deep
Blue Crack Addict
You could be right.
She definitely benefited from affirmative action.
As did Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales.
I support affirmative action.
it's Sotomayor
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You could be right.
She definitely benefited from affirmative action.
As did Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales.
I support affirmative action.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
deep
Blue Crack Addict
one example
and another
this definition works
The terms affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity.
The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and military.
The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.
and another
this definition works
The terms affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity.
The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and military.
The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.
There is no question that admission policies, particularly at the Ivy League schools, make use of affirmative action, usually on a straight points system.
Having said that, you don't get into a Princeton or Harvard AND finish at the top of your class if you're not actually capable.
Having said that, you don't get into a Princeton or Harvard AND finish at the top of your class if you're not actually capable.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I support diversification
that is why I support affirmative action
I have never said they were not competent or capable
I do believe there most likely are 'white' students that would have been in their place, that were qualified and capable, if 'affirmative action' policies did not get minorities placed there.
I believe some people think 'affirmative action' means quotas or set asides.
Ten per cent will be black, regardless of qualifications.
As a practical matter, I support affirmative action because we have not yet come up with a better way of diversifying, as you say.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i agree.
i would also point to GWB as someone who certainly benefited from affirmative action for rich white people. legacies at the Ivies, while not nearly what it was 30 years ago, is still alive and well.
and i think both policies are defensible. i think there are real reasons why schools admit legacies, and many legacies are entirely qualified.
the problem i have is the rage that's directed at people who have been advanced because they can offer diversity. just look at some of the comments in this thread. instantly, because she's latina, it's suggested that this is her only qualification for the court, or it's implied that there are probably X number of white judges who have been passed over (who are, it's implied, likely more qualified than she is). it's just astonishing to me that white judges have significantly more obstacles they face in life than a poor Puerto Rican woman growing up in the Bronx housing projects.
that's all crap. everyone at some point in their life has been treated preferentially due to circumstances beyond their control. just look at Irving Kristol's son. is he really more qualified to be the editor of the Weekly Standard? i'd say no. but, yet, because of birth, he is.
i wonder -- what would the Republicans be saying if she were a (likely Republican!) Cuban who had fled Castro?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I supported it in the Michigan case.
I seem to recall most of the progressives in here did not.
To me it seemed like it hit too close to home.
That their 'spot' at school could have gone to a minority was a sacrifice they did not want to entertain.
I seem to recall most of the progressives in here did not.
To me it seemed like it hit too close to home.
That their 'spot' at school could have gone to a minority was a sacrifice they did not want to entertain.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
People are divided by class rather than race. Affirmative action based on racial or gender group is inherently wicked; affirmative action based on giving people from deprived socioeconoomic backgrounds a leg-up I think could make sense.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Hear hear.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
and yet, so often, as is the case with Ms. Sotomayor, one's race often determines the socioeconomic background one is born into.
but this is all well and good -- it's interesting when white people act like affirmative action is vastly more wicked than actual racism.
People are divided by both, because they are unfortunately still largely intertwined.
We would not be speaking of the "emerging Black middle class" if it didn't have to emerge out of somewhere. To pretend otherwise is ignoring historical realities.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Glenn Beck posted a classy twittee update about Sotomayor's diabetes.
Glenn Beck: Can Messiah Obama Heal Sotomayor's Diabetes? | TPMDC
What an ignorant ass
Reason # 1,500,792 why that Twitter thing is a complete void. I don't understand why anyone wants to read the constant ramblings of anyone else(or wants to try to help Ashton Kutcher beat Larry King in number of "followers")-let alone Glenn Beck. People living their lives through Twitter boggles my mind.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Huffington Post 6-3-09
Of the thousands of cases decided by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the one that could have the most influence on her confirmation for the Supreme Court involves the defense of New York City Police Department employee who was fired for distributing bigoted and racist material.
Sotomayor's opinion in the 2002 case of Pappas v. Giuliani does not seem like a judicial cause célèbre for progressives. But in the days since she was named Obama Supreme Court nominee, it has emerged as an effective counterweight to charges that she is a judicial activist bent on helping minorities like herself.
