This will have a negative impact on affirmative action hiring at the majors

[EdAtTheAirport]

My read was that it was only the certification of the written test that was in dispute. If the argument was only whether it was 40/60 or 60/40, then there is even less merit to the case.

 

[Andy Neill]

No previous Supreme Court nominee has had as many decisions reversed AT the Supreme Court. She will be confirmed but she was clearly chosen for attributes aside from judicial qualification. Not saying it hasn't happened before, but I thought this administration would bring "change."

WOW. You must have access to an incredible book of statistics. Which Supreme Court nominee comes in second for the most overturned? Are you saying that having 4 of her 400 some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (99% of the decisions have stood) is the worst record among Supreme Court nominees? Can you back that up? Where did you hear/get that?

....on the other hand, if you are saying that having 4 of her 6 (67%) decisions that have been heard and reversed by the Supreme Court is the worst, I would be hard pressed to argue that fact. I think it is pretty meaningless but I would be hard pressed to call it false. I think the 99% is more meaningful.

 

[Beaver79]

Buy this man a beer! An articulate, well reasoned, and professional position...now if you could only teach Brown to spell......

For the record, I am one minority who agrees with the Supreme Court decision. It simply came down to the fact that the White and Hispanic candidates scored better on a written test. I have no idea what "special favors" Brown is referring to.

Justice Ginsberg's dissent was full of mumbo-jumbo about 1972, and the "long shadow" of discrimination in the fire department. While certainly nepotism, political patronage, and union membership have been (and are) used to exclude minorities, this case was simply about a written test.

Honestly Brown, I wish you would not have started this thread if you are going to spell words such as "sucseed" and "fare." There may well be a place for intelligent discussion on this subject, but you aren't the flag bearer. Your posts are a caricature of the very problem you're complaining about.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

(99% of the decisions have stood)

Only six of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of those were overturned. Now extrapolate...

At that rate, if four hundred decisions had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 267 of them would have been overturned.

Your 99% figure is completely bogus.

 

[filejw]

You guys do realise this guy Brown is pulling your legs... and most likely is not a minority.

 

[Andy Neill]

Only six of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of those were overturned. Now extrapolate...

At that rate, if four hundred decisions had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 267 of them would have been overturned.

Your 99% figure is completely bogus.

I'll go with that a very limited way. Insomuch that cases have not had time to be reviewed by the Supreme Court (like Maloney v Cuomo) I'll give you that.

Most cases (roughly 99%) she has decided on won't be appealed, or won't be heard, or will be affirmed. Are you saying that if the Supreme Court hears 1% of the cases tried at District court level and overturns 25% of what it reviews that 25% of all federal district cases are bad decisions? Really? I don't.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Sir, the Supreme Court only hears 1 out of roughly 10,000 that are appealed. So there is only a scant minority of cases that get there. Your 99% figure is meaningless. Any federal judge can make that claim.

More meaningful is the apparent fact that of the six of hers that made it, four of them were overturned. Not many (none, if I read right!) have that deplorable a record.

And you're not making her look any better comparing her record to the 9th circuit. I think you know this!

 

[Monster Buck]

You guys do realise this guy Brown is pulling your legs... and most likely is not a minority.

Thank god this only took three pages for someone to say it. I can't believe how many people think this guy is actually a minority.

Brown=not a pilot
Brown=not a minority
Brown=flame only
Brown=STHU

 

[gutshotdraw]

....on the other hand, if you are saying that having 4 of her 6 (67%) decisions that have been heard and reversed by the Supreme Court is the worst, I would be hard pressed to argue that fact. I think it is pretty meaningless but I would be hard pressed to call it false.

This is exactly what I am saying and it is FAR from meaningless. It means 6 cases in which she ruled were deemed important enough for the Supreme Court to hear (contrary to popular belief, they don't agree to hear very many cases each term). And she was reversed TWO-THIRDS of the time her decisions were heard by the highest court in the land. I'd rather not have a Supreme Court justice that is WRONG TWO-THIRDS of the time on EXACTLY the kinds of cases she will be hearing seated on the Supreme Court bench.

 

[Andy Neill]

Sir, the Supreme Court only hears 1 out of roughly 10,000 that are appealed. So there is only a scant minority of cases that get there.

