When a white man gets onto the Supreme Court, it's because of his legal credentials, because he got no points for diversity, but when a woman or a member of a minority group makes it onto the Court, she (or he) will be forever marginalized as an embodiment of the quality or qualities that clinched the appointment, even though excellent legal credentials were required for her to make it into the pool of finalists. Don't you see how unfair this marginalization is?
The fact that Sonia Sotomayor is female and Hispanic and that she got the nomination because of that does not nullify or degrade the legal credentials that she also has. It is wrong and unfair to say that it does.
Now, it's a separate question whether being female and Hispanic is supposed to play a part in constitutional interpretation. Both Obama and Sotomayor have made statements that suggest they believe something that many lawprofs say all the time: That a judge's background experiences and understandings play a role in answering hard questions of interpretation.
If you don't think that is true, think deeply about why you disagree. What do you know about the how human mind works that makes you think that our reasoning is abstracted from our real-world context? Don't tell me that you just feel sure that's what judges ought to do. The question is what human beings do, not what you wish they could do and would do.
And frankly, I think that if judges could reason about legal texts abstracted from the real world, they would make all sorts of intolerable, ridiculous decisions that would lead us soon enough to replace them with more practical judges. If your wish came true, it would only be temporary.
It's also a separate question whether Presidents should make Supreme Court appointments based purely on legal credentials. Is there some idea that all possible nominees could be ranked and the President ought to choose #1? Assuming some absolute rank order is possible — and I don't think it is — would you want to limit him that way? Why? What if it meant that the next 100 judges would be white males from upper middle class backgrounds? I think that would be intolerable.
Posts
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323I have a slogan for soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor...
Sonia Sotomayor: she puts the pathetic in empathetic!
"Going through life as a woman or as a racial minority or gay or poor or disabled affects your worldview and your wisdom in a different and valuable way than going through life as a rich white man. That doesn't mean that rich white men aren't wise or empathetic but they tend to be so in a different way and in a way that is already overrepresented in politics and law."
Only a rich white idiot could write something that stupid. First, lots of people grow up poor, minority, gay, or whatever favored class you name and still wind up being hateful bigots, or morons, or narcissists. If what you were saying is true, someone who grew up poor and in the minority in say Rowanda, should be a wonderful wise empathetic person. Of course, it didn't quite work out that way did it? Just because you have an experience doesn't mean you learn anything from it or that you don't learn all the wrong lessons from it. Further, life experience isn't the only way we learn. Indeed, it probably isn't the most important way we learn.
John said...
" Empathy is just the name you give to it to pretend that it is anything but what it is; naked power."
Ahhh Power is running around naked again.
Tell ya' what John, elect your own president next time and he/she can nominate whomever...but until that time, you lost, we won. deal with it.
"Tell ya' what John, elect your own president next time and he/she can nominate whomever...but until that time, you lost, we won. deal with it."
Why don't you just write NANANA. It is quicker and shows more intellectual honesty.
He can appoint whomever he wants. You are correct. But that doesn't make it right or make Sotomayer anything other than what she is.
"Tell ya' what John, elect your own president next time and he/she can nominate whomever...but until that time, you lost, we won. deal with it."
And when Republicans do win, can we depend on you to shut up and take it? Or will scream and throw shit like an angry monkey for 8 years? Considering your past performance, I think the latter is a good bet.
Joseph
Okay, here is the quote, again, in context...
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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 also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
Gee, doesn't that make you feel better.
Look if you want to say that having certain life experiences make you approach the law differently, you are probably right. I mean, to pick a less controversial example, one professor noted that most of the judges who voted to uphold voter ID laws came from areas of the country where voter fraud was common. Clearly their experience with voter fraud influenced their opinions.
I am disabled. I proudly admit that my experiences with discrimination have shaped my mindset. but to say she was better because of it, was wrong. i am no more better than you because i have faced discrimination. To say otherwise is wrong. and it invites discrimination.
And then she goes and makes it worse by suggesting there are inhernet differences tracking to race or gender that is part of the reason why she is "better." Sheesh.
John: "Just because you have an experience doesn't mean you learn anything from it or that you don't learn all the wrong lessons from it."
Agreed. But the fact is white men who have made and interpreted our laws have historically acted to protect the interests of white men either out of over racism and sexism or out of blindness to the experience of others. I tend to think its more of the latter. Women and nonwhites can certainly act in the same way. I'd like to hope by having all represented, the subtle blindnesses and subconscious biases will cancel each other out.
Don't you see how unfair this marginalization is?She opened the door Your Honor
Althouse:
I mean that it's basically banal common sense, heard all the time in law schools and not some unusual thing to say. Just the usual platitude, but it sounds alarming to outsiders because they're not used to hearing it. My guess is that she was mainly making the small talk that fits the environment in which she found herself. It was fluffy feel-good talk for the audience and not evidence that she's radical or hateful.
IOW racism in law schools is so pervasive that it's unremarkable.
It's something we outside of law schools have suspected for a long time.
"I'd like to hope by having all represented, the subtle blindnesses and subconscious biases will cancel each other out"
Even by that standard Sotomayer is still a terrible choice. We have a court already dominated by Catholic Ivy Leaguers and members of the Con law priesthood. We have no one on the court who has ran a business, served in an elected office, served in the military, or is an evangelical Christian. Those groups truely are underrepresented on the court.
"And if you are Ricci, a learning disabled firefighter who passed the officer test but had the results thrown out because you are white, and Sotomayer voted against your case, how would you feel about that comment?"
So judges are supposed to ignore the law and rule in favor of the sympathetic plaintiff?
Please, conservatives: adopt one point of view and stick to it.
Attention Aaron: If goomba (slang for compadre) is an ethnic slur, why was Nintendo allowed to use it in Super Mario Bros.? Anti-Italianism is OK?
"Those groups truely are underrepresented on the court."
The Court's not supposed to be a representative body. Everyone seems to forget this.
Synova
> It's evidence of "privilege" isn't it? The white firefighters were all so completely blind to privilege that they studied their butts off to pass the test and Ricci studied even more than that because he considered himself disadvantaged and even spent money to study so he could pass the test.
> Absolute *proof* of privilege, because there is no real racial privilege but what people take for granted and are unaware of.
> Being unaware of privilege is what makes all white people racist and makes it impossible for minorities to be racist.
I am having trouble figuring out if you are advocating the liberal view of things, or mocking it.
The Court's not supposed to be a representative body.
Its not supposed to be an unrepresentative body either.
Please, conservatives: adopt one point of view and stick to it.
We are. Discrimination based on race is illegal.
Discrimination based on your inability to pass a neutrally designed test is not. If you can't meet the job standards then you don't get the job.
"Its not supposed to be an unrepresentative body either."
Where does it say that in our Constitution? Can you stop being all weepy and empathetic for a moment and find a citation for that?
Its not supposed to be an unrepresentative body either.
The court is supposed to represent the law.
Not ethnic constituants or special interest groups.
"The Court's not supposed to be a representative body. Everyone seems to forget this."
I realize that. I was just saying that even if you think it should be, Sotomayer doesn't represent anything that is not already there. People tend to forget that there are experiences and groups out there beyond race and gender.
If she gets in things will be more just like they are in Mexico.
the entire theory of disparate impact discrimination generally holds that this kind of discrimination is very often unintentional.
Imagine that. Say now I think I understand why the FD kicked out a test that would have had a disparate impact on minorities getting promoted.
"So judges are supposed to ignore the law and rule in favor of the sympathetic plaintiff?"
They did ignore the law and screwed those guys. That case is going to be overturned on appeal. Further, ignoring the law for sympathetic plaintiffs is what liberals do. You only want the law, as you imagine it to be adhered to because the plaintiffs are working class white people, which are to liberals the lowest forms of life in the universe.
Article III, Section I:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Hmmm... nothing about empathy or representation...
My wife is getting her doctorate and this sort of "small talk" is the stuff they throw around her university all the time and accept that it is gospel without ever questioning it. And that's the problem.
That Ann accepts such comments as "small talk" and not as offensive are precisely what's wrong with virtually every institution of higher learning in this country. Would it be "small talk" if a white man said it? Of course not.
I've yet to see any of Sotomayor's defenders make the claim that it would be OK if you replaced "Latina" with "white," and their silence on the subject speaks volumes. They know it's wrong, but lack the intellectual courage to admit it. And our colleges and universities are supposed to be places where open minds are supposed to thrive. That they no longer are because the poison of minority privilege and the cancer of political correctness have killed off any real thought. It's NewSpeak for you, or risk being branded a racist or a bigot!
Remember: we have always been at war with Eurasia...
Well, MadisonMan, no one but us seems interested in my point, so I think I'll go clean out the garage.
BTW, just in case it's not clear enough.
Caring about equality means looking at the end result and externalities of the actions we take. A big show of political caring that results in either no improvement or else negative consequences isn't caring at all, but extreme self-centered vanity.
One end result of affirmative action is the assumption that any minority hire must be less qualified than at least some of the other applicants. And who is to say that isn't true more often than not?
And yet those who oppose affirmative action are *still* portrayed as racists or haters... despite the clear evidence that favoring people because of the color of their skin removes the impact of that person's real success.
It's not *fair* but it's not about fair, it's about real life and real people.
If someone is *letting you win* that win is meaningless.
Even playing fields are another matter. If everyone takes the same test then everyone will know that anyone who passes it got where they are by merit.
Why didn't any black firefighters pass that test? *Was* it a neutral test and did it test relevant knowledge? A learning disabled white guy passed that test... why didn't any black firefighters pass that test?
I absolutely REFUSE to believe that black people are not as smart as white people.
So what happened? Are all the black guys who are smart in other professions? That sort of self-selection is possible. Did the black firefighters not study? If not, why not?
In the end a couple of things will be true, no matter what the facts.
When a different metric is produced that promotes the correct number of more heavily pigmented people there will not be a single white firefighter who really believes that his boss got the job on merit. White firefighters who previously believed that if they worked harder they'd be rewarded will know that it simply isn't true.
The end result will be to prolong the process of producing anything remotely like a color-blind society. It's not surprising that racism breeds more racism.
The new "thing" about racial privilege and the definition of racist based solely on a person's racial identity, clearly racism by any definition, will do exactly the same. It will prolong enmity and racial stresses and strife. It will actually promote race based resentments.
The worst thing about that is that those who promote the ideas about racial privilege and who believe that only those who are members of an oppressor race can even be racist... they don't seem to care.
"Imagine that. Say now I think I understand why the FD kicked out a test that would have had a disparate impact on minorities getting promoted."
It is not that simple. The test had been used in other jurisdictions and not resulted in a dissparate impact. The test was approved by the EEOC as being race neutral. It only resulted in whites getting promoted in this case, not in others.
Get over it. Some working class white people got screwed and the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing by them. It is going to hurt to see people you hate so much get a fair shake. But sometimes life is like that.
fls -
With regard to the use "goomba" in a Nintendo video game, you'll find that all sorts of negative racial sterotypes are present in Japanese video games. Doesn't make them right, but that's the Japanese culture. (For example, it's bad for a Japanese woman to marry a white man, but unforgivable to marry a black man.)
"I am having trouble figuring out if you are advocating the liberal view of things, or mocking it."
Mocking.
Hard to tell, wasn't it.
Former law student
By the way, thanks for not addressing where I completely body slam you on the law of discrimination. I will take your silence as an admission that you were wrong. The district court decision was indefensible on whether discrimination occurred, and thus the 2nd circuit should have stepped in an corrected themselves, if only to prevent the same tactics being applied to minorities.
> So judges are supposed to ignore the law and rule in favor of the sympathetic plaintiff?
That is not what I said at all.
The law says that if there is a rational concern of bias, a judge should recuse him or herself.
So if she follows the law, she should have recused herself. That is a rule designed to prevent bias, or even the appearance of bias. You know, so that the judge is more likely to follow the law.So what I said was she should have followed the law and recused herself. Only in your active imagination is that the same as “ignoring the law.”
Are you having trouble following along?
> If goomba (slang for compadre) is an ethnic slur, why was Nintendo allowed to use it in Super Mario Bros.?
Well, for starters there is that pesky first amendment, you know...
Tell me, that law school you went to... it was a correspondence course school, wasn’t it?
Discrimination based on race is illegal.
It didn't happen here. Two courts, four judges agree. If you disagree, either change the law through Congress, or hope for a court more sympathetic to the tragedy of dyslexia.
Frankly, I don't see how a dyslexic can do the job. He'll pull up his hook and ladder to a STOP sign, misread it as POST, think "I don't need to stop; I don't have any letters to mail" and sail right through the intersection, causing a massive collision and sickening carnage.
Finally we'll have Latin justice just like they have in Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, and other wonderful places.
Former law student
> [you] To discriminate, you need intent.
> [me] Seriously, were you asleep in civil rights class? That absolutely isn’t true. Indeed, the entire theory of disparate impact discrimination generally holds that this kind of discrimination is very often unintentional.
> [you] Imagine that. Say now I think I understand why the FD kicked out a test that would have had a disparate impact on minorities getting promoted.
Yeah, imagine that. You implicitly admitted you were wrong for once. A first for you, especially given the frequency at which you have been wrong.
So maybe it was legal discrimination in order to avoid disparate impact discrimination. But if they are going to engage in that kind of racial classification, it must be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest. And the district court punted by pretending that there was no racial classification at all.
Former law student
> Frankly, I don't see how a dyslexic can do the job.
Wow, first ethnic slurs and now prejudice toward the handicapped.
You know what? a bigot like you has no business talking about what is discrimination or bigotry, okay?
The law says that if there is a rational concern of bias, a judge should recuse him or herself.
So if she follows the law, she should have recused herself. That is a rule designed to prevent bias, or even the appearance of bias.
Unfortunately for your argument, Scalia has set a very high bar for recusal. Even after inviting Cheney to go hunting with him, on the private hunting preserve of an oil equipment businessman, for which Cheney graciously let Scalia ride to and from on Air Force Two, then getting chummy with Rummy and Cheney at a private dinner at Rumsfeld's house, Scalia still refused to recuse himself from Cheney v. USDC for District of Columbia.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/ross1.php
FLS, you keep saying that racial discrimination didn't happen.
It seems clear that it did.
A merit based test was thrown out because the wrong people passed it. Those who passed the test were denied promotions based solely on their race.
Whatever parsing of the legal decision that took place, whatever particular slice of the decision making process was actually ruled on, there were a number of firefighters who were denied promotion because of their race.
You should be worried about the result, if you care about equality and race relations at all.
Synova
> [me] "I am having trouble figuring out if you are advocating the liberal view of things, or mocking it."
> [you] Mocking. Hard to tell, wasn't it?
No kidding!
It is not that simple. The test had been used in other jurisdictions and not resulted in a dissparate impact.
Where are you getting your facts from? The lower court decision says the test was developed specifically for the New Haven FD.
I looked at one of those "you may be the beneficiary of white privilege if..." tests once.
Several of the statements on it I found utterly appalling and could only have answered "yes" to if I were a racist, bigoted, self-important jerk.
And it made me wonder if the touchy-feelie liberal sorts who were so impressed by the notion of invisible white privilege in their own lives weren't primarily self-important, bigoted jerks, and thus had a strong need to have their experience affirmed as something different, that they weren't personally responsible for.
Former
First, on the subject of recusal, you don't excuse bad behavior with by pointing toward other alleged bad behavior. Sheesh.
And yeah, there is every bit as serious a concern for bias involved with a duck hunting trip as there is when you say something racist and sexist. that's a one-to-one correlation.
The issue is whether hanging around Cheney at all would bias him in a case where cheney is merely sued as an office holder, where cheney had no financial stake in the case. By scalia's unchallenged description of the trips i see no reason to question his impartiality.
