On the Ricci Case
It appears that Sonia Sotomayor’s participation in a panel that ruled against the plaintiff in the Ricci case related to fire department promotion policies in New Haven will be at the center of the case against her. Under the circumstances, it might be useful for folks to familiarize themselves with the facts. As Doug Kendall and Dahlia Lithwick explain:
What does Ricci’s dyslexia have to do with the law? Very little, actually. The city of New Haven threw out the results of the test he took because it feared that the examination was discriminatory. That’s because none of the African-American candidates, and only two of the 50 minority candidates, who took the test would have been eligible for promotion based on the results. Regardless of how you and I may feel about Frank Ricci or how much he deserved to be promoted, discriminatory results like that can run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in this case the results of the test far exceeded the statistical cutoff that suggests a constitutional violation has occurred.
When the case was argued before the Supreme Court last month, all of the justices seemed to agree that New Haven had to comply with valid federal statutes. Mr. Ricci did not challenge the constitutionality of Title VII. So the only real question before the court was whether New Haven had reason to believe that if the city used the test results it would be sued under Title VII. Mr. Ricci’s specific circumstances—his race, his dyslexia, and his professional aggravation—have no bearing on that legal question at all.
The point they’re making is that empathy-hating conservatives don’t seem to have a problem playing the empathy card when they think doing so will help them get results that they like.
153 Responses to “On the Ricci Case”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The point they’re making is that empathy-hating conservatives don’t seem to have a problem playing the empathy card when they think doing so will help them get results that they like.
Yup. However, since Obama has counseled us that empapthy is an important quality in a Supreme Court justice, and since Sotomayor clearly lacks empathy, I’d have to advise to vote against her.
We can’t afford any more empathy-less justices on the Supreme Court!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
That’s not how the right wing goat fuckers are going to spin this decision. They’re going to claim that Mr. Ricci was denied the promotion because he was a Caucasian and that, if he had been black or Latino, he would have gotten it.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am
“They’re going to claim that Mr. Ricci was denied the promotion because he was a Caucasian and that, if he had been black or Latino, he would have gotten it.”
That’s manifestly true though right?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
That’s manifestly true though right?
No. Go back to your mashed banana, Brad. Mommy will be home later.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
No. Did you read the post?
If three of the people passing the test were minorities, instead of two, out of fifty, the test would have had to be thrown out anyway.
Seriously, it’s right there.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Am I wrong to think that maybe the election of an Afro-American –reared by a single mother — to the Presidency may begin to undercut the historical rationale for affirmative action?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Am I wrong to think that maybe the election of an Afro-American –reared by a single mother — to the Presidency may begin to undercut the historical rationale for affirmative action?
Yes. There are 40 million African-Americans in this country; Barack Obama, no matter how impressive, still only counts as one.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
NO, the point is that empathy is good, but the law is better, if you’ve got both on your side, kudos…if you’ve only got one, and you’re an article III judge, it should be the law
May 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Re “And in this case the results of the test far exceeded the statistical cutoff that suggests a constitutional violation has occurred.”
————–
I don’t understand this. To determine if the test is unconstitutional, one should examine its questions and see if it is tailored to benefit one faction over another — or see if one faction has an unfair advantage.
The fact that a sample of a racial or ethnic group failed to pass the test should in no way make the test invalid. The real questions should be: a) Is the test directly relevent to the demands of the job –is it reasonable? and b) Is the weight given to the test versus other criteria (e.g., ability to lift heavy weight, physical fitness scores, ability to use equipment under timed pressure,etc.) reasonable? and c) do all candidates have equal opportunity to prepare for the test?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Disproportionate results, though, show the need for further investigation–if you get disproprotionate results and don’t know why, you need to take a closer look at the test. And, in the world of civil rights litigation, disproportionate results shift the burden the burden to the employer of producing evidence that explains the disproportionate results in a nonracial way.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Don: There’s a long line of cases that hold that “disparate impact” is evidence of discriminatory intent because racists are smart enough to hide the real purpose behind the laws they enact. Whether “disparate impact” analysis makes sense in the context of the Ricci case is debateable, but it’s well established in the law.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
1) Where I think the Supreme Court has fallen down on the job greatly is its tolerance for a deeply unfair educational system — in which schools in wealthy neighborhoods have enormous resources due to high real estate tax collections whereas schools in poor neighborhoods do not have the means to educate their students to be competitive. State governments should be forced to equalize the funding via grants. This unfairness screws whites in poor rural regions just as much as it screws Afro Americans in urban ghettos.
2) There are two difficult problems , however. One is the issue of what should be the curriculum –who decides what should be taught and how much weight should be given to various subjects. How many electives should be allowed for diversity of interests?
3) The other problem is that some cultures and neighborhoods have contempt for education — a child reared in those circumstances will experience a lot of social pressures diluting his drive to succeed.
4) Of course, many of our most successful billionaires were college dropouts –some were even high school dropouts. And everyone –including ABC News — pities the poor liberals arts major who is graduating with $24,000 in educational loan debt in this economy:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7653949&page=1
May 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The complaints about the Ricci case really seem to come down to folks who don’t like title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is hard to argue that the case was wrongly decided, just that some people don’t really like a disparate impact test.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The point they’re making is that empathy-hating conservatives don’t seem to have a problem playing the empathy card when they think doing so will help them get results that they like.
People abandon their stated principles when doing so is of some practical benefit to them? Keep these bombshells coming!
May 26th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Wonder how much empathy Justice Sotomayer will have for 16 million of her fellow American citizens who are out of work, due in part to massive illegal immigration of low wage workers?
I know. Let’s ask her.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Re Don Williams # 12
Like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Ted Waite.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Conservatives usually have empathy for the overdog, whether the white majority in historically white supremist society or the rich elite.
When they do empathize with an underdog – the fetus – it’s against another historical underdog, women.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
It would be different if the appeals court on which Sotomayor sat ordered the New Haven city council (or whatever the body was) to throw out the test. But they didn’t. They merely refused to overturn a decision made by duly elected representatives of the people. It’s pretty hard to color that as judicial activism, which will only become more obvious as wingnut senators belabor the point in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Don,
There are numerous studies that have demonstrated that standardized testing has cultural biases built in that can skew the scores depending on what group you belong to. Educators have argued that these biases make standardized testing an unreliable sole option when it comes to either college admissions or job placement.
Hell, some people just don’t take standardized tests well (another aspect of testing that has numerous studies devoted to it). My wife had to take her GRE twice to get into grad school (and barely passed the second time). Of course, she got straight A’s in grad school, and successfully defended her PhD dissertation.
Conservatives certainly like to portray the world as black and white, especially if it is to the benefit of white.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
15. Can you name the case that is currently pending in the court system about illegal immigration that could possibly be relevant to the questioning of a Supreme Court nominee? Funny, I don’t remember the two previous white nominees being asked about illegal immigration.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Brad @3: Besides the point Joe makes in 5, passing the test wouldn’t have been sufficient to get a promotion even if New Haven hadn’t decided to scrap it. There are more plaintiffs than there were openings, so it couldn’t be the case that every plaintiff would’ve got promoted if they’d used the test. And I’m pretty sure that, if the system was just “top scorers get promoted,” then the ones who weren’t in the top eight wouldn’t have standing to sue.
Bottom line, we can’t say of any individual plaintiff that he would’ve been promoted if the test had been upheld, only that he might’ve been.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
It is difficult to apportion the level of stupidity in which whole class of laws engendered.
But, this woman ruled against the defendant because of the likelihood that she would have ruled for the plaintiff if one of the minority participants had sued. A rigged game.
So, she essentially ruled for the poor minority who flunked the test without that minority suffering the embarrasment of coming before her court, and explaining to the judge that stupid black people do not study for tests.
All in all, the results are plain. This women is an idiot, the law is stupid, and Yglesias as usual would neglect any form of logic unless it got him his result so that he can join the rank of the stupid, and worse, it makes blacks look stupid.
In short, a rigged game all around.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
The Supreme Court is a bad joke anyways, where even people like Scalia, who claims to follow neutral legal principals, supports decisions, for instance, which state that the Federal government has the constitutional power to regulate what plant a citizen grows for his own consumption. Now Obama nominates someone who openly states that a justice can legitimately examine the parties to a legal conflict, decide which party the justice likes more, and then craft a ruling accordingly. At least Sotomayer is frank as to how she will judge cases.
Really, though, why not just disband the body altogther, and and decide caes via electronio, American Idol-style, voting by the population at large? Why should Sotomayer’s opinion as to who is the most sympathetic figure in a legal conflict, or the figure easiest to empathize with, be any more important than any other person’s? If, as Obama implies, such considerations only matter in close cases, fine, let the mass opinions pertaining to likeability be gathered whenever a party to a conflict can’t get 6 or perhaps 7 votes from the Court.
Maybe Sotomayer thinks only females of certain genetic background have sufficient wisdom to judge such matters well. One can only hope that she maintains her honesty during the confirmation hearings.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“Wonder how much empathy Justice Sotomayer will have for 16 million of her fellow American citizens who are out of work, due in part to massive illegal immigration of low wage workers?
Heck, I consider it a small victory that Don @ 15 at least is conceding that Justice Sotomayor is an “American Citizen”.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Sotomayor’s detractors can’t stop themselves from bringing up her gender and ethnicity?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
What bperk said at #13, although those people who do not like the concept of evaluating processes for disparate impact could argue that its application can go against what they consider constitutional proscriptions on affirmative action (When would enough minority candidates have passed the test for the process not to be discriminatory? What is this statistical cut-off [I imagine it has been defined or suggested either by statute or case-law, but I am too lazy to look it up). More specifically, the argument could be made that New Haven should not have changed its hiring process because of assumptions that it could be sued under Title VII as opposed to assumptions that it was going to be sued and lose uner Title VII. This, of course, would put employers who must follow Title VII under a difficult position of trying to tell the future, undermining commitments to diversity.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I know it’s probably not a good idea to take the postings of obvious racists seriously, but Mattyoung’s complaints about MY’s lack of logic might have more impact if, in his own fevered ravings, he had invoked even the tiniest hint of logic himself.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Sotomayor’s detractors can’t stop themselves from bringing up her gender and ethnicity?
And somehow they still accuse us of only seeing people as members of identity groups. Ahh the intellectual dishonesty.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Joe, it may have escaped your normally penetrating observation, but it is Sotomayer who has claimed that her gender and ethnicity has made he more likely to be wise than some of her fellow citizens. I’d have been happy to ignore such issues if Sotomayer had done the same.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
28, remember the conservatives who insist the LOUDEST that our society is “color-blind” routinely assume that a minority who ascends to a position of power or authority is somehow not qualified or merely an affirmative action appointment. Hell, on the CNN thread about the African-American appointed to head NASA, there were dozens of comments from people calling the man “unqualified” a “quota appointee”, etc. Never mind that the man was actually, well, a rocket scientist who had commanded a few shuttle missions.
Conservatives are the same people who think that the 97% white hiring rate in college football coaching is simply a result of the “best man for the job”, and strenuously object to a college level “Rooney Rule”.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yeah, sure, Anthony, and if Roberts had once stated he hoped that white men would be more likely to have sufficient wisdom than Latinas, you would have though it unremarkable. Intellectual honesty, indeed.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Pete, Sotomayer has openly stated her belief that people like her are more likely to be wise than people who aren’t like her. It doesn’t get much more bigoted than that. As usual, people in your faction really do think some bigots are more equal than other bigots.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Sotomayor: “The point they’re making is that empathy-hating conservatives don’t seem to have a problem playing the empathy card when they think doing so will help them get results that they like.”
Sotomayor is a racist. Those supporting her must also be racists.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Damned lack of Preview function. Sotomayor’s racist statement is as follows: “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.”
She didn’t say that a Latina woman would reach s different conclusion; rather she said it would be a better conclusion. Based solely on ethnicity and sex.
Pure, unadulterated racism and sexism.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Oh, so Will, can you please point to a court decision that Sotomayer has signed off on that reflects this immense bigotry you insist she possesses? I do have to give you points for not playing the Rev. Wright card, although I guarantee you that Hannity will do that very thing on his program today.
Not to go off on a tangent, but whenever Scalia throws in stinging insults towards homosexuals in gay rights cases he decides, is that a reflection of a legal intellect based on a dispassionate interpretation of the law?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Maybe Sotomayer will demand that she be given two votes on the Court, given her stated belief that she is more likely to better judge cases than fellow justices who don’t share her number of x chromosomes, or racial characteristics.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
She didn’t say that a Latina woman would reach s different conclusion; rather she said it would be a better conclusion. Based solely on ethnicity and sex.
Your long time trolling here, Al-bot, really doesn’t really help your counterargument. You are, for the record, a white male, I take it?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“This women is an idiot”
I bet she knows the difference between plural and singular pronouns, though.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Pete, as noted above, Sotomayer has openly stated that she thinks people with two x chromosomes and a latin racial background would be more likely to provide better legal opinions than white men. You can dishonestly spin that any way you like, but that is bigotry, plain and simple.
As I stated above, I have little regard for Scalia’s jursiprudence, so go argue with a Scalia supporter if you want to disparage him.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Re joe at 25: “Has anyone else noticed that Sotomayor’s detractors can’t stop themselves from bringing up her gender and ethnicity?”
—————–
Has anyone else noticed that Sotomayor’s SUPPORTERS are pissing their pants with glee that her gender and ethnicity will buttfuck the Republican opposition?
That her supporters in TWO threads and about 60? some posts have yet to discuss her merits AS A JUDGE vice ethnic mascot?