Those intimately involved in the case say that Sotomayor's dissent -- in which she defended the First Amendment rights of a employee who had distributed white supremacist material -- shows a type of jurisprudence diametrically at odds with the caricature painted by her conservative critics.
"It showed that she is not knee jerk when it comes to dealing with racial issues," said Chris Dunn, an attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union who argued the defense. "That was the case in which she took the side of a person obviously engaging in racist conduct and recognized the important First Amendment interest that was represented. She respected that interest and stuck to it."
Thomas Pappas, had worked in the New York City Police Department since January, 1982, primarily in the Management Information Systems Division. In August 1999, he was fired by then commissioner Howard Safir after it was discovered that he had mailed more than 200 pieces of racially insensitive and anti-Semitic material from his home to various political groups who had been soliciting him for donations. Among the more than 200 or so pieces of literature Pappas had sent out were pamphlets from the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
A member and chairman of the Populist Party of the Town of North Hempstead, whose platform included repealing the federal income tax and abolishing the IRS, Pappas sued Safir and New York City's Mayor Rudy Giuliani on grounds that they had violated his First Amendment rights. In October 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the NYPD had operated within the rule of law.
The case was appealed and in 2002 it found its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel, which included Sotomayor, considered two main components of the case: Whether Pappas's "speech" was of public concern and whether it had "interfered with" the NYPD's activities. Two of the three judges upheld the district court decision that it didn't matter that Pappas had sent these mailings anonymously from his private home. "Although Pappas tried to conceal his identity as speaker," they ruled, "he took the risk that the effort would fail."
While finding the speech "offensive, hateful and insulting," Sotomayor dissented. Her basis was the precedent established by Rankin v. McPherson, in which the Supreme Court held that a public employee in Texas who cheered the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in a conversation with a fellow worker had not interfered with the office's operations, because her job did not require public contact. But Sotomayor also did not shy away from the constitutional implications of the Pappas case.
"I of course do not dispute the majority's premise that a public employee's free speech interest is often subordinated to the effective functioning of a government employer," Sotomayor's dissent read. "I also agree that it is appropriate to consider the agency's mission in relation to the nature of the speech, and I appreciate the enormous importance of race relations to the operation of the NYPD. These facts alone, however, do not support the constitutionality of the NYPD's termination of Pappas. The well-established case law of the Supreme Court and this Court requires a more searching inquiry."
Seven years later, that opinion and those words in particular have struck observers as uniquely important aspects of Sotomayor's lengthy record. The political implications are obvious: A Latina judge accused of being a "reverse-racist" took the side of the white supremacist police officer at a time when the NYPD was widely resented and distrusted by New York's minority communities.
"Certainly during the Giuliani administration there were many instances where police officers engaged in racially insensitive conduct, at best, while on duty," said Dunn. "And so the easy thing for someone to do would be to say, 'let's fire someone for engaging in racially insensitive activity.' That would have been the easy out. It was certainly what people traditionally viewed as progressives were calling for. But she didn't accept that. She said that even though what this guy did may be racist, I will uphold his constitutional rights. And that is a position of principle."
Observers say Sotomayor's dissent also offers a vivid indication into what type of kind of judicial philosophy she will bring to the bench.
"What I found after looking at some of her statements is someone who I think takes the First Amendment extremely seriously," said Maria Blanco, Executive Director for the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute at Berkeley University. "She went with the facts. But what you see is she that she also put an extremely heavy burden of proof on a defendant who is trying to abridge privacy or First Amendment protections. That has not been the case with the Supreme Court in the past, though we have had some famous pro-First Amendment judges."
"I actually think that on these issues she may end up being a [Justice William] Brennan type," Blanco added. "That is just my instinct as a lawyer who has done constitutional law for many years."
Of the thousands of cases decided by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the one that could have the most influence on her confirmation for the Supreme Court involves the defense of New York City Police Department employee who was fired for distributing bigoted and racist material.
Sotomayor's opinion in the 2002 case of Pappas v. Giuliani does not seem like a judicial cause célèbre for progressives. But in the days since she was named Obama Supreme Court nominee, it has emerged as an effective counterweight to charges that she is a judicial activist bent on helping minorities like herself.
