Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So, you think, that I think, judges rule or SHOULD rule because they "feel bad" for one side or the other.....

Actually, my legal thinking HAS progressed beyond the 5th grade level. To intimate that it hasn't, isn't very becoming of you.

excon

---

I never said that. Nor did I even intimate it. Your hostility is causing you to read stuff into what I have posted that isn't there.

All I did was point out the difference between empathy and sympathy, and state that I believe that you are confusing the two. I also pointed out why empathy is a BAD thing for a judge to have, while it can be argued (though not by me) that sympathy is a good thing for a judge to have to a limited degree. Finally, I pointed out how one can tell the difference between a decision based on empathy and one based on legal interpretation.

I never said that you were arguing that all judges should make decisions only based on how they feel. I don't think that is what you believe. I DO think that you believe that empathy plays a more important role in how judges do their jobs than it actually does or should do. But again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there, was never intended, and that I wasn't even considering.

Why are you being so hostile?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

OMG!! What he wrote is the CLASSIC definition of empathy for drug warriors. Thomas HAS it, is PROUD he has it, and he WISHES the others had it too.

Yet, you can't see it.... Oh, well.

excon

---

We can't see it because it isn't there.

Have you even read the decision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

We can't see it because it isn't there.

---

Hello again,

Well, there just ain't nothing more to be said about that.

excon

One of the most brilliant minds available for SCOTUS was just overruled... again.

She now has 1 victory in SCOTUS and 6 decisions overturned .

This Kossack get's it right .
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

According to Ginsberg's dissent ,cities should not give tests for promotions but instead should rely on the subjective evaluations of "assessment centers " when deciding who to promote . These rely more on video simulation and oral Q and A than objective examinations .

But the New Haven test also had an oral section as well as a written section . The city used various resources to ensure the test was fair. The education “experts” and race experts gave it their stamp of approval. It only became a problem after the results came in and the results the city wanted did not happen.The only reason Ricci
(who has learning disabilities of his own) passed the test was due to his hard work ;studying extra,and hiring a tutor at his own expense. Can those who did not pass it make the same claim ?

What is Ginsberg saying ? That minorities can't do well in written exams? Other professions rely on written exams . Does she make the claim that lawyers ,doctors ,accountants ,and many other professions should also scrap their exams because they discriminate ?

I think Alito's concurrent opinion is right on :

“Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.
The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court's sympathy.” But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them”.

Hello Righty's:

I assume that because they didn't agree with her, you think she was wrong...

But, you didn't think Thomas was wrong when all 8 of 'em disagreed with him just two days ago. You thought his dissent was brilliant AND Constitutional.

Now, you want it both ways... I understand,

excon

Huh ? Here was my comment on the decision:

The justices got it right . In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

As I predicted ;the case was decided on the 4th amendment issues alone.

Hmm, I didn't say anything about Thomas' dissent. Which righty's are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Hmm, I didn't say anything about Thomas' dissent. Which righty's are you referring to?

---

Hello Steve:

Hang on. I'll find 'em

excon

The difference, excon, is that Thomas' dissent was based on a legal argument with some merit, just from a logical point of view. Sotomayor's decision and Ruth Ginsberg's dissent of the SCOTUS decision was based on their personal political positions, and their arguments were clear cases of grasping at straws in order to make a political statement. That's the difference.

Context is everything, excon.

Elliot