But seeing that you apparently do, how do you then excuse her sitting in on a "reverse discrimination" case after saying what she said?
A merit based test was thrown out because the wrong people passed it. Those who passed the test were denied promotions based solely on their race.
A test, intended to be merit based, screened out all of the black candidates. Suspecting a defect in the test, and concerned about the disparate impact on promotion, the FD decided to throw out the results of the test. Result: no promotions for anybody.
Some firefighters, possessing an inflated sense of entitlement, were not satisfied with this result, and sued their boss to force the FD to promote them, on the ground that any other result would be racial discrimination.
Two courts applied the law and found the aggrieved firefighters had no case. Three white judges (two of whom were women) agreed, but somehow Sotomayor's agreement indicates racism.
Synova
> Whatever parsing of the legal decision that took place, whatever particular slice of the decision making process was actually ruled on, there were a number of firefighters who were denied promotion because of their race.
That is a very nice, concise, smack down. high five.
FLS said:
"Frankly, I don't see how a dyslexic can do the job. He'll pull up his hook and ladder to a STOP sign, misread it as POST, think "I don't need to stop; I don't have any letters to mail" and sail right through the intersection, causing a massive collision and sickening carnage."
FLS- do you honestly believe the ridiculous arguments you make?
You implicitly admitted you were wrong for once. A first for you, especially given the frequency at which you have been wrong.
I'm just going by the lower court decision. Did you read it? I presume the judge knows the law.
...a judge's background experiences and understandings play a role in answering hard questions of interpretation.
If you don't think that is true, think deeply about why you disagree...Let me help you out here: no one is saying that a person's prejudices (aka "background experiences and understandings") do not exist nor that they might play a part.
What is being argued is that white men have for years maintained the tradition that making decisions of fairness while being driven by one's prejudices is wrong and that the goal is to divorce one's reasoning from those prejudices. And to the extent that you can not, well then you get up the next day and try harder.
On the other hand, what is alive and viral in the victim community are beliefs that one's prejudices are to be embraced and catered to and that the victim community should be exempt from the effort to work toward a very challenging goal: that of objectivity.
It is this disregard for the principle of objectivity as a goal and of divorcing one's reasoning from one's prejudices that marks the victim communityAnd this is the reason why Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. Because Sonia Sotomayor is a willing proponent of the proposition that objectivity takes a back seat to her prejudices, which are good prejudices while the prejudices of white men are bad prejudices.
Former law student
> somehow Sotomayor's agreement indicates racism.
If that is directed at me, I never said anything of the sort. But the reason why the rule on recusal is there is to avoid precisely those kinds of questions. When a racist rules against a person whose color they don’t like, it does raise the question, regardless of the merits. Even if misplaced, firefighters like Ricci, hearing that comment can rationally decide that because of the color of his skin he never had a chance with Sotomayer. And our legal system says that you should never feel like the deck is stacked against you that way.
Its funny to see you arguing against racial equality, here.
She said something that made her sound racist and sexist.
She should have recused herself, at the very least, from any case dealing with racial/gender issues.
The fact that the district court was demonstrably wrong in its reasoning, and the 2nd circuit was equally wrong for endorsing that demonstrably wrong decision, only contributes to the feeling that something other than the law was driving at least some of those justices.
> Suspecting a defect in the test, and concerned about the disparate impact on promotion, the FD decided to throw out the results of the test.
The problem is that the test for racial discrimination under the 14th Amendment is whether the action was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling purpose. I believe that avoiding disparate impact discrimination is a compelling purpose, but how can this possibly be narrowly tailored? The test was reasonably job-related and no one came up with any racial reason why racial minorities would have more trouble with the test than white people. Its not enough to say the results were different, but you also have to show the test is either 1) irrelevant or 2) racially unfair (intentionally or not). NH didn’t do any of that. They just said, “dang, too many white people. Throw out the test.” What it really amounts to, then, is a quota, which is not likely to survive supreme court scrutiny even if it was good enough for the 2nd circuit.
Synova, I think people who look at successful racial minorities and women and assume they are only successful because of some kind of affirmative action in their past were racist regardless of any real or imagined affirmative action. Affirmative action just becomes the excuse they cite to rationalize the racism they already feel.
I rarely hear complaints about white affirmative action in these contexts, such as the racially-regressive practice of legacy admissions--people like George W. Bush getting into fancy schools because their ancestors also attended the institution (a practice that almost always favors whites).
Likewise, with class. It seems more reasonable that there should be an assumption that people, for example, whose parents paid for their educations, are successful because of that enormous unfair advantage that most people don't have access to.
If the people who assume minorities are only successful because of affirmative action also felt aggrieved about these things then I might find their rationale to be something more than pretext for racism.
Palladian said...
Article III, Section I: yada yada...Hmmm... nothing about empathy or representation..."
And nothing about life either. This is just a snarky and shortsighted "observation" (generous use of the term) but it is meaningless. .. of course you do remember when it was written women were little more than property and the idea of one being a lawyer let alone a judge .... well.
being a "woman" ISN'T in there either. honestly you are so lame when you are trying to be a smartass .... well you put the hole back in asshole ya'betcha.
do you honestly believe the ridiculous arguments you make
Everyone's talking about making hiring wholly dependent on merit, but also talking about the hard work and struggle of the dyslexic. So I wondered:
Is the high score of a dyslexic on an exam really an indicator of his fitness to do the job? I mean, what if an armless man got the highest score, by holding a Number 2 pencil between his great and second toe? Would we really want him driving the hook and ladder?