Anyone know where she stands on the Patriot Act? Warrentless wiretapping? Torture? Unitary executive? Power of the President in time of war?
Lie to the Republicans all you want. Just don’t lie to yourselves. Makes you look like George W.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Here is what Sotomayor actually said, in context:
It is actually quite a complex argument, as I tried to emphasize with the bolding I added. But of course some people don’t want to grapple with complex arguments and prefer to deal with strawmen.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I what I wonder about the Ricci case is what percentage of White Men qualified on the test. The test is to qualify for 8 openings and in New Haven only 30% of new firemen are black and skews downward as they gain seniority (probably due to past and present discrimination). I am willing to accept that the test was sufficiently problematic to make New Havens decision appropriate but the numbers that are thrown out are insufficient to be convincing.
I also sort of wonder how you could create a test that is as racially discriminatory as this test seems to have been if that was your goal? Are there even enough white shibboleths to load your test with to get the level of discrimination implied given a symmetrically qualified talent pool?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
That her supporters in TWO threads and about 60? some posts have yet to discuss her merits AS A JUDGE vice ethnic mascot?
I reviewed some of the relevant parts of her resume in the prior thread:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor.php#comment-1603156
To repeat, she was one of the top two people in her Princeton class, an editor on the Yale Law Journal, an Assistant DA in Manhattan, a law firm partner specializing in international intellectual property litigation, a District Court Judge on the SDNY, a Circuit Court Judge on the Second Circuit, an Adjunct Professor at NYU, and a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia.
To comment a bit, she arguably has more variety and depth of real legal experience than anyone currently on the Court at the time they were nominated, having served as both a prosecutor and private practice litigator, and as a trial-level judge, and finally as an appellate judge. Generally she is obviously qualified for the Supreme Court by objective standards, and as long as Obama thinks she has the right judicial philosophy, that is a sufficient justification for this pick on the merits.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Re Pete at 19: “There are numerous studies that have demonstrated that standardized testing has cultural biases built in that can skew the scores depending on what group you belong to. Educators have argued that these biases make standardized testing an unreliable sole option when it comes to either college admissions or job placement.”
———–
Well, of course the losers always have excuses. And I have strong empathy for that –as an Eagles fan.
But my head hurts at the idea of KKK racists so clever that they devised a standardized test which native-born English-soeaking Americans have trouble passing but which Mandarin speaking Asians from the the far side of the world can ace without breaking a sweat. That is one hell of a dogleg through the DNA spiral.
It also pains me when allegedly intelligent liberals argue such a position without thinking.
Although I can definitely see the political wampum associated with making social advancement a subjective judgement of the “best and brightest” –Ivy League trained, presumably — instead of something halfway resembling an objective, fair assessment.
I also don’t see much difference between auctioning off positions of leadership to buy votes and auctioning off positions of leadership for the money of the Superrich.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Thanks, DTM. Even without the context, she isn’t saying what people are accusing her of saying. She is saying that she would hope, which isn’t saying that they do in fact make better decisions. Some people who would be super-sensitive if they were accused of being racist are more than happy to accuse Sotomayor based on an out-of-context statement.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“She didn’t say that a Latina woman would reach s different conclusion; rather she said it would be a better conclusion. Based solely on ethnicity and sex.”
Based solely on the different experiences that a hypothetical Latina woman would have as a result of her ethnicity and sex. This isn’t that tough of a concept to grasp if you manage to suppress your persecution complex for a few minutes.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
From DTM’s quote:
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.
I for one am for a candidate who speaks like Yoda. They’ll sound wise when they question attorneys from the bench.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
However you or Sotomayer may try to rationalize it, DTM, she plainly stated her belief that people with two x chromosomes and latin racial chracteristics would be more likely to produce better conclusions than a white male. If she had simply stated that people with varying histories will often reach different conclusions in good faith, there would be little comment. That isn’t what she said. She stated that some people who didn’t share her gender and racial chracteristics would be likely to produce inferior conclusions. She is a bigot, albeit the sort of bigot your faction tends to favor.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Note also that, on the face of her statement, even out of context, Sotomayor was attributing the extra wisdom she hoped a wise old Latina woman would have to “the richness of her experiences” not to any innate ability inherent in being a woman or a Latina.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
In other words, what Tim B. said.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Based solely on the different experiences that a hypothetical Latina woman would have as a result of her ethnicity and sex.
Indeed, and she doesn’t even apply this to all Latina women, just “wise” ones.
And in context, I think it is clear she doesn’t think it is impossible for people without those experiences to make the same decisions, just less likely for the reasons she gave (it takes a lot of time and effort, sometimes the alternate experiences might not be sufficient, and some people don’t care to make the effort anyway).
Like I said, it is a complex argument, and I actually think most of it should be pretty uncontroversial. My one serious question is what she meant by “more often than not”–I think that claim is less controversial if she meant more often than not in the subset of cases where these experiences are clearlt relevant (e.g., sex and race discrimination cases). It would be more controversial if she was suggesting these experiences are relevant more often than not across all cases, but given the context I doubt that is what she meant.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Yeah, right, bperk, and you would say the same if Roberts were on record as stating that he hoped that a white male would reach better conclusions.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
However you or Sotomayer may try to rationalize it, DTM, she plainly stated her belief that people with two x chromosomes and latin racial chracteristics would be more likely to produce better conclusions than a white male.
Again, if you prefer to deal with strawmen you are free to do so, but it just means you aren’t going to be participating in the real conversation.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Don,
There are dozens of studies that have detailed how cultural bias (intentional or otherwise) in standardized testing can skew the results of such tests in small, yet significant ways. A simple Google search will provide you with links to such studies, abstracts, and numerous articles on this topic.
But I guess all of those studies must be completely wrong. It’s sooooooooooo much easier just to call people “losers”, huh?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Yes, DTM, she said hypothetical white males would more likely than not produce inferior conclusions than the hypothetical Latina, due to different life experiences. She is a bigot.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Re Will Allen at 48: “However you or Sotomayer may try to rationalize it, DTM, she plainly stated her belief that people with two x chromosomes and latin racial chracteristics would be more likely to produce better conclusions than a white male.”
———————
I agree that such a statement shows a lamentable lack of judicial precision. What she should have said was
“more likely to produce better conclusions than a white, ignorant, racist, butt-kissing-tool-of-the-Rich, and thoroughly corrupt peckerwood from South of the Mason Dixon line.”
Unless Will Allen wants to defend Plessy v. Ferguson,
the Supreme Court’s OVERTHROW of Congress’ Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Courts many past decisions treating Negros as private property, I assume that Will Allen will agree.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Re Pete at 54: “But I guess all of those studies must be completely wrong.”
