You really don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Matt

Well at least we have one win for true equality in America.
Racial equality will never be accomplished in this country until a persons race neither helps nor hinders whatever their endeavor.
Hopefully someday the unconstitutional affirmative action will be overturned.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

nope now its six cases heard, reversed on four.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I am always troubled by people taking the narrowness of a vote as an indication of the relative intellectual merits of the opposing viewpoints. This is not the case, it assumes that at all times, all those deciding are invoking equally valid reasoning. Something which I don't think it that apparent.

I disagree on two grounds, first of all, the general notion of justice delayed is justice denied. Second, the court should not give ANY consideration to politics with regard to how it dispenses with its duties.


How is it "cheating" if it is not only permissable, but recommended. And how is it "discriminatory" if everyone is equally permitted to use the recommended materials?

Do jobs which require a college degree (clearly using "materials" not available on the job and which generally have a cost in terms of money and effort) represent "cheating"

And so is utterly ignorant stupidity apparently...

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Jurists say that all the time when they apply the law and they know how the law is applied it might upset someone. What you are saying here is precisely the kind of thing that conservatives decry as 'judicial activism', namely deciding cases based on sympathy and personal opinion rather than the law. And it's why many liberals accuse those making such claims as being selective and pretextual in making those claims.

The question is whether the test violated the Constitution and decisions interpreting it. If a judge believes in good faith that it did, then sympathy cannot allow themselves to overlook that.

That's a gratuitous attack, and the idea that they violated 'the law' is a circular claim. The whole question was whether the test violates the law, not that the justices were intentionally violating any laws in allowing the test to stand or fail.

He record is an excellent record of non-reversal. Whether it is 3 or 4 is mathmatically inconsequential given she has issued thousands of decisions. And of the 4 that were reversed, almost all, like here, were in heavily split decisions. This was a 5-4 case, not exactly a sign of a frivolous call by her, and the District Court and fellow members of her Circuit Court agreed with her. In total, more judges agreed with her than not. It just so happened that 5 on the SCOTUS have the final say, and that's how the ball rolls in this case.

Moreover, she is going to be confirmed anyway. The math of Congress shows that. Anyone thinking before or afterwards that she wouldn't be on account of this decision is just wasting their time. I've long felt the GOP and/or right is just wasting time on this appointment and ought to save ammo and credibility for a fight that it can win and/or to build back up to a point it can win.

This line of attack that she has a bad track record on reversals was one of the most spurious and self-discrediting claims I've heard made against her, one that even flies in the face of those on the SCOTUS they approve and laud insofar as their reversal records.

So, from a posturing and strategy standpoint, I'm really puzzled why these attacks and energies are being made against her. It's futile insofar as keeping her off the bench, the attacks against her are often spurious, etc.

It never appeared to me you were undecided on that. But whether you or me approve of her is not germane to whether she gets appointed or not. What matters is the math of whether she will be, and what battles of the present and future ought to be picked and strategised.

__________________

Isn't it interesting how the left say's we're racist

While it is they that are truly racist

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

One would hope.

I thought we were supposed to judge people by their accomplishments and abilities ?

It's amazing to me that racism is alive and thriving in the Supreme Court of America.

Absolutely amazing. What a country.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

When you pay to go to law school, it is to learn about law and to become a better lawer or legal professional.
But this test was not based on what would make for the best to promote as firefighters.
An example brought up by one of the test takers was whether a fire truck was best parked facing up hill or down hill.
He did not know, because with the fire trucks they actually used, it did not make a difference.

So the point is that the test was too arbitrary, and was based on specific anwers not available to the general takers, not based on logic, capability, skill, or experience.

Profound disagreement speaks for itself insofar as to the merits of the debate itself. Now, later, people may overwhelmingly conclude that either the majority or the minority were wrong, but that is 20-20 hindsight and does not mean the issue was not genuinely debated at the time it was made.

Take the recent cases on sodomy. I assume from our conversations and your lines of interpretation that you believe that sodomy laws should be constitutional and a matter for legislatures to decide (correct me if my assumption is wrong). In the 80s, the court entered a 5-4 decision that such laws were constitutional. Recently, it went the other way in a split decision. Down the road, society might very well conclude that the people who felt sodomy laws were constitutional were roaring idiots, naive, bigots, etc. (I'm stressing here that my example is hypothetical.) But, I'd say that is retroactive societal judgement and does not admit the questions were genuinely debated at one time.

It is also clear to me that in hotly contested debates, each side thinks the other's logic is the one 'off base.' So, the best objective indicator to me is to recognise a profound dispute for what it is. Courts are intended to settle them for better or worse.

That's justice too long delayed, though, in the coined phrase. Delaying the release of a decision for a couple months to avoid any appearance of impropriety in it comes nowhere near what was intended by the coined phrase. Delays are often, depending on the situation, done for the sake of and to accomplish justice. This is why courts often take their time when rendering decisions, and especially so on the appeals side, to absorb, learn, reflect, reconsider, etc. They will hear arguments, invite amicus briefs, await hearings on similar cases to see what they add to the thought process, they will observe public fallouts and public debates on issues before them, etc. In the end, the point is to get it right, not shoot from the hip. Also, the court must consider and take all due precautions to avoid any suggestions that the court and its decisions involve impropriety. That often does include politics when political activities intersect with its own.

__________________

All necessary reading material was supposed to be made available at no cost.
The fact additional material was put on a recommended reading list, does not imply it should have been necessary.
If they wanted it to be necessary, they should have put it on a mandatory reading list and made it available.

College degrees are ALWAYS required to have all course reading material available at no cost, in the library.
No one is ever supposed to be prevented from passing tests due to financial reasons.
And this reading material that was "cheating" was not related to being a better person for promotion as firefighter.
College degrees instead, are related to the job.
But when a college degree is required, the requirements are well specified.
The requirements of this test were not well specified, but hidden as a mere recommended reading list.
That is inappropriate.

So where is a copy of this test ?

Is it only your word that the test was arbitrary?

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

Again, as someone with almost two decades in the fire service, you have no idea what you are talking about here.

A fire officer needs to know not just the details of his specific piece of apparatus, but those of surrounding stations and jurisdictions.

The arbitrary thing being displayed here is your uneducated judgment on the topic.

Matt

I can only hope that this post is meant in sarcasm. Purchasing books and hiring tutors to in order to pass a test is called initiative. There is no RIGHT to to these things. These books were available at the public library and if someone could not afford a tutor they could definitely study harder on there own. Your post drips of the kind of acceptance of mediocrity that is anathema to the real American spirit.

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

You are simply wrong. The specific answers WERE available to general takers, each and every one of them were made aware of the resources available to study. The ones who availed themselves of those resources did better than those that didn't. Just like people who take SAT prep courses tend to do better than those that do not.

Now, if you could show that the black firefighters were NOT given the same information as the white ones, then it would be discriminatory and "unfair", but that was not the case.

Again, simply not true, college libraries do not routinely keep copies of the basic textbooks required for their courses. Nor do they generally carry sufficient copies of required reading, that is why students are issued lists of textbooks they need to purchase (if they were available for free in the library, very few students would actually buy them).

Furthermore, none of the library resources in a university are "free", rather the cost of maintaining it and making it available is built into the cost of tuition.

And whatever your personal (and utterly silly) views of fairness, as far as the law is concerned, there is nothing in the law that precludes discrimination on the grounds of whether or not people chose (or even have the means) to avail themselves of resource materials which are available on the same terms to all, but the las DOES prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

It's not 'reasoning', per se, just an observation that your statement was inaccurate.