If reading comprehension is needed for the job, I want an exam that screens out dyslexics.
paul a'barge said...
"Because Sonia Sotomayor is a willing proponent of the proposition that objectivity takes a back seat to her prejudices, which are good prejudices while the prejudices of white men are bad prejudices."
Is your brain leaking shit or something? WHERE DID SHE SAY THAT? WHERE DID YOU SOURCE THAT TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
Talk about a racist pig.....ya'betcha.
Former law student
> I'm just going by the lower court decision. Did you read it? I presume the judge knows the law.
Right. Because judges never make mistakes. *stares at you like you are an idiot.*
In fact, the judge did make a mistake as we have demonstrated. There was a race-conscious decision that had to be justified, but he pretended there was no racial classification at all for 14th amendment purposes. If you would take off your partisan blinders for a second, you would see how that approach would threaten the right of all people to be protected from discrimination, not just white firefighters.
And bluntly, you clearly never read the opinion. You only latched onto the disparate impact comment when I mentioned it. You literally have no idea what you are defending. That is how much of a blind partisan you are. But then you have already proven that before, haven’t you?
I mean, what if an armless man got the highest score, by holding a Number 2 pencil between his great and second toe? Would we really want him driving the hook and ladder?
What a STUPID argument. You must be getting desperate.
"of course you do remember when it was written women were little more than property and the idea of one being a lawyer let alone a judge .... well."
Those were the days.
and just so we don't think that the Sonia Sotomayor supporting hypocrites are rare
Is your brain leaking shit or something?.
LOLOLOL. Checking back on this thread this is the first thing I read. I cannot stop fucking laughing.
This is for HDHOUSE: click here you moron
"The fact that Sonia Sotomayor is female and Hispanic and that she got the nomination because of that does not nullify or degrade the legal credentials that she also has. It is wrong and unfair to say that it does."
Except that the same standard would not apply if the President had nominated a conservative, Hispanic woman for the job rather than a liberal one. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas about that one.
former law student
I am frankly shaking with fury that you would write something as stupid as this:
“I want an exam that screens out dyslexics.”
You overestimate the impairment of dyslexics.
For instance, I am dsylexic, dysgraphic and suffer from ADD. And yet I have now for 3 threads been running circles around you on the law and on simple logic. So your apparently unimpaired mind is less capable of grasping the law than mine that is impaired. Indeed, I can also say for a fact that whatever law school you went to, it wasn’t ranked higher than mine and I am going to guess that you never faced the kind of discrimination I faced on the road there. At some point those facts should fill you with an appropriate sense of inferiority.
I can tell you for a fact that a dyslexic man has no trouble out in the field in firefighting. Your comments are completely uninformed and bluntly bigoted. It’s always a “pleasant” sight when the supposedly tolerant demonstrate the most utterly uninformed bigotry about the handicapped. A brilliant man once said that the beginning of wisdom is "I don't know." But even as you don’t apparently know what you are talking about, either on the law or disability, you continue to shoot your mouth off like as if you know.
Grow up. Start by figuring out that you don’t actually know everything about everything. Start with “I don’t know” you ignorant, bigoted dumb----. And before you spout an opinion again, learn the subject on which you speak, and only draw conclusions when you have fairly heard all sides. Today you have demonstrated a clear ignorance of 1) the lower court ruling, 2) the law of discrimination under the 14th A, 3) the code of judicial ethics, and 4) the abilities of learning disabled people. Go away and educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.
Aaron, I guess this means I don't want you to drive a fire truck, either.
What a STUPID argument
Stupider than selecting candidates for promotion based on a written and oral exam?
I've got an idea: why not promote based on job performance? Instead of filling in bubbles with a Number 2 pencil.
"A test, intended to be merit based, screened out all of the black candidates. Suspecting a defect in the test, and concerned about the disparate impact on promotion, the FD decided to throw out the results of the test. Result: no promotions for anybody."
So... was the "defect" identified? Was the test shown to actually be defective?
In any case, I think you meant to say... "A fire department, knowing that the test results would be used by civil rights lawyers to prove discrimination (not the test itself... the results) decided to CYA by throwing out the test and screwing the fire-fighters who had passed it, because no one cares about screwing white guys."
The result that you seem to care nothing at all about is...
Was the test actually defective and biased? You don't care.
Will a different metric be developed that promotes the correct number of minority firefighters? Yes it will.
Will the different metric be merit based? You don't care.
Will the white firefighters with their inflated sense of entitlement that led them to to the utter folly of believing that merit actually matters respect their new minority bosses? You don't care.
And lastly... the fact that a white guy had to work "twice as hard" and passed the test destroys your argument of white privilege and so you're forced into the position of making some pretty ignorant and bigoted statements about people with disabilities ought to be a wake up call for you, where you look at the corner you're painting yourself into, and maybe figure out that it's a logical progression from your beginning assumptions to where you are now.
You start out in the wrong place, you end up in the wrong place.
Trying to make like someone is the bad guy who worked very hard to over come a learning disability that he knew would impact his test scores *quite apart* from his ability as a fire fighter... that's ending up in the wrong place.
"Stupider than selecting candidates for promotion based on a written and oral exam?