Why is that? I thought it was because there was nothing worthy of review at the next level. If someone appeals and loses at appellate level, they can still appeal to the Supreme Court. If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, to which cases would you grant writs of certiorari? I propose that only those with unfinished business will be heard.

Your 99% figure is meaningless. Any federal judge can make that claim.

I hope so. I hope the average federal judge is right 99% of the time. I don't think they are but that would be nice. I'll stand by my 99% claim. Will you give me +1/-2%? I will strongly defend as her record the number of cases she heard up to and including Ricci (how many hundred is that?) divided into 4 for the most meaningful number. Since she has been a federal judge since late 1992 and the Ricci case was heard on appeal in early 2008, I would say that all of her cases between 1993-2007 have had their day in courts and appeals. That still means than only 40-60 cases have not had a chance to make it through the system yet while 340-360 have. If 4 of 340 have been overturned then her record is better than 98.8%.

More meaningful is the apparent fact that of the six of hers that made it, four of them were overturned. Not many (none, if I read right!) have that deplorable a record.

Where are you reading that. Those that say that (and repeat it) should also know who has the second worst record. Who is that and what is that judge's record?
To say that a judge's overall effectiveness is measured by how many cases get overturned is to say that the poor judge who ruled in favor of the Safford School on the strip search never makes a right decision because she was overturned by the Ninth Cicuit on appeal and that ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court. I guess Judge Nancy Fiora never makes a right decision using your logic. I mean, she has never had one of her decisions affirmed on appeal in the Supreme Court has she?

And you're not making her look any better comparing her record to the 9th circuit. I think you know this!

My purpose is not to make Judge Sotomayor look good. I want her fitness evaluated fairly. I disagreed with her decision on Ricci and with her decision on Maloney. I have found no fault in any other of her cases. Have you? My point in bringing up the 9th was that she hardly has the worst record if an entire court average overturn rate is worse than hers. The Ninth was an easy target.

My question remains,
If Judge Sotomayor's record is the worst, who is in second place? If you don't know, you are repeating internet material rather than stating facts.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

This is exactly what I am saying and it is FAR from meaningless. It means 6 cases in which she ruled were deemed important enough for the Supreme Court to hear (contrary to popular belief, they don't agree to hear very many cases each term). And she was reversed TWO-THIRDS of the time her decisions were heard by the highest court in the land. I'd rather not have a Supreme Court justice that is WRONG TWO-THIRDS of the time on EXACTLY the kinds of cases she will be hearing seated on the Supreme Court bench.

You might be on to something here...I've never thought about it that way to be honest.

I still havent made up my mind about her yet even though I'm a hardcore liberal.

I'll just have to wait and see...

 

[gutshotdraw]

Andy, we don't know how many times she was reversed on Federal Appeals Court decisions before she ascended to the Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the SC as you know) in other cases that never made it to the Supreme Court. Haven't seen that number published but I'd be willing to wager THAT number is pretty large too.

 

[Lear70]

You guys are too funny... if you haven't figured it out yet, Brown is one of the BETTER flame baiters out there. Much better than InstructorDude, more subtle, lures more people in before he finally goes SO far that you FINALLY realize he's been baiting you all along...

Too funny...

 

[Andy Neill]

Andy, we don't know how many times she was reversed on Federal Appeals Court decisions before she ascended to the Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the SC as you know) in other cases that never made it to the Supreme Court. Haven't seen that number published but I'd be willing to wager THAT number is pretty large too.

You're right.
We don't know how many times she was reversed at the appellate level before she got to the court of appeals and that reversal was not later reversed by the Supreme Court.

I would not be willing to state that any federal judge has "a pretty large number" of cases overturned on appeal. What's your wager and what is pretty large?

Do you know, as has been stated very surely here, that she has the worst record on reversals at the Supreme Court? If so, how?
Who has the second worst record?

I'm going on the presumption, as our legal system itself does, that a decision that is not overturned on appeal is a valid decision. That's why they are cited by other courts in making their own decisions.

I'm asking you to do some independent thought here. I assure you I will not be posting off of any group's briefing points. There are enough concerns about Judge Sotomayor's fitness for the Supreme Court without delving into speculation. Let's stick to the best facts we can find.