————
Were those studies written by the same people who did “studies” showing that financial deregulation was a great idea and that globalization would increase the prosperity of the average American?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Re Pete at 54: “There are dozens of studies that have detailed how cultural bias (intentional or otherwise) in standardized testing can skew the results of such tests in small, yet significant ways.”
——-
So can eating too much fruit for breakfast on the morning of test — So?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Yes, DTM, and what you call the “real conversation” is an intellectually dishonest argument which maintains that saying, “People with a lifetime of experiences, due to their racial and gender chracteristics x, will more often than not produce inferior conclusions than people with a lifetime of experiences, due to their gender and racial chracteristics y”, is not an inherently bigoted statement.
As usual, your faction likes some bigots better than others, not that this distinguishes your faction particularly from the other major faction. The other major faction, however, more frequently has their bigots noted for their bigotry.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Yes, DTM, she said hypothetical white males would more likely than not produce inferior conclusions than the hypothetical Latina, due to different life experiences.
First, I want to note you are making progress, since you have dropped the ridiculous X-chromosome and racial-characteristic talk, and are acknowledging she was talking about wisdom and understanding derived from experience. So that is something.
Second, nonetheless you still have a lot of work to do to understand her full argument.
As I suggested above, in context I think it is likely she wasn’t talking about all legal cases, just the subset where such experiences could clearly be relevant, such as race and sex discrimination cases. So what is her evidence? Well, first she points to the long history of otherwise wise white men on the Supreme Court demonstrating insufficient ability to understand race and sex discrimination in their jurisprudence.
But she then acknowledges the counterpoint of cases like Brown, from which she concludes that it is possible for white men to make good decisions in these areas. Nonetheless, she suggests that for the various reasons she enumerates, it is more likely than not that a person who actually has the relevant experiences will tend to make better decisions in these cases than those who do not.
Again, that is a pretty complex argument, but hopefully you are now prepared to address her actual argument, and not some caricature of it.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Yes, DTM, and what you call the “real conversation” is an intellectually dishonest argument . . .
I am simply proposing we start with Sotomayor’s actual argument, as opposed to your various attempts to reduce her argument to an easily-disposed strawman. But if you think “intellectual honesty” starts with constructing crude strawmen, then I am happy to let you go off and play with yourself.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I love how Will has posted nine times on this thread, and in each one all he says is the exact same line. Like most Republicans these days, on any particular issue he finds one talking point, which isn’t accurate or even relevant, and then repeats it over and over and over again assuming he’ll win the argument if only he simply says it loudly enough times. Truth by repetition.
Keep up the good fight, Will! There’s still two months left for you to parrot your one line many times on as many blogs and threads as possible. I’ll be disappointed if you don’t hit five figures.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Oh, and I have no idea what “faction” Will Allen thinks I belong to.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
As usual, Don, I eventually come to wonder what sort of mushrooms you had in your omelette this morning.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Your long time trolling here, Al-bot, really doesn’t really help your counterargument. You are, for the record, a white male, I take it?
Transgendered adopted atheist deaf blind son of two lesbian parents, one of whom is black and the other of whom is biracial (hispanic and American Indian), although my genetic parents are asian/arab and hispanic/Pacific Islander.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Based solely on the different experiences…
No, she said either based on different experiences OR on “inherent physiological or cultural differences”.
Inherent physiological differences. Wonder what that means…
May 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
No, she said either based on different experiences OR on “inherent physiological or cultural differences”.
Inherent physiological differences. Wonder what that means…
Me too! And I really, really hope you and every Republican politician and talking head spend the next two months loudly and openly questioning what she means by that. I can’t think of a better way to get Hispanics to vote for you next time.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
No, she said either based on different experiences OR on “inherent physiological or cultural differences”.
Not quite. She stated she “abhor[s] less or discount[s] less than [her] colleague Judge Cedarbaum” the theory that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” might make a difference in judging, but that isn’t the same thing as actually endorsing such a theory.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Michael #42
41 applicants took the captain’s exam, 25 white, 8 black, 8 Hispanic. 22 in total passed, 16 white, 3 black and 3 hispanic. But because civil services rules stated that the position needed to be filled from the top scorers (something about a “rule of three” I don’t totally understand), no Blacks would have been eligible for promotion. The highest ranking Black score was 16th.
One of the thing I find most interesting about the case is that the city was pretty much arguing that they were just stuck between bad laws, which seems correct to me. They just wanted to avoid a lawsuit, which was pretty much impossible given the current state of affirmative action law.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
DTM, your assertion that something is complex does not make it so. There is nothing complex about Sotomayer’s argument. She puts forth an exceptionally small sample size to support her argument that someone like her will more often than not produce superior conclusions than someone not like her. Bigots do this all the time, and there is nothing complex about it in the least.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Can any of you conservative fucktards cite a specific case where Sotomayor allegedly applied this dastardly “life experience” bigotry into her decision?
Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You simply peddle the same fear-based talking point that while you view society as color-blind, you just know that minorities reflexively hate whites and will stop at nothing to seek revenge.
Seriously, you guys do more projecting than a Kerasotes theater.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Adam Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I love how Will has posted nine times on this thread, and in each one all he says is the exact same line…
Will also selectively misspells Sotomayor’s name every single time.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
All this talk about “empathy” is amusing considering how people like Wil Allen et. al were remarkably silent when Scalia partially based his FCC/Janet Jackson decision on his belief that small town Americans don’t curse as much as people in “cosmopolitan Hollywood”. But, that certainly wasn’t judicial activism, huh?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The faction that thinks Sotomayer is a fine choice for Supreme Court Justice, DTM.
Actually, there are some aspects of Sotomayer I prefer to some people currently on the court. I really do prefer someone like Sotomayer who openly states her belief that it is acceptable for a justice to first look at the parties to a conflict, identify the party she likes more, and then craft the opinion accordingly, to the sort of justice who claims to strive to apply legal principles objectively, while secretly doing what Sotomayer openly states she will do.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
There is nothing complex about Sotomayer’s argument. She puts forth an exceptionally small sample size to support her argument that someone like her will more often than not produce superior conclusions than someone not like her.
Again, I take it as progress that you are acknowledging she did muster some historic evidence for her proposition.
Nonetheless, you still don’t have her overall argument right. She wasn’t just offering an inductive statistical argument, she was also offering a theory about why people without relevant sorts of experience would sometimes fail to overcome that lack of experience.
Note, by the way, that if there is any truth to such a theory, it makes her overall proposition fairly straightforward: if you have two otherwise equal jurists, only one of whom has experience relevant to understanding a certain sort of case, and it is true that sometimes jurists fail to overcome such a lack of experience, then you might conclude jurists with the relevant sort of experience are more likely to make better decisions in these cases.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think you can raise some issues with this argument. But raising those issues is going to take something a little more sophisticated than simply shouting “bigot!”.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
DTM, don’t be disingenuous. If Sotomayer had merely said “sometimes”, I wouldn’t be writing in this thread.
By the way, experience can also lead one to make an inferior conclusion. You seem to not be grasping the complexity involved in these matters.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The faction that thinks Sotomayer is a fine choice for Supreme Court Justice, DTM.
What makes this a “faction”? That term usually means a subset of a larger political organization. So what political organization do you think I belong to, such that I am part of the Sotomayor faction within this organization?
I really do prefer someone like Sotomayer who openly states her belief that it is acceptable for a justice to first look at the parties to a conflict, identify the party she likes more, and then craft the opinion accordingly . . .
Ah, back to the strawmen I see. Well again, you are just removing yourself from the real discussion, but have fun playing with yourself.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
This discussion is too stupid for words. There is no liberal jurist whom conservatives would accept for the Supreme Court, so all of this attention to the particularities of this or that nominee is a waste of time.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
By the way, I don’t actually have a firm opinion on Sotomayor. I have stated she is obviously qualified on paper, and indeed I praised the variety and depth of her legal experience, but I don’t yet know enough about her jurisprudence to form an opinion on whether she was a good pick overall.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Will Allen, Sotomayor has been judge for many years and has written many opinions. Can you find any cases where she simply picks the side she likes better and writes an opinion that disregards the relevant law?
(I’m sorry to ask you to actually know what the fuck you’re talking about, I know it’s a lot easier to pretend to be some sort of legal expert when it’s just a matter of posturing about “empathy” and “rule of law.”)
May 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Will Allen, I do think relevant experience makes a judge better, especially to the extent that such experience gives you the ability to see both sides of things. I’m sure that Roberts has particular expertise in many areas that enables him to see both sides of an issue more than other judges. Do you just disagree with the proposition that being a minority gives you better insight in the minority/majority issues? If you take the race/sex out of it and choose religion. I would expect that Jews in the U.S. would know more about Christmas than Christians in the U.S. would know about Yom Kippur. I am not even sure why this is controversial.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Pete, for the third time, don’t put me forth as a supporter of Scalia’s jurisprudence.
Erasmus, stop lying. I made no argument pertaining to “minorities”. I simply accurately represented what Sotomayor’s (mea culpa) stated views were.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
DTM, don’t be disingenuous. If Sotomayer had merely said “sometimes”, I wouldn’t be writing in this thread.
This is why it would pay for you to try to actually understand Sotomayor’s full argument. To quote her again:
So yes, she made it quite clear that sometimes white male judges can and do overcome their lack of relevant experience in these cases.
And now that you understand that to be true, I take it you will stop writing.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Sorry, I forgot to address this:
By the way, experience can also lead one to make an inferior conclusion. You seem to not be grasping the complexity involved in these matters.
Ah, see, there you go. You have finally admitted this is indeed a complex argument, and I will now acknowledge that you have raised what I consider to be a valid issue with respect to Sotomayor’s argument. To put it bluntly, I don’t think a Court entirely composed of women of color would necessarily be the best at deciding race and sex discrimination cases.
That said, I don’t think the logical conclusion is that there is no value to the relevant sorts of experience either. And fortunately, with a multi-member Court, what we can do is work for a balance. In other words, we might think that a Court including both Justices who have relevant experiences, and also Justices who maybe have a more outside perspective, would be the best mix to give us the best chance to optimize the Court’s decisions.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
But my head hurts at the idea of KKK racists so clever that they devised a standardized test which native-born English-soeaking Americans have trouble passing but which Mandarin speaking Asians from the the far side of the world can ace without breaking a sweat. That is one hell of a dogleg through the DNA spiral.
You should look into why the SAT was created. There was a New Yorker article on it in 2001 or 2002. As for Asian immigrants’ ability to do well, on average: I’m sure you can think of some advantages they have that many African-Americans do not.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
bperk, you seem to discount the possibility that relevant experience can also inhibit one’s ability to apply legal principles in a neutral fashion. There is no reason to discount that possibility. For instance, I would not be surprised in the least if Clarence Thomas is less than neutral in judiging sexual harrassment in workplace cases.
Mind you, I don’t think it is fruitful to look at a judges background, and draw conclusions either way as to how well they will draw conclusions. I merely am pointing out the fallacy in trying to make such judgements.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It is entirely obvious that both “different experiences” and “inherent physiological or cultural differences” affect how judges judge, just like those three factors affect how everyone does pretty much everything. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense to allow racism in both directions in picking court justices, that is, both merit racism and affirmative action racism. If one group is better at judging due to its collective experience, culture, or genetics, it’s not bad for it to be overrepresented in court relative to its proportion of the population, but at the same time, it shouldn’t be too overrepresented because diversity of viewpoint really does have value in making good decisions.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
DTM, if ohly Sotomayor had grasp of the complexity in the manner you and I apparently do. Instead, because she is a bigot, she can only conclude that experience such as hers makes it more likely than not that people like her will provide superior judgements. Thanks for agreeing with me, even if it took so many posts for you to do so.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Blah blah blah Will Allen knows that Sotomayor is a bigot and therefore a terrible judge, even though he cannot critique a single judicial decision she has ever made. If only Sotomayor, the top undergraduate in her class at Princeton who went on to Yale Law and a distinguished legal career, had the same nuanced understanding of complexity that blog commenter Will Allen does!
May 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Honestly, this sounds like an argument as to why there should be diversity on the Court. A Supreme Court full of white, Christian, middle class or better men making decisions that affect the diversity that is the U.S. might have trouble applying legal principles in a neutral fashion.
I agree with you that insight and experience could work against a judge. However, if you have an entire panel with little or no experience on some pretty major issues on the court, then I think that increases the chances of bad decisions. Brennan has spoken extensively about the impact that Marshall’s addition had on the court. Marshall could point out a side of an issue that Brennan missed. That sees like a plus more than a negative to me.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
DTM, if ohly Sotomayor had grasp of the complexity in the manner you and I apparently do.
This from the person I had to repeatedly walk through Sotomayor’s argument until he finally realized what it was really about.
Anyway, you and I don’t know what Sotomayor would say if we raised this issue–she may well immediately acknowledge the issue and provide a response. That’s one of the problems with trying to conduct this sort of evaluation with only the historic record to work with, but if you are lucky, this may come up in her confirmation hearings.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Re bperk
It should be noted that there are two non-Christians currently on the court.
Re DTM
There should be no doubt that the issue of Judge Sotomayors’ presentation will raised by committee Rethuglicans. That’s in addition to the Ricci issue.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I’d lke to hear why the New Haven text was biased. Which questions were not relevant to firefighting that discriminated against minorities. I agree that no minorities passes makes the test suspect, but “suspect” is not guilty. Where is the proof of unfairness? Which questions “discriminated” the most?
May 26th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
No, DTM, she has already stated her views, which I had to walk you through several times before you could grasp them. She thinks a female with latin heritage will more likely than not provide superior conclusions. Coincidentally, she happens to be a female with latin heritage.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This statement would support the idea that these tests aren’t racially biased, but instead reflect differences in socio-economic status. But that can’t possibly be what you’re saying, right? Or do you think that disparate impact based on socio-economic status betrays underlying racial bias?
May 26th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
None of that has been answered because discriminatory impact is enough to be problematic under Title VII. The kind of proof you are asking for is always impossible to find, which is why Title VII is the way it is.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
If only Sotomayor had any experience serving as a judge. Then Will Allen could look at her judicial record and find some evidence for whatever nonsense he’s spouting now.
Life is so unfair!
May 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
She thinks a female with latin heritage will more likely than not provide superior conclusions.
False. Here’s what she actually said: “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.”
See the difference?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
That’s manifestly true though right?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
This statement would support the idea that these tests aren’t racially biased, but instead reflect differences in socio-economic status. But that can’t possibly be what you’re saying, right? Or do you think that disparate impact based on socio-economic status betrays underlying racial bias?
They’re not mutually exclusive. The tests are (and were especially when they were first introduced) racially biased. One way to combat this is through the test-prep racket that some groups don’t have access to.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I thought I read somewhere that the Fire Department paid thousands of dollars to have an independent firm devise a bias-free test? Is that true?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
She thinks a female with latin heritage will more likely than not provide superior conclusions.
Back-sliding to the strawmen, I see. Oh well, have fun playing with yourself.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=12764
First a little history: Back in 2003, 118 firefighters took tests for promotion to captain and lieutenant. The city paid $100,000 to I/O Solutions, a testing company from Illinois, which observed and interviewed New Haven firefighters — two-thirds of whom were white — to see which parts of their jobs were relevant and important.
I/O Solutions then created a 100-question test and a detailed study guide. The city offered firefighters a three-month study period. During those three months, Frank Ricci, who’s dyslexic, paid $1,000 for the study materials to be read on tape because he learns better by listening. Greg Boivin resigned from part-time jobs to devote more time to studying. Ban Vargas took leave from his part-time job to study. Christopher Parker studied in the hospital while waiting for his wife to give birth.
Promotion exams are a big deal because they’re offered so infrequently — sometimes only once a decade.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The strawmen, like the complexity, DTM, is purely a figment of your imagination.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I’d lke to hear why the New Haven text was biased. Which questions were not relevant to firefighting that discriminated against minorities. I agree that no minorities passes makes the test suspect, but “suspect” is not guilty. Where is the proof of unfairness? Which questions “discriminated” the most?
None of this was actually litigated. To review the basic facts of the case, the City administered the exam, saw the results, stated in part that they were afraid of getting sued under Title VII, and decided not to promote anyone. Some of the people who did well on the exam then sued the City for reverse discrimination.
So the results of the exam are relevant to the extent the City cited them as their basis for fearing they would be subjecting themselves to a lawsuit if they used the results. But since the test results were never used and such a lawsuit was never actually brought, the issue of whether the test was actually discriminatory was never litigated.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I thought I read somewhere that the Fire Department paid thousands of dollars to have an independent firm devise a bias-free test? Is that true?
This is true. They paid an outside group specifically to get a bias free test, so I think we can be reasonably sure that the test was unbiased. It was just those particular results. And remember, no matter what you might think of the results, stastics tells us that with lots of government agencies giving lots of tests, eventually you will have a test where no minorities pass (not this test though, 2 hispanics did pass). The test was fair, the winners got boned by Title VII. Unfortunately the Fire Dept. proactively through out the test because the were afraid they might get sued under Title VII. Unfortunatly the judges who upheld this were probably right to do so from a legal perspective since the act in question had been passed by congress. However, since there is little doubt in my mind that these justices would have ruled the other way if the races of the involved parties had been different under 14th Ammendment grounds (as well they should imo) it is understandable why people get their knickers in a twist over this.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
What does it mean when a nominee’s detractors keep referencing something she wrote as if it was a horrible, disqualifying monstrosity, but they won’t put the up quote; while one of her supporters was perfectly happy to post the “controversial” statement in its entirety?
Al and Will Allen have been hammering every Sotomayor thread with this assertion about what she said, but not a single time were they willing to put up a quote. DTM, who wishes to argue in favor of Sotomayor’s bona fides, is the one willing to quote the statement.
Telling.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
You’re kidding, right? Because the city paid for an unbiased test, we can draw the conclusion that the test was unbiased.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Re Al at 66: “No, she said either based on different experiences OR on “inherent physiological or cultural differences”.
Inherent physiological differences. Wonder what that means…”
————-
I think she’s arguing that potheads make better judges, Al.
If so, I would agree. It certainly would explain a lot of Scalia’s dissents.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Joe, this is the only thread in which I have (accurately) noted that Sotomayor is a bigot. You are lying, as is typical of you.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
@#30:
Um, so, Clarence Thomas is not qualified? really? Has anyone told Limbaugh and Hannity?
Insert snark here . . . .
May 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Re bperk at 96: “None of that has been answered because discriminatory impact is enough to be problematic under Title VII. The kind of proof you are asking for is always impossible to find, which is why Title VII is the way it is.”
————–
Hmmm. So why don’t we apply this judicial approach to other domains? E.g., Throw half of the Congressional Republicans into prison for bribery– because while proof is difficult, the impact is pretty damm clear.
Also, throw every Wall Street Executive with a net worth of more than $2 Million into prison. I know they are thieving motherfuckers — but “the kind of proof you are asking for is always impossible to find, which is why Title VII is the way it is.”
Hmmm. Actually, I like this approach to justice. When do we go after the American Bar Association? And those lying assholes at the New York Times and Fox NEws?
May 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Will,
Why wouldn’t you post the quote you keep referring to?
DTM had no problem posting it.
You want to keep asserting that Sotomayor is a bigot, and claiming that the quote proves it, but you won’t let us see the quote?
Why not?
May 26th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Here’s the quote, again.
Gee, I wonder why someone waling about Sotomayor being a bigot wouldn’t want to post that?
May 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Al and Will Allen have been hammering every Sotomayor thread with this assertion about what she said, but not a single time were they willing to put up a quote.
Huh? Did you miss the comment here?
May 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Note: the link to the quotation is at the immediately prior comment, along with my error-filled attempt at posting the quotation the first time.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Re JD at 106: “Unfortunatly the judges who upheld this were probably right to do so from a legal perspective since the act in question had been passed by congress. However, since there is little doubt in my mind that these justices would have ruled the other way if the races of the involved parties had been different under 14th Ammendment grounds (as well they should imo) it is understandable why people get their knickers in a twist over this.”
—————
But isn’t one of the PRIMARY purposes of the courts to overturn Congressional acts that violate civil rights?
How many white singers have been hired by the Rap Music industry? Should there be a ban on any rap songs that can’t be sung by the average white man?
Oh, and I want them to lower those motherfucking baskets at the NBA games. They set them too high up.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Huh? Did you miss the comment here?
No, not at all. I saw that you took one sentence out of its context in order to misrepresent it.
I’m not sure why you think that drawing attention to what you did, right underneath the entire statement, is going to help you, though.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
So, to sum up: liberals, Sonia Sotomayor, and anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot; and also, the fact that black people have lower levels of achievement is best understood as a meritocratic outcome, like short people not doing as well in basketball.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Yay perseveration! This thread is almost as long as this one
Speaking of perseveration I only mentioned that thread to point out that although, in my own eyes, I have not made my opinions as clearly as in that thread, I have avoided embarassing editing mistakes where I come out saying that racial profiling is fine (I would suggest some nuance in who actually are the biggest victims of many individual “investigations” that are linked to profiling and whether or not their problems which may or may not be caused by profiling are society’s loss [they probably are not specifically caused by profiling, their protests to the side, and they cheapen the serious damage that racial profiling causes to people and communities], but those instances (1) are not relevant to the issue of selectively asking questions to job candidates when an honest answer is assumed and (2) do not exhaust by any stretch of the imagination the range of victims of the practice of racial profiling, whose problems caused by racial profiling are real and unacceptable.), so the Moral Panicker comes out even. This is clearly more important than Judge Sontomayor’s fate before the Senate. MORAL PANICKER FOR SUPREME COURT!
May 26th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Re Joe at 119: “also, the fact that black people have lower levels of achievement is best understood as a meritocratic outcome, like short people not doing as well in basketball.”
—————-
As I noted above, where some black people get unfairly fucked by our society is when they grow up being stuck in unacceptably shitty educational districts.
Good luck with getting the politicians — and the teachers unions — to change that.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Hello Don Williams #121,
I know what you mean about the school districts, but I don’t think it’s controversial that African-Americans as a class (not just individual African-Americans) are unfairly treated in ways that have much more to do directly with race and do not affect instances of merit.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Joe, why do you keep reposting the quote, in which the bigot Sotomayor, female of latin heritage, states that she would hope that a wise female of latin heritage would produce superior conclusions than a white male who did not have the experiences of a wise female of latin heritage?
May 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Will Allen, still waiting for any indication of how big bigoted bigot Sotamayor has been a big bigoted bigot judge. She has a track record, you know.
Oh that’s right, your 45 comments in this thread all revolve around your tedious misinterpretation of a Sotamayor quote. God you’re a reactionary little bitch.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Barbar—Will Allen is both dishonest and stupid; he has no problem cranking out the same point, no matter how many times it is refuted or complicated, all night long. He is tedious.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Babar, when a female with latin heritage states that she would hope that a wise female with latin heritage would more often than not produce better conclusions than a white male who did not have the experiences of the latin female, there is no need to cite legal opinions to establish that she is a bigot. She plainly is.
For the record, and as I have stated in another thread, I am not saying that Sotomayor would suck any more than the eight remaining justices.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Wow. Grade A Moron.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“Second, 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.”
Reverse the racial and gender categories in this statement and then ask if you have problems with it. If so, the original should bother you too. If not, you’re a hypocrite.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Reverse the racial and gender categories in this statement and then ask if you have problems with it. If so, the original should bother you too. If not, you’re a hypocrite.
In context, I think it is likely Sotomayor is only talking about cases in which being female and/or an ethnic minority are plausibly relevant, such as race and sex discrimination cases. Accordingly, it doesn’t actually make sense to reverse the race and gender categories.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
It’s sort of the same reason I post a link to a chart of annual average global temperatures in threads with a lot of global warming deniers: because juxtaposing your hysterical shrieking with the actual language of the quote produces such a striking contrast as to destroy the credibility of not just thing particular argument you’re making, but your credibility in toto.
Here it is again:
May 26th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Are we also reversing the reality that the perspective and concerns of while males are have always been well-understood among Supreme Court justices, owing to an eternal over-representation of white males on the court, while those of Latina females are often overlooked and poorly understood? Are we postulating a world in which the Supreme Court originally consisted of 9 Hispanic women, and has always included a solid majority of Hispanic women?
Because if we are, then I would have no problem with the statement that a white male could make better decisions because he could bring a broader understanding to the court.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Finally at #131 we have the winner. Thank you. Shithead Allen has spent the entire day avoiding this fact.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Finally at #131 we have the winner. Thank you. Shithead Allen has spent the entire day avoiding this fact.
Unsuccessfully too–at one point he backed right into the logical conclusion that a Court with diverse experiences made sense. Of course he then retreated to his strawmen arguments, but by then the damage had obviously been done.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
So if 5 black guys make it onto an NBA team and a few white guys and latinos do not…is it biased? Maybe the minorities just were not that smart.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I’m always amused when people use sports analogies in this context–maybe it is just me, but I always immediately leap to thoughts of Jackie Robinson. Because obviously between 1890 and 1946, black people just didn’t have the ability to play major league baseball.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
No, DTM, I made no such conclusions. I stated that experiences may make for better decisions or worse decisons, and there is no reason to hope that either outcone would be more likely.
Yes, joe, like Sotomayer you believe that it is to be hoped that certain people, due to their life experiences derived from their gender or racial chracteristics, are more often than not going to render superior decisions than similarly wise people who don’t have those experiences derived from their gender or racial characteristics, if those gender or racial characteristics have been underepresented on the court. There really is no empirical reason to have this hope, because a person’s past experiences are no more likely to produce objective, legally principled reasoning than reasoning based in an legally unprincipled desire for a particular outcome. If the court had been in the past wholly dominated by women of latin heritage, there would no reason to hope that a white male would provide superior conclusions.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
There really is no empirical reason to have this hope, because a person’s past experiences are no more likely to produce objective, legally principled reasoning than reasoning based in an legally unprincipled desire for a particular outcome. If the court had been in the past wholly dominated by women of latin heritage, there would no reason to hope that a white male would provide superior conclusions.
You do know that the legal arguments are philosophical arguments, not math problems, right?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
You do know that philosophy is not divorced from empirical observation, right?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Forgetting Sotomayor for an instant and focusing on Ricci:
Don: There’s a long line of cases that hold that “disparate impact” is evidence of discriminatory intent because racists are smart enough to hide the real purpose behind the laws they enact.
Or because part of the goal here isn’t to prevent actual discrimination but just to give racial minorities their share of the political spoils. Disparate impact can occur because people from different races are disproportionately qualified in certain fields.
You should look into why the SAT was created. There was a New Yorker article on it in 2001 or 2002. As for Asian immigrants’ ability to do well, on average: I’m sure you can think of some advantages they have that many African-Americans do not.
Yes. Asians are, on average, more intelligent than non-Asian minorities (and likely more intelligent on average than whites, at least if we are talking about Japanese, Korean and Chinese Asians. I don’t know how much we know about SE Asians).