I've got an idea: why not promote based on job performance? Instead of filling in bubbles with a Number 2 pencil."
Because YOU insist on methods that are not subjective, moron.
You really don't get it, do you.
"Job performance" is subjective. Giving the boss the authority to select the best candidates is *subjective*... and if the boss doesn't promote the correct number of people from the correct ethnic and racial groups... the boss gets sued.
"Affirmative action just becomes the excuse they cite to rationalize the racism they already feel."
Joseph... supposing you're right...
If I'm driving and I have the green light, and the other car runs the red... I'm RIGHT... but I still end up with a broken car.
Insisting that no... no reasonable person really objects to affirmative action, they're just racist *anyway*... you're wrong about that. But it doesn't matter that you're wrong. Even if you were right, the result is exactly the same.
And I'm ever more convinced that "liberals" don't care at all about results. They don't seem to care at all that the appearance and expectation of unfairness and grievance will prolong and promote the very racist attitudes that they *claim* to be working to do away with.
I'm more firm than ever in my belief that in the deepest liberal heart of hearts that racism is necessary and keeping it around is not seen as a bad thing after all.
I've yet to see any of Sotomayor's defenders make the claim that it would be OK if you replaced "Latina" with "white," and their silence on the subject speaks volumes. They know it's wrong, but lack the intellectual courage to admit it...
You're not going to see that because it isn't true. What I disagree with is the notion that her repetition of what amounts to an American law school homily -- stupid as it might be -- disqualifies her.
News flash: There are white men who also think that only a Latina can understand a legal issue's effect on a Latina.
It's not racism. It's intellectual corruption, for which I think it is impossible and unfair to hold one of its millions of exponents uniquely responsible. If she began college in the 1970s and went on to law school in that era, this is what her professors taught her. Let's assume that at some point in her life, Sotomayor encountered discrimination. Likely to have happened, don't you think? So you take this weak-tea version of Marxism and fuse it with her personal experiences with discrimination and, voila!, such an idea starts coming out of your mouth like ticker-tape. In the context of high-level post-secondary education, her comment is not exceptional. I would daresay that if she had made the opposite comment, depending on how she phrased it, it might have halted her academic and judicial career.
It would be healthful to the body politic if an intelligent, well-spoken member of the judiciary committee asked Sotomayor some serious questions about this statement in hopes of getting her on the record saying something to the effect that she will be deciding cases as a justice and not as a member of a particular ethnic group or gender. Or even if she defended the comment, it would be healthful for the political world to hear an enlightened debate on it. But it would be stupid and unfair to deny her confirmation based on this, and would have precisely the opposite effect of what you are seeking. Notwithstanding that comment, her education and experience clearly establish she is qualified for this appointment. And nothing in her record suggests she hates members of groups not her own.
So... was the "defect" identified? Was the test shown to actually be defective?
You know, if I find a jar of leftovers in the back of the fridge, all I have to do is sniff it to decide to throw it out or not. I do not have to culture it for bacteria.
When in doubt, throw it out.
But the FD did agonize over the results in public. You can read the briefs at the scotuswiki.
Will the white firefighters with their inflated sense of entitlement that led them to to the utter folly of believing that merit actually matters respect their new minority bosses? You don't care.
Performance on a paper and pencil test can never substitute for performance on the job.
Actually... I think racism is seen as an immutable human condition so the noise and bluster don't have to get results because results are impossible.
What is important is *recognizing* the racism, not ending it.
That's why policies that prolong and support continued racism aren't seen as bad because the racism is seen as immutable rather than something we can get over.
Because YOU insist on methods that are not subjective, moron.
I do?
I've been ranked against my peers for years. And I never had to take a pencil and paper test to get promoted. Objective performance criteria can be set up for any job. Then you use multiple evaluators to minimize the effects of bias.
@Aaron, I've got a handicapped son and even "educators" who were supposedly trained clearly were equating physical handicaps with mental deficiency. That type of bigotry is not rare, but it may seem surprising to you when you encounter it in a supposedly open-minded liberal.
Keep the faith, Aaron. Some of us get it.
John said this in the 1st 10 comments, but it is worth repeating:
You are right Ann. It is deeply unfair. But it is unfairness that Sotomayer and people like her create themselves. The problem is not that Sotomayer claims some access to truth and justice because of her experiences. The problem is that she denies other people, specifically white men, the same claim..
Her claim becomes even more specious when she pushes the mandate for "diversity" into jobs where "diversity" means little. Like firefighting skills, or Harvard accepting more blacks into its physics and economist programs. (Japan does just fine in flagship U of Tokyo physics and economic programns with zero diversity..same at India's "MIT".)
*******************
Lem said...
Well said professor.
In nature you find that genetic diversity most often leads to improvements. Where as the opposite (inbreeding) leads to disaster.Not so. Scientists know that the "pressure cookers" of accelerated evolution tend to be isolated populations that lose continuing "genetic diversity admixture" from the larger population so that dominant gene mutations are not suppressed by dilution with other dominant genes - or recessive genes from mutation accumulate enough that R-R pairings manifest and if they give evelotionary advantage, flourish. Not suppressed in a sea of fellow creatures with all too pervasive dominant genes.
A great example is the accelerated evolution of polar bears that happened over a few thousand years to a small isolate population of brown bears on a Siberian penninsula 200,000 years ago. Many of the genes that gave polar bears evolutionary advantage to occupy a new ecological niche were recessive, and disppear when browns and polar bears are bred together.
