Forums | MacLife

KHannon wrote:

Res.

Here is a simple question.  I would like a "yes" or a "no."

In 1896, the Supreme Court issued the decision Plessy v. Ferguson which held that states could, consistent with the Constitution, have separate "white only" schools and "black only" schools.  Obviously this was overturned in the 1950's in Brown v. Board of Education.

Lets say you have a Court of Appeals judge in 1930 with a case before (at the time, they were all male) him challenging plessy v. ferguson.  The only argument raised is that the case was wrong.

Would the court of appeals judge be "racist" for upholding Plessy because he does not have the constitutional power to overturn a supreme court decision?

She's not racist just because of that decision.
She also made a comment about how a female latin judge would be better than a white male judge.
If that's not racism, what is?

I think usually, the smart 'activists', go around precedent. Usually in a narrow opinion. Sorta 'special case' that the facts don't fit precedent.

Like Roberts is wont.

resedit wrote:

She's not racist just because of that decision.
She also made a comment about how a female latin judge would be better than a white male judge.
If that's not racism, what is?

Oh lord, you watched your uninformed argument about the New Haven case fall apart, so you're jumping back to the other talking point.

She asserted that, in certain situations, she hoped that someone of her background might be able to reach a better conclusion than someone who didn't share that background.  Justice Alito made similar comments regarding his background during his confirmation hearings.

I think it was a poor choice of words on her part, and I assume she'll clarify what she meant.  But there is simply nothing in this woman's background or in her prior judicial work to suggest that she's a "racist."

resedit wrote:

Those firefighters had their test invalidated because of the color of their skin.

All of the firefighters had the test invalidated. Not just the white ones.

And I think it's important to note that she was on a panel of judges and that panel had NO disenting opinion. It was an unanimous decision. Which is more telling? That people are separating her out on that ruling or that it was an unanimous decision?

...and NO, lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

She's not racist just because of that decision.
She also made a comment about how a female latin judge would be better than a white male judge.
If that's not racism, what is?

Oh lord, you watched your uninformed argument about the New Haven case fall apart, so you're jumping back to the other talking point.

She asserted that, in certain situations, she hoped that someone of her background might be able to reach a better conclusion than someone who didn't share that background.  Justice Alito made similar comments regarding his background during his confirmation hearings.

I think it was a poor choice of words on her part, and I assume she'll clarify what she meant.  But there is simply nothing in this woman's background or in her prior judicial work to suggest that she's a "racist."

No - I did not watch my argument fall apart.
My argument stands.

Those firefighters had their test invalidated because of the color of their skin, if that's what a law required then the law that required it, no matter how noble the intention, is unconstitutional, and should have been found unconstitutional.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.  The Supreme Court generally takes cases to affirm or reverse their own prior decisions, or when the circuits are split over a legal issue that hasn't been clearly defined previously.

No. I think that they do it with a pair of dice and some darts.

resedit wrote:

KHannon wrote:

Res.

Here is a simple question.  I would like a "yes" or a "no."

In 1896, the Supreme Court issued the decision Plessy v. Ferguson which held that states could, consistent with the Constitution, have separate "white only" schools and "black only" schools.  Obviously this was overturned in the 1950's in Brown v. Board of Education.

Lets say you have a Court of Appeals judge in 1930 with a case before (at the time, they were all male) him challenging plessy v. ferguson.  The only argument raised is that the case was wrong.

Would the court of appeals judge be "racist" for upholding Plessy because he does not have the constitutional power to overturn a supreme court decision?

She's not racist just because of that decision.
She also made a comment about how a female latin judge would be better than a white male judge.
If that's not racism, what is?

So... you didn't answer my question.  Not only did you not use a "yes" or a "no," you didn't answer my question.  tsk tsk.  I was going to try to walk you through a line of reasoning in a respectful way showing why, given the Law of the Land in this country, you are incorrect on this issue, but I think what Schnicky said is correct.  Plus you have demonstrated that you are not interested in a discussion on the issue.  You're interested in being a Pez dispenser of conservative talking points.

This isn't a court of law.

Are you saying that Sotomayor was not, in fact, a judge, and her courtroom was not a properly constituted court of law? Is this about the gold fringe?

Pariah wrote:

It's a Navel flag dammit!!

She has a gold flag in her navel? And to think I didn't even know judges lifted their robes in public...

Rehnquist had stripes.