Wednesday, July 01, 2009

My Response To A Liberal's Comment

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Martin Luther King Jr

In a previous post, I commented on the Ricci vs Stephano case, in which The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Obama's recent Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Jim, a Liberal commenter, who I haven't managed to run off yet, (nor do I want to, yet) made this comment:

"Actually, your activist judges didn't reverse Sotomayor and the District Court. They reversed the Supreme Court. The District Court ruled based on Supreme Court precedent, as they should. In this decision, this court has changed its own rules. Read the ruling."

To which I replied, "Jim, I won't argue that point. But I will question your employment of the term, "activist judges.

I would argue that the Supreme Court simply applied the civil rights act of 1964, and applied it correctly."

Then, I asked him some pertinent questions regarding what he considers is the definition of racist discrimination. You may read the entire thread, if you're so inclined, here.

But then, after re-reading his comment, I write the following, in response:

I changed my mind, Jim. I will argue that point.

A columnist (his name doesn't matter), who once worked for Sotomayor, and now writes for The Washington Post, a Liberally biased newspaper, wrote "Of course, the fact that Judge Sotomayor or any judge was overruled by the Supreme Court..."

A columnist (Again, name doesn't matter) at The National Review, a Conservative biased magazine wrote,

"although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven."

Actually, that statement isn't accurate, but stay tuned.

From an update to that same article, the writer quotes Justice Ruth Ginsburg, possibly the most Liberal Justice on the SCOTUS, saying, "Ginsburg believes that Sotomayor and the other judges below applied the wrong standard: “The lower courts focused on respondents’ ‘intent’ rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act.”"

From, another Liberally biased website: "the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling, reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor)..."

Apparently, and according to most experts, Sotomayor's decision was indeed reversed by the SCOTUS.

Now, let me add, also, that all of the arguments presented in support of the District court's (including Sotomayor) ruling focused on the cities decision to throw out the test results because no black firefighter qualified for the promotion.

But their race (or color) is not the reason why the black firefighters were disqualified.

They were disqualified for promotion because none of them scored high enough to qualify for promotion to one of only eight openings.

15 firefighters, including Ricci, passed the test, with a high enough score to earn a promotion, and only the top 8 scores were to be rewarded with a promotion, which is how it should be, regardless of race.

The one fact that cannot be ignored is this:

No black firefighters scored high enough on this particular administration of the test to earn a promotion.

That's why the city of New Haven threw out the test scores. They were afraid that some black firefighter would charge them with racial discrimination. It's as simple as that. What does that say about the enabling of inequality in America?


We have achieved racial equality in this country, but certain people (such as Judge Sonia Sotomayor) apparently feel racial discrimination is fair, as long as we only discriminate against white people.

Here's the wrap (with apologies to Kevin Jackson):

This isn't about racism or discrimination. It is about qualifications based upon a standardized test. If any one of the black applicants had earned one of the eight top scores, the test scores would not have been thrown out, and the lawsuit would not have been necessary.

My unsolicited advice offered to any so-called minority who wants to get promoted, and that promotion is predicated upon scores of a standardized test is this:

Study hard to score the highest, and if you don't score high enough, study harder next time.


Mark said...

Incidentally, In researching this post, I ran across a quotation on a Liberal web site which was almost word-for-word what Jim said.

I've long suspected Jim of copying and pasting comments from Liberal web sites. I'm not suggesting he does this regularly, but.... :-)

Pamela D. Hart said...

Mark: Your unsolicited advice is RIGHT ON! Although, I'm sure some so-called minorities will call you a racist for suggesting SUCH a thing!

Krystal said...

This type of stuff goes on all the time in colleges and universities. The U that my husband attended were told that they did not have enough black students to continue to receive government money.

They replied that EVERY black student that met the required GPA and SAT/ACT scores were not only admitted but were given scholarship monies to help pay for their education.


Quite frankly, if I were black, that would greatly insult me. Our government truly believes that black people are less intellegent than white people. So not true.

What IS true is that minorities are encouraged by state and federal governments to be lazy. Not saying that minorities are lazy. I'm saying that the government WANTS them to be lazy and live on some kind of government assitance.

Lazy leads to ignorance and poor paying jobs. It keeps them reliant on the government. Local and state governments receive federal money for school programs based upon income levels, learning disorders, and low test scores for minorities. It does not behoove local and state governments for minorities to be well educated if they want to continue to get the funds.

Federal government needs them "poor and stupid" and on the rolls in order to keep getting elected. And I'll tell you, they do the same thing with the lower income white people too. They want them dumbed down and pregnant at 15 to get more votes.

The government bends over backwards to throw pennies at the poor and uneducated who plan to stay poor and educated and rocks and those who try to better themselves.

Jim said...

When I copy and paste, I cite the source. If there is no citation, then I am saying in my own words what I have learned from other sources.

Can you say the same?

Mark said...


Trader Rick said...

Jim is such a tool...

Joe said...

Mark: Your analysis is the same as mine, therefore correct. (Well, it is correct AND the same as that the same thing?)

Marshall Art said...

I had heard one discussion on TV where it was posited that the ruling (the original one) was based on the notion that because none of the black applicants passed, in a town with a high percentage of blacks and also there being a high percentage of black applicants, that it somehow means that the test was somehow slanted in favor of the white applicants. I wish I could remember the statement more accurately, but even then, it would sound stupid. At least it was when I heard it. My immediate thought was, how could they predict that only whites would be able to pass the test if what was said is true? Are there questions or facts to which only whites would have answers? Perhaps none of the whites went to the same crappy public schools as did the black applicants. Is that the problem of the test makers and the test takers?

Jim said...

"how could they predict that only whites would be able to pass the test if what was said is true?"

This assumes that the people who created the test purposely made it so that minorities wouldn't pass. That's a false assumption. Any test can be unintentionally biased if it doesn't take into consideration a broad swath of cultural and educational context.

I don't know anything about the firefighters test. I don't know anything about the firefighters. So I can't pass judgment on the bias if any on the test. If a large number of firefighters took the test and no minorities passed, it makes the test suspect and it is reasonable for the city to fear that the minority firefighters would sue. The Court ruled that fearing a suit was not reason enough to throw out the test. This is a new standard from that set by previous Supreme Court precedent.

Mark said...

Hey, Jim, no one said no blacks passed the test. Some did, but they didn't score high enough to earn a promotion.

How do you know they aren't victims of a system that rewards sloth and punishes hard work?

Actually, that's probably why they didn't score as high. Not that they can't, because there is no reason to suspect they can't, but that they think, due to racial quotas and affirmative action, that they don't need to study as hard.

This is what Liberal ideology has spawned. An entire culture of laziness.