If you have "diversity", and broad sharing of genes, you tend to suppress evolution.
Evolution plays no favorites, random mutation is just that. Some good traits happen. And some bad ones that make for a weaker or more unfit progeny that are soon weeded out or made extinct - happen too.
@Stodder: "And nothing in her record suggests she hates members of groups not her own."
Hates? No.
Will judge against because of? Maybe
And that uncertainty that she introduced is the whole problem.
It is uncertainty in markets and uncertainty in law that degrade a state, ultimately destroying it. We are left instead with a kleptocracy, or feudalism, or a banana republic, where it's not "the level playing field", but "who you know" that determines your life.
That is, along with Obama abandoning property rights, the left has effectively gutted the Constitution.
Now for white men, at least the straight ones, the unfair playing field will drive them away from legal competition in the job market.
But they won't go away; they'll find something very less nice to do with their free time, to be sure.
Former law student, who clearly needed more education.
> Aaron, I guess this means I don't want you to drive a fire truck, either.
Last little nip of a whipped dog.
You think I am unqualified to be a fireman. On the other hand, you are have left no doubt that you are unqualified to be a lawyer. Which is worse?
I always said that bigotry is the last refuge of the incompetent. It’s a salve to their earned sense of inferiority.
> I've got an idea: why not promote based on job performance?
Gee, because being good at a job is not the same as being good at supervising others in a job?
So you are incompetent in management, too. Anything else you suck at?
> You know, if I find a jar of leftovers in the back of the fridge, all I have to do is sniff it to decide to throw it out or not.
Well, guess what? You have to be a little more careful than that before you discriminate based on race. If you were a competent lawyer or even law student, you’d know that.
Indeed, it demonstrates how small minded you are. There are in fact many delicious foods that smell terrible.
> I've been ranked against my peers for years. And I never had to take a pencil and paper test to get promoted.
Right. You are a former law student, but you have never taken a pencil and paper test.
Of course the key words are “to be promoted.” My guess is that everyone recognized what an complete imbecile you are and have refused to ever promote you.
> Objective performance criteria can be set up for any job.
That’s complete crap. Every single performance measure has a heavy dose of subjectivity, or it is so arbitrary it is ridiculous. How do you objectively measure firefighting ability, when no two fires are the same?
"Objective performance criteria can be set up for any job. Then you use multiple evaluators to minimize the effects of bias."
And what if, fls, what if you've minimized the effects of bias and you end up with too many white men being promoted?
What then?
(Too many black men could get promoted, but lets not pretend anyone would see that as a bad thing.)
Because pure chance does allow for the range of ability to be less than evenly distributed in a sample group. If I get out my uber-geeky D20 and roll 10 times I probably will not get 5 even numbers and 5 odd numbers. And no matter how much fun is made about the die in question, if I make a rather long series of really bad rolls it does not at all prove that my dice are unbalanced. (Or unlucky, or mad at me...)
If something "smells bad" you may be entirely confident that you have no reason whatsoever to actually examine it to find out the truth.
But I know more math than that.
Me:"Will the white firefighters with their inflated sense of entitlement that led them to to the utter folly of believing that merit actually matters respect their new minority bosses? You don't care."
FLS: "Performance on a paper and pencil test can never substitute for performance on the job."
As a response to what I wrote, can I assume that this means you don't care what impact this will have on the relationship of subordinates to supervisors?
I think this explains quite a bit.
As a response to what I wrote, can I assume that this means you don't care what impact this will have on the relationship of subordinates to supervisors?
What exactly do you mean by "this"?
If the firefighters feel they're the victims of unfairness, they can always leave. That's how it works in the real world. Or they can suck it up and soldier on.
what if you've minimized the effects of bias and you end up with too many white men being promoted?
What then?
Refer to the professor's original post.
I encourage everyone to read the briefs, to get a better picture of the cock-up the exam turned out to be.
"If the firefighters feel they're the victims of unfairness, they can always leave. That's how it works in the real world. Or they can suck it up and soldier on."
Fix this for you?
"If the *white* firefighters feel they're the victims of unfairness, they can always leave. That's how it works in the real world. Or they can suck it up and soldier on."
Because I am dead certain that you're not telling any *minority* firefighters to "suck it up" and "soldier on" if they feel they are the victims of unfairness and don't want to leave.
Because clearly... the "real world" changes according to the color of your skin.
And it seems to me that the firefighter for whom a written test was demonstrably *unfair* did in-fact, "suck it up" and "soldier on" and push forward and through the difficulty and unfairness and did, in fact, succeed admirably.
And it would serve the FD and the city quite well indeed if the 14 highest performing firefighters told the city to shove it and quit.
And it would serve the FD and the city quite well indeed if the 14 highest performing firefighters told the city to shove it and quit.
The aggrieved ones are the highest scorers. Don't mistake the substitute criterion for the real criterion. We don't know who the highest performers are.
You, yourself, said, "Finally, a Hispanic Supreme Court Justice..."
If you don't want qualities other than legal expertise to be discussed don't bring it up yourself. We all know that fact that she is female and Hispanic played a role in her being nominated. It's fair to point out the PC games being played.
My mistake... 17... 16 white firefighters and one Hispanic.
I wonder how the Hispanic feels, having his promotion denied like that.