None of that has been answered because discriminatory impact is enough to be problematic under Title VII. The kind of proof you are asking for is always impossible to find, which is why Title VII is the way it is.
The problem is that no one has been able to come up with an aptitude test of any predictive value where blacks do not score lower than whites or Asians.
You’re kidding, right? Because the city paid for an unbiased test, we can draw the conclusion that the test was unbiased.
The fact that no one has ever been able to come up with an “unbiased” test is pretty compelling evidence that bias is not the issue here.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Will Allen whines that he’s not a supporter of Scalia, but he was more than happy to benefit from that thug’s help in appointing the least qualified monkey ever to hold the office of President. Weren’t you Will? In fact, you were so happy about this kind of results based judicial activism that you voted for Bush again – even after he started a senseless war to slaughter innocent Iraqis.
But then, like Hispanics, Iraqis aren’t real people to fuckwits like Will Allen.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Will, if you believed in empirical observation you could not possibly have voted for George W. Bush. Not even the first time when he was observably less competent to hold the office than his opponent. Never mind the second time by which he had so clearly demonstrated his unfitness for office that the only way to vote for him would be if his opponent had been the only person less qualified to hold public office than he was – Will Allen.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Actually, Stupid, I stated in 2000 that the most principled approach to the Florida mess was for the Supreme Court to not involve itself, which would have likely resulted in two slates of electors from Florida attempting to cast votes, and would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives.
I have written several times that Scalia is frequently an unprincipled opportunist, and his opportunism is in some ways more noxious than that of other justices, because it is frequently less forthright. As is typical of you, you are lying.
If Sotomayor was few thousand miles to the east, you would be asserting that her skin color made her best fit to be tyrannized so as to keep you comfortable.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 am
If Sotomayor was few thousand miles to the east, you would be asserting that her skin color made her best fit to be tyrannized so as to keep you comfortable.
Holy crap. It’s like the platonic ideal of a troll. He’s a fucking digital tar baby.
Just, wow.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:50 am
D’Monteth, I was being facetious, and I would only write that in response to Stupid, and only due to Stupid’s moronic habit of posting in nearly every thread that because I supported the Iraq invasion, I desire to have Iraqis subjected to mass murder.
It is true, however, that Stupid thinks the best available fate for a Persian Gulf Arab is to be subject to decades more of tyranny, in order to effect oil extraction. Sometimes I suspect that Stupid, in a rather similar fashion to the racists who supported slavery or Jim Crow in the U.S., believes that those being tyrannized are happiest with that state of affairs.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:01 am
There really is no empirical reason to have this hope, because a person’s past experiences are no more likely to produce objective, legally principled reasoning than reasoning based in an legally unprincipled desire for a particular outcome.
Again, you aren’t advancing the conversation by attacking strawmen. The actual theory is that relevant experiences are more likely than not to help a judge understand the facts of a case, not bias them in favor of an outcome.
Generally, this is a crucial point that people like Will Allen seem not to understand: to decide a case, judges have to not only interpret the law, but also apply the law to the facts of the case, and properly applying the law to the facts of the case requires understanding the facts of the case. Once you understand that, it becomes fairly uncontroversial to suggest that relevant experience can be useful to a judge.
And, of course, this is in fact an uncontroversial proposition in most contexts. For example, people frequently argue that experience as a civil litigator is useful for judges who have to make a lot of civil procedure decisions, on the theory that such experience is likely to help the judge better understand what is really going on between the parties in a given procedural dispute.
Now back before Will Allen retreated into his strawmen arguments, he briefly noted the real issue here, which is that while experience can be illuminating, it could also potentially be biasing. But as I noted at that point, acknowledging this problem does not imply we should ignore the value of experience, but rather implies we should seek in a multi-member court a diversity of relevant experiences, with the hope that in its interactions such a court would be more likely to incorporate the valuable aspects of the experience of its members while filtering out the biasing effects.
Of course Will Allen realized his mistake at that point, so he has shifted back to implicitly claiming experience can never illuminate and can only bias. But of course that is a silly view, and the more reasonable conclusion is that experience can sometimes illuminate and sometimes bias, and therefore that seeking a diversity of experiences on the Court would be the best idea.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a judge without experience, and therefore even if it were true that experience could only bias and never illuminate, you would still want to avoid a situation in which all the members of the Court had a roughly similar set of experiences, since that would lead on this theory to all the members of the Court having a roughly similar set of biases.
So any way you cut through this issue, once you admit experience is relevant at all, positively or negatively, it becomes fairly obvious that seeking a diversity of experiences is a good idea. But again, Will Allen doesn’t want to admit that, so he is just going to retreat further into his logically incoherent strawmen arguments.
Again,
May 27th, 2009 at 8:17 am
That last “again” shouldn’t be there.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Even if this test had been devised by Patricia Williams and Michael Eric Dyson with no change in outcome, the same people would be arguing that the test was biased because Williams and Dyson, Americans since birth, had created a test that contained the subconscious biases of Amerikkkan culture. What is it the left likes to say…? It’s tough when the facts themselves are biased. Why hasn’t this test been published? Publish it and let’s see what’s on it. (of course the fact is that none of the proponents of the Ricci decision give a shit about what’s on the test).
May 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
P.S. I assume the best thing they’ve got on the test is the use of the word “uptown” because it’s the only example they ever use to show bias. But, again, they won’t release the test so that everyone can see what’s on it. Of course, the public’s common sense can’t be trusted to see the hidden biases of the test-makers. We’ll need to call in the experts to show us where it is and then tell us, when we confess we don’t see it, that we cannot be expected to recognize our own biases etc.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Of course, the public’s common sense can’t be trusted to see the hidden biases of the test-makers. We’ll need to call in the experts to show us where it is and then tell us, when we confess we don’t see it, that we cannot be expected to recognize our own biases etc.
Why is that so implausible? Can everything complex be understood with “common sense” and without expertise?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Yeah, Occam, it is implausible, especially when the test was created by people who specifically designed the test to avoid racially biased language, situations etc. and the test was accepted as having accomplished that and then administered. Moroever, if you think, even after the good-faith efforts of the test creators to make that test unbiased, that the test was still not only racially biased but so racially biased that it could explain why so few blacks did well on it, don’t you think the biases of that test would be obvious to most people? I’m not crazy am I. Am I being ridiculous here?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
By the way, I want to point out that I welcome this nomination precisely because of Sotomayor’s role in the Ricci case. I hope her hearing gets lots and lots of coverage and that the facts of the Ricci case are broadcast far and wide. The more the general public hears about it, the more damage will be done to racial preferences/penalties.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
God Damnit! I want someone to challenge me!
May 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
[...] being unable to cite a single case where she ignored the law. They have also attacked her for refusing to twist the law in order to benefit white people. Indeed, right-wing attacks on Judge Sotomayor has been so strident and unhinged that even the [...]