GOP to showcase firefighterSotomayor ruled against

Quote:

---

GOP to showcase firefighterSotomayor ruled against
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS


Republicans plan to call a white firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to testify against her.

New Haven, Conn. firefighter Frank Ricci brought a lawsuit challenging his city's decision to scrap the results of a promotion test because too few minorities scored highly enough to qualify. He's one of 14 witnesses Republicans will call during Senate hearings on Sotomayor's confirmation that open Monday.

Sotomayor was part of an appellate court panel that rejected Ricci's claim. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling last week.

Democrats' witnesses include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, and former Major League Baseball pitcher David Cone.


http://townhall.com/news/politics-el..._ruled_against

---

Please don't do that...:lmao


Another lame attempt by the GOP.. Pick a fight you can win you morons...

It'll work for their base... that's about it.

Frank the Firefighter

USA! USA! USA! USA!

She obviously hates firefighters.. sorry 'white' firefighters..:lmao

You've got to be kidding me. She was on panel, for Christ's sake...

Given what's likely to be revealed at those hearings, the committee might as well just call them off and take the vote. Oh, wait, we're supposed to pretend that real examination and investigation is being conducted.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/86...1d89f37e_o.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

Frank the Firefighter

---

Ah- beat me to it.

If you are going to post ANYONE singing that song, it better be George.

Magik Negro should have said that the Constitution doesn't require Congress to vet/trash SC nominees in person.

Certainly with her voluminous public paper trail, Congress knows all it needs to know to vote, so do the fucking vote and quit grand-standing.

Soto should simply take the 5th amendment and tell them to go fuck themselves.

Quote:

---

Soto should simply take the 5th amendment and tell them to go fuck themselves.

---

That would only be the beginning. Judge Sotomayor will look like she has something to hide if she takes the 5th. That could be the kiss of death.I'd think she'd want to avoid that.

*Soto* can always give the excuse that she wishes to decline commenting on anything that might conceivably arise before her in court -- so as not to give the impression she has prejudged the matter.

"she has something to hide"

Her huge paper trail is fully exposed. She can't hide anything.

She has no Constitutional obligation to even show up. The Repugs started thse dog-and-pony shows in the 70s.

well we had joe the plumber.

will it now be frank the firefighter?

i'm sure soros is all over this

Could be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

If you are going to post ANYONE singing that song, it better be George.

---

lol sorry. I just plucked one from the list. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Could be interesting.

---

Not really. But I bet you the action figures will sell well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

Frank the Firefighter

USA! USA! USA! USA!

---

I hope his finances and personal life can withstand the coming investigation.

Well, I have two democrat senators here in Oregon that are going to get an earful from me on that witch. These senators know she is a hot potato. I will remind them I am for equal rights, not reverse discrimination, and it will affect my vote in the future for them.

Have you voted for either of them in the past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Have you voted for either of them in the past?

---

Not that I recall, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't. I actually did vote for one democrat this last election.

Thank you for your nonsupport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, I have two democrat senators here in Oregon that are going to get an earful from me on that witch. These senators know she is a hot potato. I will remind them I am for equal rights, not reverse discrimination, and it will affect my vote in the future for them.

---

You know she's had cases where she ruled FOR white people that were going to be fired too, right?

Just read this link and then tell me if she's still for 'reverse discrimination'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../01/sotomayor/

You know, it's not just Ricci v. New Haven that makes her such an unappealing choice for the SCOTUS, right?

She is going to be confirmed so all this show is just that. Just for show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You know, it's not just Ricci v. New Haven that makes her such an unappealing choice for the SCOTUS, right?

---

I was replying to WC specifically mentioning reverse discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You know, it's not just Ricci v. New Haven that makes her such an unappealing choice for the SCOTUS, right?

---

code for she's "non-white" so I don't trust her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

code for she's "non-white" so I don't trust her.

---

Nope. I trust Clarence Thomas.

Race has nothing to do with it...except from her perspective, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nope. I trust Clarence Thomas.

---

but not with a coke can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I was replying to WC specifically mentioning reverse discrimination.

