I was replying to WC specifically mentioning reverse discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Printable View
I was replying to WC specifically mentioning reverse discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
code for she's "non-white" so I don't trust her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Nope. I trust Clarence Thomas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Race has nothing to do with it...except from her perspective, I guess.
but not with a coke can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.
Doesn't seem 'clear' to me.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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.
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
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
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 LnGrrrR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Where were you when the Senate filibusted Miguel Estrada?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Funny how the liberals are all for minorities, until they are conservative minorities, isn't it...Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba