 vote.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

But by that ridiculous standard, until the Supreme Court changed the ruling, the debate was "over" and the action WAS NOT discriminatory.

Really? So the SUPREME COURT ruled upon this case previously? You know, the highest court in the US? The one that, now having ruled, leaves no options for higher court appeals?

Maybe you should understand an argument before you label it ridiculous.

Seems to me like there was plenty of debate (read: appeals) before the courts, and now that's over with. Ergo, the debate is over.

Simple, right?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Oh, I agree that legally speaking, once the Supreme Court has spoken, its as closed as it could be.
What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.
If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level?

[Aramike]

What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.

That's not my position. My statement was in a very specific context in response to Tchoky's post, which also included a link to information about the case.

In other words, my comment was in the context of the legal case, and the debate is indeed over on that front.

If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level?

In the context of the debate being the case itself, then yes.

Obviously, however, I didn't relate my point as succinctly as I could have and for that I apologize.

In spite of the fact as she says "A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".

Despite the fact that she never said that

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Despite the fact that she never said that

Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "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."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

[Tchocky]

Rather good piece on this ruling - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/op...html?th&emc=th

Judge Sotomayor, famously, was one of three judges on an appellate panel who applied their federal circuit’s settled precedent to rule in New Haven’s favor. Like that decision or hate it, cheer Monday’s ruling or deplore it, one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "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."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

She said exactly what she meant. I agree aramike, there is not skirting what she really meant.