---

The Salon article doesn't give enough fact for me to know they weren't spin. The Police employee for example, it doesn't say if it was a computer at work, or at home. They would clearly not be able to fire him if it was done during off duty time. In both cases mentioned, we don't get enough specifics.

Please don't throw information out that is far too summarized to be useful. The lack of details make it completely useless for appraisal.

Guess what. The police officer did do this on this personal time, therefore, was clearly an illegal firing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The Salon article doesn't give enough fact for me to know they weren't spin. The Police employee for example, it doesn't say if it was a computer at work, or at home. They would clearly not be able to fire him if it was done during off duty time. In both cases mentioned, we don't get enough specifics.

Please don't throw information out that is far too summarized to be useful. The lack of details make it completely useless for appraisal.

Guess what. The police officer did do this on this personal time, therefore, was clearly an illegal firing!

---

Two other judges disagreed, so clearly would seem to be incorrect.

Also, it is not true that one can do whatever they wish on their own time. For instance, you know as well as I do that in the military, we're not allowed to be a part of any hateful group, even in our free time.


The case was whether or not a group could fire a racist. Should the rights of the government to fire someone they disagree with win out, or should the rights of the person to work because he can do the job as a non-racist win out?

Finally, if you check the link, http://openjurist.org/290/f3d/143/pappas-v-giuliani, it wasn't email, but actual letters he sent back from his home address.

Additionally, Pappas DID break a departmental law, according to the link above.

Quote:

---

Commissioner Martinez issued a 20-page decision, finding Pappas guilty of violating a Departmental Regulation by disseminating defamatory materials through the mails, and recommending his dismissal from the force.

---

Doesn't seem 'clear' to me.

We disagree. What I see is that she is a firm believer in both the first amendment and affirmative action. I agree with her on one and not the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We disagree. What I see is that she is a firm believer in both the first amendment and affirmative action. I agree with her on one and not the other.

---

While you may claim the case to be 'clear', that does not ipso facto make it so WC. :) Given your clarity, I should be able to join hate groups in the military, and we both know that is not so.

Given this article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us...ml?_r=2&ref=us , I would agree that she does support affirmative action. As well, it sheds light on her ruling in the firefighter case.

If support for affirmative action is an immediate disqualifier for you, then I can see why you don't support her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

While you may claim the case to be 'clear', that does not ipso facto make it so WC. :) Given your clarity, I should be able to join hate groups in the military, and we both know that is not so.

---

Why do you say things you should know not to be true? Someone who signs up for the military is effectively on duty 24/7, and signs certain rights away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Given this article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us...ml?_r=2&ref=us , I would agree that she does support affirmative action. As well, it sheds light on her ruling in the firefighter case.

---

When Affirmative action was first created, it was a tool to insure distribution of information regarding jobs was available to minorities. It has since become a quota and outcome based system. That can only be done by depriving others of their rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If support for affirmative action is an immediate disqualifier for you, then I can see why you don't support her.

---

Yes, Affirmative action activism is a disqualifier for me. Especially for someone who is a judge. I don't believe any judge should be an activist. Justice is suppose to be blind, and rule by law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why do you say things you should know not to be true? Someone who signs up for the military is effectively on duty 24/7, and signs certain rights away.

---

Yes, but if there is a law that the department has, which states that people can't make racist comments or whatever and leaves it open-ended (ie. doesn't just say "on-duty") then my point would still be valid.

I know the military is 24/7, but that's because there are regulations stating that. However, you and I both know that some of those can be broken (for instance, I won't shave every day I'm on leave).

The court ruled that, as a public agent, and one who works for the police department at that, that the appearance of racism/sexism/etc in a public official, even if said appearance occurred during OFF-DUTY, is still grounds for firing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, Affirmative action activism is a disqualifier for me. Especially for someone who is a judge. I don't believe any judge should be an activist. Justice is suppose to be blind, and rule by law.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

code for she's "non-white" so I don't trust her.

---

Where were you when the Senate filibusted Miguel Estrada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Where were you when the Senate filibusted Miguel Estrada?

---

Funny how the liberals are all for minorities, until they are conservative minorities, isn't it...