Sotomayer Decision Overturned; White Guys - 1, Latinas - 0

Monday, June 29, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with white firefighters in their workplace discrimination lawsuit, a divisive case over the role race should play in job advancement.

Posted by cookfish at 11:07 AM | 9 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Author Info

cookfish

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2006/07/30
Visited 2012/05/25

Status: user

MORE STORIES

( comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Hey cockflesh, can you at least try to get her name right?

Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-06-29 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like Cookfish needs a little help with the headline it should read.

SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION...

Posted by ATaxpayer at 2009-06-29 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

As it should be.

Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2009-06-29 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not "reverse discrimination" it's just discrimination. Period.

Race should not play any role in decisions concerning employment, admission to school, civil liberties, etc...

Treat everyone equally. If you want to address the inequality that still exists, go to the source - socioeconomic inequality and its impact on education. Everything seems to flow out from that one issue.

Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-06-29 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not "reverse discrimination" it's just discrimination

I don't understand people's misuse of the term 'reverse discrimination'. (not you, zombie -- I understand your context) By definition discrimination is bias based on race. Period. WTF is 'reverse' discrimination?

Posted by goatman at 2009-06-29 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel

In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority

But it was all Sotomayor's decision, right?

Reality and the right...
Sigh.

Posted by northguy3 at 2009-06-29 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel

In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority

But it was all Sotomayor's decision, right?

Reality and the right...
Sigh.

#6 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-06-29 12:36 PM

They're focusing on Sotomayor because she happens to be Obama's nominee for SCOTUS. It's really not that difficult to understand why the title wasn't "White Guys - 1, That Guy Sitting Next to Sotomayor - 0." Difficult for you maybe...

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-06-29 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Will SCOTUS nominee also be glued to TOTUS?

The article asks whether this is a setback for her. Why would it be? She simply would have been one of the dissenters (in principle, I know she would have had to recuse herself if she sat on this case). If the Congress' recent history continues, they'll speed track her in by the will of the majority. Do the issues even matter? All that matters is she's ideologically the same, a La Raza backer which means she'll fast track the NAU and the all the power-grabbing, one-world globalist, international law, Constitution exile, IMF World Bank takeover agenda.

Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-06-29 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only thing to consider is Ginsburgs dissenting statement.
I don't want another one on the SCOTUS who can't decipher the law.
This wasn't even a classic discrimination lawsuit, the liberal SCOTUS members fucked up beyond reasoning.
Anyone, especially the liberals on this site must be able to see this.

rwd

Posted by rightwingdon at 2009-06-29 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag: