SCOTUS appointment thread

[awesome possum]

They weren't even tough on her. Watch most of them vote in the affirmative. Like I said, Republicans do not come close to voting lockstep in partisan lines like Democrats do for SCOTUS appointments. They could try a filibuster like the Democrats did to Miguel Estrada (because he was a latino), but wont stoop that low. This is over and done. Her racist comments are very concerning, but her record (besides the Ricci case of course) is pretty mainstream. I just hope she keeps it that way.

Sean Hannity, is that you?

[Guest Raidne]

:dunce: :blush: :dunce:

Consider me appropriately schooled in the meaning of the slow clap. I'm going to try to stop quasi-countering arguments made by someone more or less agreeing with me from now on.

:lol: Yeah, I was trying to agree with a post I thought was total pwnage, and, if I might, elaborate a bit on the point you were making.

(FYI, I am using "pwnage" as a derivative of "pwn," which generally means to "own" "lay the smack down" or, in my favorite new usage from Neal Stepheson's Anathem, to totally plane someone. Just so we're clear ;))

And yes, dyslexia is a serious and reasonable disability. And Ricci may well have spent extra time and money in order to study for the test (as he did) because of his disability. And indeed, this was even mentioned Alito in his opinion on the case, where he goes on about the lengths that someone like Ricci went to in order to prepare for the test. The hardships endured by the plaintiffs, and so on.

And that's fine. I understand completely that we should be sympathetic to the plight of people with disabilities. Except for the fact that Alito then also states that "sympathy is not what the [plaintiffs] have a right to demand. What they have the right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law".

So if their struggles and hardship, not to mention disabilities, are completely irrelevant, why bother mentioning them at all? I contend that Alito is fine with letting sympathy color his opinions as long as it's sympathy for the right type of people. And that's rank hypocrisy.

As you say, this is what is called introducing bad, irrelevant facts (and, as a bonus this time, totally convoluted facts) to sway the emotional sensibilities of the Justices so they are more likely to create bad law. This is not an ADA case. Nor could it be.

I'm finally getting an afternoon to sit down and read the opinion, so I'm sure I'll have more to say on it in a few.

[LCOTNW]

As you say, this is what is called introducing bad, irrelevant facts (and, as a bonus this time, totally convoluted facts) to sway the emotional sensibilities of the Justices so they are more likely to create bad law. This is not an ADA case. Nor could it be.

I'm finally getting an afternoon to sit down and read the opinion, so I'm sure I'll have more to say on it in a few.

I have only glanced at a summary, but hope to read the full opinion one of these days myself. My impression was that Alito was saying, "Look this guy with dyslexia worked his ass off to overcome the challenges he faced and took the same test as everyone else and passed. If the test has some undetectable cultural bias everyone affected should study their asses off too and overcome it. No one was being intentionally discriminatory here."

I don't fully agree with that, but I thought that was what he was saying, rather than trying to just drum up sympathy for the white guys.

[Elrostar]

I have only glanced at a summary, but hope to read the full opinion one of these days myself. My impression was that Alito was saying, "Look this guy with dyslexia worked his ass off to overcome the challenges he faced and took the same test as everyone else and passed. If the test has some undetectable cultural bias everyone affected should study their asses off too and overcome it. No one was being intentionally discriminatory here."

I don't fully agree with that, but I thought that was what he was saying, rather than trying to just drum up sympathy for the white guys.

The point of disparate impact is that you don't have to be trying to be discriminating. You just have to have the effect of discriminating against people. If I am a bank and I decide that people from Towson are going to get way better rates on their loans than people from the West side of Baltimore, then that opens me up to a disparate impact lawsuit. Because it just so happens that there are waaaaaay more black people living on the West side than out in the suburbs. And unless their decision to make the rates of loans has something to do with their ability to pay them back, it's totally the basis for a lawsuit.

Anyway, Alito is saying that we shouldn't feel sympathy for these people, sympathy shouldn't enter into our judgment, and also, hey, look at how sympathetic the plaintiffs are, anyway, aren't they awesomely nice people? That just doesn't make sense.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elrostar,

The point of disparate impact is that you don't have to be trying to be discriminating. You just have to have the effect of discriminating against people. If I am a bank and I decide that people from Towson are going to get way better rates on their loans than people from the West side of Baltimore, then that opens me up to a disparate impact lawsuit. Because it just so happens that there are waaaaaay more black people living on the West side than out in the suburbs. And unless their decision to make the rates of loans has something to do with their ability to pay them back, it's totally the basis for a lawsuit.

