Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:10 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:47 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

Farai !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.... (have not seen anything yet, just surprised and excited to see Farai here!)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:55 AM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

one word: PARENTING. that is all.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:58 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

if jay-z ran the college board:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/200...7:39&out=17:49
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:44 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

If Mr McWhorter, or anyone else out there, would like to persue their concerns about was it a knee jerk reaction in Ricci v. DeStefano this SCOUTSBLOG synopses of Judge Sotomayor's opinions would be useful.

(edited forgot to create the link)

Last edited by piscivorous; 05-30-2009 at 02:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:09 AM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

I like the new girl. Very good find.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-29-2009, 08:27 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default John, you might want to read the decision first

Or at least read someone who has read it who defends it (which is all I've done). According to Hilzoy (at Political Animal), the issue at hand was actually NOT to throw out the test. New Haven threw out the test because the existing law gave them reason to throw it out (because they could be sued given the existing precedents in interpretation of the law if they simply went forward with the results). The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.
Now, she could have overturned the precedents, but maybe she didn't see reason to do that -- if she were going to overturn, then she would have needed a longer argument. But if you are going to uphold existing precedent, you don't need a very long argument.

It is pretty dangerous to look at court decisions without knowing exactly what was really at issue in the decision.
Of course, Hilzoy could be wrong, but it John nevertheless seems to assume that Sotomayor threw out the test herself, rather than saying that New Haven's decision to throw it out was justifiable according to existing law and precedent.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-29-2009 at 08:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:29 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: John, you might want to read the decision first

What John can't do is read Sotomayor's mind. It will be interesting if she addresses or evades this in her confirmation hearing. John's concerns about the validity of test taking are still in play though. New Haven threw out the tests due to Title VII. And as Farai mentioned regarding "testing the test" generally, I hope that the issue will be litigated or examined in the Supreme Court ruling. We may never know or be entitled to a complete understanding of Sotomayor's position on Ricci or test taking particularly:

Quote:
The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomay...ect/#more-9634

Last edited by graz; 05-29-2009 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-30-2009, 03:27 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: John, you might want to read the decision first

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
What John can't do is read Sotomayor's mind. It will be interesting if she addresses or evades this in her confirmation hearing. John's concerns about the validity of test taking are still in play though. New Haven threw out the tests due to Title VII. And as Farai mentioned regarding "testing the test" generally, I hope that the issue will be litigated or examined in the Supreme Court ruling. We may never know or be entitled to a complete understanding of Sotomayor's position on Ricci or test taking particularly:
Good catch. I think McWhorter's terrific, but he lapses into mindreading too often.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:07 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: John, you might want to read the decision first

Quote:
The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.
So it sounds like she basically did her job. Outrageous! Liberal activism! Reverse Racism! Hear my fauxtrage!!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:24 AM
barney_kippax barney_kippax is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Default bloggingheads' first moron

oh my god, this woman is a cretin. why aren't people pointing this out? she's utterly incapable of making a cogent argument. her points about sotomayor's brevity were just laughable. i feel sorry for mcwhorter having to engage this utter doofus. come on, don't tell me you haven't noticed....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:36 AM
barney_kippax barney_kippax is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Default oh come on!

so now i've watched another couple of segments: she simply has no clue what she's talking about. she has no ability to form a cogent sentence, let alone an argument. the thing about 'pashtun'? oh my god she's an idiot. mcwhorter is obviously treating her with kid gloves. it's all just utterly embarrassing.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:37 PM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: oh come on!

The only thing embarrassing is the posting of retard comments like this.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-30-2009, 09:22 AM
student student is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: oh come on!

Such vitriol for a wonderful Diavlog. I enjoyed it and find that the only person who has "no ability to form a cogent sentence," is yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:48 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan.

I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:35 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan.

I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.

I am not a frequent visitor to Sailer's site but I have read some great pieces by him. His articles possess an amount of provocation that would be celebrated by the left if they leaned that way, but they are always backed with facts that the left usually ignore, like his column on interracial marriage which was attacked as racist when it was anything but. In some ways he reminds me of Larry Summers when LS presented facts on female scientists and asked for answers.....hounded for even asking a question.

And he just may be the world record holder for being quoted out of context.

Imagine if Sailer had written:

"I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian kids being as brilliant as they can be, without black or latino people within 50 miles."

I'm sure the people who consider him a racist would add this to the list of supposed SS racist rants.

I would love to hear John and Steve do a BH discussion but I doubt it would ever come about. The amount of hate directed at Sailer by those wishing to marginalize him is extrordinary and it would take a huge amount of intellectual honesty to allow him here.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:34 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post

"I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian kids being as brilliant as they can be, without black or latino people within 50 miles."

I'm sure the people who consider him a racist would add this to the list of supposed SS racist rants.
\
This is has got to be the most obtuse line yet - parrotted, as always, by Gingirch, Harkin et al. - against Sottamayor. (The whole "imagine if a white male" had said that malarkey.) The comments (i.e. the remark about a "Latina woman with the depth of her experience" etc.) would be normatively different if a white male had made them. Consider the historical and structural disadvantages that minorities have sufferred in this country! A white male making similar comments would be a case of the advantaged kicking the disadvantaged, which is objectively different than what is happening here. Moreover, Sottomayor was clearly not making a "racial" point; she was making a socio-economic, and experiential point; that people's life experiences lead them to different perspectives. What could possibly be "racist" about that?

Then again, the idea that Newt Ginrich (Redneck-Georgia) is crying "racism!" is so risible as to light up my day.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:10 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Nikki,

her statement was racist and sexist. how can you even question that? she stated that

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male"

if its too hard for you to do yourself, i will go ahead and do the word substitution for you to see how the statement reads using different racial/sexual signifiers:

"a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman"

obviously, the second statement would disqualify anyone from a supreme court nomination. so why the double standard?

do two wrongs make a right?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:21 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Just for context, here is a bigger picture. Apologies to nikkibong for bringing Sullivan in:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...n-context.html
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:51 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

the context helps, a bit...

if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:03 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
the context helps, a bit...

if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.
If you take her words literally they are damning. How else does one take words? Well, contextually. The phrasing attracts the criticism, but the underlying sentiment may be true. It seems, as nikkibong stated, a simple experiential point and not "Latina Power" and superiority to the exclusion of others point. Obviously not everyone agrees with this interpretation, case in point:The White guy's lament, but it doesn't seem overly generous.

Last edited by graz; 05-29-2009 at 02:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:04 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag). Anybody who starts off in poverty and makes it to the Supreme Court has an admirable story. But in the case of minorities, they also had to deal with legal and unspoken obstacles specifically based on their ethnicity, gender, etc. This does not diminish the achievement of the white male who puts himself through college and succeeds in his field and raises a healthy family...like my dad. But it also doesn't make his story exactly the same as Sotomayor's, Barrack Obama's or anyone else who also had the color thing going against them in less tolerant times.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Username
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag).
there you have it, the sneer of the identity politician

a dyslexic like Ricci who worked his ass off to do well on the test? privileged white male! not a member of the right ethnic group! back of the line with you, swine!

contemptible, really, and as Sailer points out the status signaling couldn't be more obvious
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

I'm not sure President Barack Obama ever really experienced racial intolerance. I think people have been wanting him to succeed since day one of his existence, especially white people.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:25 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
I'm not sure President Barack Obama ever really experienced racial intolerance. I think people have been wanting him to succeed since day one of his existence, especially white people.
Every time I think an earlier post by you contains the stupidest thing anyone could possibly say, you somehow manage to drop the bar lower.

Congratulations, I guess.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:07 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

What intolerance has Barack Obama experienced? He got a good primary education didn't he? He was financially secure thanks to his grandmother wasn't he? He grew up in racist Hawaii right? Occidental, Columbia, and Havard didn't admit him into their institutions because he was colored right?

If you like pretending, go ahead and pretend bjkeefe.

Last edited by Lyle; 05-29-2009 at 10:08 PM.. Reason: sentence structure, etc...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:09 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
What intolerance has Barack Obama experienced?
Just keep digging, Lial.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:11 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

You don't have an example I guess. Aww.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:16 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
You don't have an example I guess. Aww.
I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get you to acknowledge reality, Lial.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:27 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

nice! content free fauxtrage and knee-jerk hyperbole! you're right up there with rush limbaugh in intellectual capacity in this post, uncle eb.

try reading what i wrote (you may notice that i said nothing like what you made fun of) and then respond.

Imagine that a well-intentioned person was trying to have a conversation with you about actual events and ideas and respond to that instead of to the fox news clip you have running in your head.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:28 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

PK- I was actually responding to the White Man's Lament link, not anything that you wrote. Sorry, I should have clarified.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:42 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

cool. thanks for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:32 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

I think, first, that Sottamayor was clumsily attempting to make a socio-economic and experiential point; she was not claiming that there is something essential to "ethnic" Latinas that makes them wiser than "ethnic" Whites. (Whatever "white" means; the collapsing of all "white" ethnicities is an extremely recent development.)

But, more than that, I would say that while you and Gingrich's counter-example would indeed be objectively racist in the same way Sottamayor's statement is, I would say that we live in a world of moral grey areas. Because of the historical advantages that "white" males have traditionally enjoyed, there is something normatively worse about white racism directed at blacks and Latinos than the reverse. So the counter-example really doesn't mean anything in a moral sense.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:44 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

so you either think

a) two wrongs make a right, or

b) it is simply not wrong to be sexist against males or racist against whites.

I think A and B are both objectionable. I concede that the moral force would be greater in the reverse situation given the history, but I think those of us on the left should also step-up and acknowledge that this type of speech is offensive and wrong coming from people of any gender or race.

I don't think this should disqualify her, but i really see a lack of intellectual honesty when left-ish people give her a complete pass on this statement and refuse to engage with
those that are offended by it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:21 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
I don't think this should disqualify her, but i really see a lack of intellectual honesty when left-ish people give her a complete pass on this statement and refuse to engage with those that are offended by it.
There IS something troubling and self-contradictory in her statement. First she denies that there is a universal definition of "wise." Then she says that a "wise" Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male (try substituting "man" here: the statement becomes embarrassing):

"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

"Wisdom" is certainly a fuzzy concept, but if you deny its "universality" it is rather difficult to know what wise means in "wise Latina woman." Is a judge wise by virtue of her ethnicity and the richness of her experience, or by virtue of her expertise in matters of the law, her impartiality etc.? The traditional symbol of justice is a blindfolded female figure holding a pair of scales in her hands.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-29-2009, 07:31 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
The traditional symbol of justice is a blindfolded female figure holding a pair of scales in her hands.
I have always understood the blindfold as representing justice weighing the facts of the case, not picking a side because they see a litigant who they favor. That is, one should try the case, ideally reaching the same conclusion on the basis of the evidence and principles involved even in complete ignorance of the specific identities of the particular parties. This would not indicate that the fullness of experiences of the judge would not inform the wisdom with which they attempt to do that weighing.

A certain amount of hysteria over the "wiser decision" sentence in Sotomayer's speech is probably inevitable given the lockstep response typical of members of some political groups (and some scanners of these forums were likely amused at one recently admonishing another for deviation from Rush's Party Line). Those so inclined are of course free to pick over whatever subject they chose, and given the furious spining involved there are few indeed who, were many of their life's words available for dissection, would not offer at least some slight grist for the mill of political outrage.

It all seems a bit sillier than usual given that in this case, the nominated judge actually has a considerable public history as a prosecutor and then as a judge with 17-odd years on the bench. Rather than looking through a prism of political outlook at a few selected words from a speech and inferring racism as some commenters here are trying to do, with the resultant conclusion that this atitude would lead to a set of biased rulings from the bench one could actually look at the considerable available evidence. One doesn't need to magnify each speck in order to hypothesize what sort of judge Sotomayer would be, there is quite a body of work that shows what sort of judge she actually is. Less fun to do that perhaps.

This is not all necessarily directed at you by the way Franco - everything gets linked somewhere and I did want to comment briefly on the blind justice motif.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-30-2009, 05:57 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Cragger,

I fully concur with everything you say. A single statement taken out of context and without regard to all the other relevant evidence about the person is almost inevitably going to generate more heat than light.

If justice is "blind" (=impartial, applying equally to all), the ethnicity and life experiences of a judge should be irrelevant to deciding whether he or she is fit for the job. Of course, the Supreme Court has by now become so thoroughy involved in righting injustices to minorities that I suppose it is inevitable that ethnicity should enter into the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-30-2009, 04:07 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default AF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
"Wisdom" is certainly a fuzzy concept, but if you deny its "universality" it is rather difficult to know what wise means in "wise Latina woman." Is a judge wise by virtue of her ethnicity and the richness of her experience, or by virtue of her expertise in matters of the law, her impartiality etc.? The traditional symbol of justice is a blindfolded female figure holding a pair of scales in her hands.
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain ...

Last edited by claymisher; 05-30-2009 at 04:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-30-2009, 06:01 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AF

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain ...
Well said. Anatole France, I believe. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that it is better for judges to be impartial than partial?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2009, 01:21 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: AF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
Well said. Anatole France, I believe. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that it is better for judges to be impartial than partial?
Of course.

The simple point that Sotomayor was making was that for centuries the best legal minds came up with crap like Dred Scott and Plessey, bullshit that any black person would have seen through at the time. That any black person could have avoided colossal blunders like that scores a point for diversity. Julian Sanchez has the goods here.

Not that the rah/boo ranters care, but her actual record is pretty boring:

Quote:
In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...full-data-set/
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.