 

[thruthemurk]

Just to stir the pot, how about the fact she is a catholic? She may meet the woman and Latino minority profiling but religious is another story. If confirmed, 6 of the 9 justices will be catholic, while 25% of Americans are catholic. There is no question that catholic schools and universities provide some excellent education in all corners of the country, and produce an outsize percentage of lawyers (and judges)- but that still doesn't seem to level the field. After all, you do not have to be catholic to attend these schools.

The clergy is not the flock, but...it seems that an organization that actively protected their own staff who was guilty of child molestation, rape and abuse of the power for hundreds of years to the degree that the catholic church has might not need to be quite so well represented on the highest court in the land,


Disclaimer - raised catholic save the wailing.

 

[westward]

Just curious...

Can anyone familiar with this case tell me if those denied promotion - failed the exam - ever file a discrimination suit? It seems if the test were so slanted as to allow only Whites and Hispanics to pass, the test must clearly favor one group over the other.

 

[profit]

Thank god this only took three pages for someone to say it. I can't believe how many people think this guy is actually a minority.

Brown=not a pilot
Brown=not a minority
Brown=flame only
Brown=STHU

Let me add. He is obviously a racist white guy attempting to incite race hatred.

I can't think of a reason other than a small d%$# that would make someone act like that. What a f&^%%$ retard.

 

[Andy Neill]

Can anyone familiar with this case tell me if those denied promotion - failed the exam - ever file a discrimination suit? It seems if the test were so slanted as to allow only Whites and Hispanics to pass, the test must clearly favor one group over the other.

There has not been any mention that the test was racially slanted. The city claimed that there very fact that there was such disparity in the results, there were Title VII grounds to think that there may have been unintentional racial discrimination. That erroneous claim also held by the district and appellate courts was straightened out in todays decision.

The city paid big bucks ($100,000) to design a racially neutral test. The contractor received input on the duties of captains and lieutenants from New Haven captains and lieutenants. They even oversampled that survey from minorities to ensure there would be no negative impact on minorities. The contractor also ensured that those who would do the oral evaluations had one white, one hispanic, and one black who were all from out of state on each of the 9 evaluation teams. Since the hispanics and blacks each represented less than 33% of the tested population, this also was not discriminatory against the minorities. Test questions were vetted with experts outside of Connecticutt. The only thing racially skewed with this test were the results.

Had the city used the test results and blacks sued them, the city would have had an easily defensible position. The city made every effort to create a racially neutral exam and the exam was job related. Anyone suing would have not had a legal leg to stand on.

On the other hand, because the city elected not to use the exam only because of the racially skewed results, they committed an act of racial discrimination not allowed by Title VII of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. All the Supreme Court had to do was cite what Title VII really says.

 

[General Lee]

That needs to be tempered by having the best minority pilots on the flight deck and giving them FARE chance to sucseed.

Wow, you are an idiot.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MILPILOT17]

Wow, you are an idiot.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General, I really hate to say it, but I agree with you! There, I said it! Fly safe.

 

[cape]

That needs to be tempered by having the best minority pilots on the flight deck and giving them FARE chance to sucseed.

Browntothebone you need a dictionary.

 

[igneousy2]

This whole argument is about sotomayor's "win/loss" record in the supreme court is the most ridicules thing i've seen concerning a supreme court nominee. This is an argument that could only be perpetuated by the ignorant media, those with a political motive, and those too intellectualy lazy to actually go and learn about the process themselves. I am a staunch conservative when it comes to SCOTUS cases, and the thought of another liberal nut on the supreme court scares me, however, if you are going to argue against her at least make it legit and well reasoned.

First off, in this Hartford fire fighters case, the only thing it shows is that the court is still sharply divided and leaning conservative. This was a 5-4 decision, a decision that is hardly a smack-down of her legal reasoning. In fact four current supreme court justices agreed with her.

Contrast this 5-4 ruling with the 8-1 smack-down given to the Arizona school that thought it was okay to search a little girls panties for Advil. What were the margins for the other cases that were overturned?

Although I am happy with the composition of the court at present and hope it doesn't change, this is the Constitution at work. Conservatives screwed up big time and lost there power. Now the people in power get to shape the court to there liking just as the conservatives got to shape the court how they wanted. The fact that the court will be more liberal at the end of all this is almost inevitable...the only question is how large the shift will be. That will depend on Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas's ability to keep themselves alive/unretired and how long liberals retain there absolute-power.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

NO JOKE. After reviewing a few pages of Brown's past posts, it is clear that he is indeed a minority, and has a history of spelling issues. I do not believe that his posts were a joke. See for yourselves.

 

[acarpe3448]

That needs to be tempered by having the best minority pilots on the flight deck and giving them FARE chance to sucseed.

Sorry, I disagree. If he can't compete with the best white candidate that is life. The passengers do not care about fare chances, they want to live.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Flamebaiting troll: 1
Noobs: 0

 

[RNObased]

That needs to be tempered by having the best minority pilots on the flight deck and giving them FARE chance to sucseed.

This is just about the dumbest thing with the most spelling errors I have ever read. Equal means all the same. Not lower the bar for some and raise it for others.

However after reading this post again, you have to be joking right.

 

[Andy Neill]

This whole argument is about sotomayor's "win/loss" record in the supreme court is the most ridicules thing i've seen concerning a supreme court nominee. This is an argument that could only be perpetuated by the ignorant media, those with a political motive, and those too intellectualy lazy to actually go and learn about the process themselves. I am a staunch conservative when it comes to SCOTUS cases, and the thought of another liberal nut on the supreme court scares me, however, if you are going to argue against her at least make it legit and well reasoned.

Contrast this 5-4 ruling with the 8-1 smack-down given to the Arizona school that thought it was okay to search a little girls panties for Advil. What were the margins for the other cases that were overturned?

Glad you asked. Here goes (from Newsweek fact check):
One was a 5-4 decision in 2001 in Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, which involved an inmate who sought to sue a private contractor operating a halfway house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons over injuries he sustained. Sotomayor said he could, but a majority of the justices disagreed.

[I see what you mean about the close calls....let's continue.....]

In another case, Sotomayor wrote that under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for drawing cooling water into power plants with minimal impact on aquatic life. By a vote of 6-3 this year, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Entergy v. Riverkeeper.

[That margin was a little wider....what else?]

The third reversal, in 2005, was a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit.Sotomayor had written that a class action securities suit brought in state court by a broker/stockholder was not preempted by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. But the high court's opinion said it "would be odd, to say the least" if the law contained the exception that Sotomayor said it did.

[Does that constitute a smackdown?]

One other bit about the significance (or non-significance) of her now 67% reversal rate at the Supreme Court level - again from Newsweek fact check)

In any case, [67] percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

To me that sounds like she is in the ballpark for any judge. There are reasons to be concerned about her nomination. I don't think her reversal rate at the Supreme Court is one of them.

 

[propdog]

That needs to be tempered by having the best minority pilots on the flight deck and giving them FARE chance to sucseed.

I want the best pilots flying my family.....not the 'best minority' pilot. You are an f'n disgrace to minority pilots.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Reality Check...

NO JOKE. After reviewing a few pages of Brown's past posts, it is clear that he is indeed a minority, and has a history of spelling issues. I do not believe that his posts were a joke. See for yourselves.

Your briefs are on too tight, dude. BROWN is a FLAMER and he's NOT BLACK. He tries to give minorites a bad name. All of his posts are similar because that is the persona of "Browntothebone." Am I the only one who realizes this?

I enjoy the humor just the same and it's highly evident that others possibly realize this too, yet play along with the charade and proceed to voice their genuinely hostile (racist) opinions of minorities as BROWN has provided them a legitimate excuse to reprimand [him] this so-called minority....

Sorry to out you brown, but you've strung along way too many people with this topic in multiple threads. The lack of common sense or jugment by others is incredible. I can only guess that everyone is aware of the cahrade and actually playing along. Seriously.

 

[BeachBummer]

NO JOKE. After reviewing a few pages of Brown's past posts, it is clear that he is indeed a minority, and has a history of spelling issues. I do not believe that his posts were a joke. See for yourselves.

Hook, Line, and Sinka!

Have to agree this brownbone fella is nothin but a personality made for the board.

FlameON!

but... incase he isn't... brownbone you are a poor, sad and undeserving example of many outstanding minority pilots that i have flown with.