Let's make this more realistic. Suppose most of the people applying from the west side of Baltimore are denied because they have crappy credit. Those with good credit are given loans but there is a definite pattern of most such applicants being denied credit. Is it useful for this bank, making responsible lending decisions, to have to defend itself from a disperate impact lawsuit? Wouldn't such a lawsuit simply encourage this bank to lower it's lending standards to avoid such a costly lawsuit? Isn't that exactly what we don't want banks doing right now?

[Elrostar]

Elrostar,

Let's make this more realistic. Suppose most of the people applying from the west side of Baltimore are denied because they have crappy credit. Those with good credit are given loans but there is a definite pattern of most such applicants being denied credit. Is it useful for this bank, making responsible lending decisions, to have to defend itself from a disperate impact lawsuit? Wouldn't such a lawsuit simply encourage this bank to lower it's lending standards to avoid such a costly lawsuit? Isn't that exactly what we don't want banks doing right now?

It's actually entirely realistic. Banks used to make or not make loans based on your address. It was a very effective way of being racially biased without it being transparent that this was what you were doing. There were maps drawn with red lines on them, surrounding what neighborhoods were and were not ok. White neighborhoods were ok, black neighborhoods were not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elrostar,

You completely missed my point.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I'll just throw this out there. Maybe we'll all get lucky and Sotomayor will die of a heart attack or something before the court is called back into session. Then we can begin this whole entire argument all over again with another judge. Maybe instead of a sexist and a racist, the President can call up one of his terrorist buddies for the next nomination.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Such as?

How about Rashid Khalidi? I think he'd be even more fun to discuss than Ayers.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I'm not sure who that is and i count myself as one who is pretty plugged into the discourse from both sides. Care to enlighten me? (please tell me he's not just one guy that they let out of Gitmo)

Here's a Link that I think sums him up much better than his rather heavily filtered and "watered down" Wikipedia article did. Even though this article significantly downplayed the connections to Obama versus a lot of the stuff that was revealed during the campaign.

[sologdin]

According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.

oh man, worldnetdaily is nuts: the nakhba narrative was confirmed by the israeli archives, FFS.

the article furthermore does not appear to bear out the headline.

[TrackerNeil]

I'll just throw this out there. Maybe we'll all get lucky and Sotomayor will die of a heart attack or something before the court is called back into session. Then we can begin this whole entire argument all over again with another judge. Maybe instead of a sexist and a racist, the President can call up one of his terrorist buddies for the next nomination.

Yes, do wish for the death of a (soon-to-be) Supreme Court justice. That makes me take you so much more seriously.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TBD,

You're wishing for her to have a heart attack????

*facepalm*

Good grief.

[Elrostar]

TBD, are you stoned? Or do you just not want anyone to take anything you say seriously. Ever.

I suppose you can consider yourself fortunate that EHK is no longer here to chew you out in his inimitable way.

Ser Scot, if I missed your point, can you explain to me what you meant?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elrostar,

My point is that addressing perceived discrimination with suits based on disperate impact, that ignore the intent element, can have economically problematic consequences if the bank lowers its lending standards to avoid a disperate impact. Hell, there are some who would then accuse the bank of engaging in predatory lending.

[awesome possum]

TBD is either trying his hardest to be the Stephen Colbert of the board, which would make many of his posts quite funny... or he's absolutely serious when he says stuff like that and is trying his hardest to be the new Dirjj of the board, which would make many of his posts quite pathetic.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

If it's the former, he's done an amazing job, as I've never seen him break character ever. If it's the latter, well, even Dirjj acknowledged that he was to the right of many, so -- even though I disagree with him often -- I do think Dirjj and I see the same reality (mostly).

[Celtigo]

I assume TBD was similarly appalled that we had, as our chief justice for many years, a man who authored memorandums explicitly endorsing the Jim Crow system.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Celtigo,

Link please. Addtionally, are you saying Chief Justice Roberts endorsed Jim Crow or that he endorsed a view of the Constitution that would have limited the Federal Government's ability to effectively fight Jim Crow?

[Celtigo]

Celtigo,

Link please. Addtionally, are you saying Chief Justice Roberts endorsed Jim Crow or that he endorsed a view of the Constitution that would have limited the Federal Government's ability to effectively fight Jim Crow?

Woah Scott, I should've been more specific. I was refering to what I thought was fairly common knowledge that former Chief Justice Rehnquist authored a memorandum as a clerk supporting upholding Plessy and segregation more generally.

Rehnquist claims he was acting on Justice Jackson's instruction, but several others close to Jackson disagreed with that assertion. There was enough wiggle room for Rehnquist to get confirmed, but his skeletons were easily more damning than Sotamayor's "wise latina" remark.

It was more the idea that I imagine TBD's outrage over Sotamayor's "racism" is rather selective. I doubt he ever expressed hope that Rehnquist would kick the bucket.