Those intimately involved in the case say that Sotomayor's dissent -- in which she defended the First Amendment rights of a employee who had distributed white supremacist material -- shows a type of jurisprudence diametrically at odds with the caricature painted by her conservative critics.
"It showed that she is not knee jerk when it comes to dealing with racial issues," said Chris Dunn, an attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union who argued the defense. "That was the case in which she took the side of a person obviously engaging in racist conduct and recognized the important First Amendment interest that was represented. She respected that interest and stuck to it."
Thomas Pappas, had worked in the New York City Police Department since January, 1982, primarily in the Management Information Systems Division. In August 1999, he was fired by then commissioner Howard Safir after it was discovered that he had mailed more than 200 pieces of racially insensitive and anti-Semitic material from his home to various political groups who had been soliciting him for donations. Among the more than 200 or so pieces of literature Pappas had sent out were pamphlets from the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
A member and chairman of the Populist Party of the Town of North Hempstead, whose platform included repealing the federal income tax and abolishing the IRS, Pappas sued Safir and New York City's Mayor Rudy Giuliani on grounds that they had violated his First Amendment rights. In October 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the NYPD had operated within the rule of law.
The case was appealed and in 2002 it found its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel, which included Sotomayor, considered two main components of the case: Whether Pappas's "speech" was of public concern and whether it had "interfered with" the NYPD's activities. Two of the three judges upheld the district court decision that it didn't matter that Pappas had sent these mailings anonymously from his private home. "Although Pappas tried to conceal his identity as speaker," they ruled, "he took the risk that the effort would fail."
While finding the speech "offensive, hateful and insulting," Sotomayor dissented. Her basis was the precedent established by Rankin v. McPherson, in which the Supreme Court held that a public employee in Texas who cheered the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in a conversation with a fellow worker had not interfered with the office's operations, because her job did not require public contact. But Sotomayor also did not shy away from the constitutional implications of the Pappas case.
"I of course do not dispute the majority's premise that a public employee's free speech interest is often subordinated to the effective functioning of a government employer," Sotomayor's dissent read. "I also agree that it is appropriate to consider the agency's mission in relation to the nature of the speech, and I appreciate the enormous importance of race relations to the operation of the NYPD. These facts alone, however, do not support the constitutionality of the NYPD's termination of Pappas. The well-established case law of the Supreme Court and this Court requires a more searching inquiry."
Seven years later, that opinion and those words in particular have struck observers as uniquely important aspects of Sotomayor's lengthy record. The political implications are obvious: A Latina judge accused of being a "reverse-racist" took the side of the white supremacist police officer at a time when the NYPD was widely resented and distrusted by New York's minority communities.
"Certainly during the Giuliani administration there were many instances where police officers engaged in racially insensitive conduct, at best, while on duty," said Dunn. "And so the easy thing for someone to do would be to say, 'let's fire someone for engaging in racially insensitive activity.' That would have been the easy out. It was certainly what people traditionally viewed as progressives were calling for. But she didn't accept that. She said that even though what this guy did may be racist, I will uphold his constitutional rights. And that is a position of principle."
Observers say Sotomayor's dissent also offers a vivid indication into what type of kind of judicial philosophy she will bring to the bench.
"What I found after looking at some of her statements is someone who I think takes the First Amendment extremely seriously," said Maria Blanco, Executive Director for the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute at Berkeley University. "She went with the facts. But what you see is she that she also put an extremely heavy burden of proof on a defendant who is trying to abridge privacy or First Amendment protections. That has not been the case with the Supreme Court in the past, though we have had some famous pro-First Amendment judges."
"I actually think that on these issues she may end up being a [Justice William] Brennan type," Blanco added. "That is just my instinct as a lawyer who has done constitutional law for many years."
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Newt's sorry he called her a name. 
Rush isn't and now says he "could support her."
Who give a fuck what a radio talk show host thinks?
What does Howard Stern think? 
Rush isn't and now says he "could support her."
Who give a fuck what a radio talk show host thinks?
What does Howard Stern think?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Rush thinks because she's Catholic she might help to overturn Roe v Wade. I wonder if he still likes Hillary...
CNN
On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh said his potential support of Sotomayor stems from the nominee's unclear stance on abortion coupled with the fact that she is a Catholic.
"I don't know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she's a Catholic, she's a devout Catholic, she's a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn't got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record," Limbaugh said.
But, unlike Gingrich, the conservative talker did not back away from his contention Sotomayor is a racist.
I didn't know why he retracted it," Limbaugh said of Gingrich. "What is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism, and she would bring a form of racism and bigotry to the court. But as I said yesterday, folks, I'm — I'm — I may look past that.
CNN
On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh said his potential support of Sotomayor stems from the nominee's unclear stance on abortion coupled with the fact that she is a Catholic.
"I don't know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she's a Catholic, she's a devout Catholic, she's a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn't got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record," Limbaugh said.
But, unlike Gingrich, the conservative talker did not back away from his contention Sotomayor is a racist.
I didn't know why he retracted it," Limbaugh said of Gingrich. "What is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism, and she would bring a form of racism and bigotry to the court. But as I said yesterday, folks, I'm — I'm — I may look past that.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
So Limbaugh likes a 'wise old Latina, Catholic woman's life experience' to influence her judgments?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
As long as it's in the ways Rush wants-yes
OMG imagine a pro-choice Catholic, next thing you'll tell me that they also use birth control!!
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
No way.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Some how, I just don't see Sotomayor as a strident pro-choice person, like Ginsburg or Stevens.
and with the country not trending as pro-choice as before I would not be surprised if Obama did not care if Roe v Wade was eroded a bit.
I can't say for sure what half-measures would be.
But, I do think pro-choice Obama supporters may feel a little let down by the time he leaves office.
and with the country not trending as pro-choice as before I would not be surprised if Obama did not care if Roe v Wade was eroded a bit.
I can't say for sure what half-measures would be.
But, I do think pro-choice Obama supporters may feel a little let down by the time he leaves office.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
am i a humorless liberal if i look at a cover like this and think, WTF?
do conservatives have any self-awareness at all?
do conservatives have any self-awareness at all?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Not in 2009.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
They'll issue a half-hearted apology later and it'll all be ok. 
deep
Blue Crack Addict
am i a humorless liberal if i look at a cover like this and think, WTF?
do conservatives have any self-awareness at all?
I don't know what you are,
I am not big on the labels.
But, in this case Sotomayor put a large target on her back with this statement.
"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."
That is a ridiculous statement. Do you defend it? Do you dismiss it?
Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches - CNN.com
I find it odd that she has siad it often.
Obama had a way of talking about his biography, back ground, life experience that help people understand who he was but never said those facts would make him a better President than a white male.
I think that drawing on the cover depicting a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences is not out of bounds.
and please keep in mind, I am someone that supports affirmative action, believes racism is a problem.
I also would much rather see Sotomayor on the court than Alito or Scalia.
Is her repeated use of the very poor statement enough for me to not want her confirmed? No.
I hope she is smart enough to say it was a poor choice of words and not well thought out. And that in writing decisions she will be much more careful.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
firstly, that cover is foolish. why didn't they just have her singing out a window in the Bronx as the Sharks and the Jets had a rumble in the streets below?
i'm actually on a mini-vacation and i don't have the time to really get into it, but i think you need to take her comments more in context, i think they line up very well with Obama's stated preference for someone who is empathetic, and i think she's right.
even Gingrich has backed down on thinking her statement is somehow racist.
i'm actually on a mini-vacation and i don't have the time to really get into it, but i think you need to take her comments more in context, i think they line up very well with Obama's stated preference for someone who is empathetic, and i think she's right.
even Gingrich has backed down on thinking her statement is somehow racist.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I can imagine a Catholic who doesn't abide by the position of their Church, I have a hard time imagining how a Pope could come out in favour of abortion and condoms.OMG imagine a pro-choice Catholic, next thing you'll tell me that they also use birth control!!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
set your dvrs
Similar threads