Ann Althouse wrote: ... It was fluffy feel-good talk for the audience and not evidence that she's radical or hateful.
Thank you for the response. I wish I could agree (really), but
it was a public statement by a federal judge, Professor. It reflected on her and her office.
While it may not be evidence in today's world that she is "radical or hateful," it is evidence, perhaps debatable, that she is biased.
"The aggrieved ones are the highest scorers. Don't mistake the substitute criterion for the real criterion. We don't know who the highest performers are."
And apparently you don't care either.
And it would serve the city and FD quite well if the 17 highest scoring firefighters, those who were motivated to put in the extra time to do the best job that they can do, the ones motivated to jump through the hoops and complete the criteria that the city stated would be used for promotion, who put in the extra time and effort... it would serve the city and FD well if they all quit. Who needs employees like that anyway?
Because if the city changes the rules, those same people will probably do their very best to succeed by the new rules, take extra time and put in extra effort to meet the new criteria and testing standards.
Privileged as they are, they'd probably figure that doing so will gain them promotions, just *assume* like white people do, that they'll be treated fairly.
White privilege is such a bitch.
That was actually one of the things on the "white privilege" check list...
Do you expect to be treated fairly in the work place?
Being a *recipient* of white privilege makes all white people racist (according to the "privilege" theory). Therefore, even the expectation of fair treatment is racism. People who *expect* fair treatment have no cause to be "aggrieved" since the expectation itself is racist oppression. Being aggrieved at unfairness is evidence of an inflated sense of entitlement.
She is a little left or my taste but I do commend her rise from humble beginnings. A very inspirational story.
The media in Philly reported this story as follows in their idiotorial:
"Sotomayer was part of an appeals panel that upheld a lower court ruling throwing out test results after only one minority firefighter scored high enough to be promoted".
Got it- the Philadelpha Inquirer would not report zero blacks passed the exam. Instead they said only one minority (Hispanic) passed. The media is scared or too cowardly to give its readers the full truth here.
Synova:
Here is a thought. Republicans could call the Hispanic fireman to testify and ask him how he felt.
Oh! Oh! I know! I've got a question for the conservauthoritarians! What is the difference between empathy and sympathy? Which of these qualities did Obama say he was looking for in a judge - (aside from the other, obvious, objective qualifications such as having a keen legal mind)? And which of them would lead to the sort of bias we associate with racial discrimination?
Such tough and challenging questions!
Obama is playing you guys like a fiddle. Here's some advice: learn to separate which of his actions and statements serve purely political ends, and which don't - if you can help it. Include in your analysis an identification of actions and statements that are meant to confuse his opposition and provoke weakly reasoned outcry from them, and not much else.
Good luck.
Other than that, I've been impressed with the level of discussion. Kudos to The Prof for encouraging that with these words:
"If you don't think that is true, think deeply about why you disagree. What do you know about the how human mind works that makes you think that our reasoning is abstracted from our real-world context? Don't tell me that you just feel sure that's what judges ought to do. The question is what human beings do, not what you wish they could do and would do."
If only she started off every thread that way.
And FLS, Aaron is kicking your butt.
My mistake... 17... 16 white firefighters and one Hispanic.
I wonder how the Hispanic feels, having his promotion denied like that.
Not to mention all the OTHER people who took the test and didn't pass either.
"Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven's test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed.So lets look at the ratios..my business :-)
Captain test
8 blacks ...3 passed = .375 or 37% pass ratio
25 white ..16 passed = .64 or 64%
3 hispanic ...8= .375 or 37%
Total pass fail 20 pass out of 41 = 48.7 % Pass ratio
Much better ratio than the CFP test I can tell you where we were not evaluated on race or gender and still at least 60% fail the first time. Plus I imagine they were grading on the curve and not an absolute pass fail so many of those who fell below the grade might have been just marginally below.
If only they had tried harder. :-)
-------------------------
Now Lieutenant's test
19 blacks ....6 passed = 31%
43 white.....25 passed = 58%
15 hispanic..3 passed = 20%
Total pass ratio 40%
All in all the ratios don't seem that out of line and evidently the tests were fairly comprable to each other in difficulty and in the "REAL WORLD" of academia the ratios are similar across ethnic groups.
These tests were for leadership and command positions. They already know how to be firefighters. The tests are to weed out those who are unsuitable for the job or THOSE WHO DIDN"T STUDY as much.
Life is tough....try harder.
Pompous Montanus wrote: Here's some advice: learn to separate which of [Obama's] actions and statements serve purely political ends, and which don't - if you can help it. Include in your analysis....
"Include in your analysis ....?"
Crikey, who made you the professor here?
All of Obama's public actions and statements are intended to serve purely political ends. Only a dupe would suggest otherwise.
Here's some advice: you aren't smart enough to patronize or play school teacher with most of those who post here. Stop deluding yourself.
Former Law Student and current bigot against disabled people...
> If the firefighters feel they're the victims of unfairness, they can always leave. That's how it works in the real world. Or they can suck it up and soldier on.
Funny, I think they used to say that to black people in the South, circa 1953.
> I encourage everyone to read the briefs,
Coming from a guy who hadn’t read the lower court decision...
> We don't know who the highest performers are.
Right, it was only a test designed to figure that out. But clearly they are incompetent, right? I mean, what do they know about determining the qualificatins of the fire department?
Btw, i have already drafted an ethics complaint against soto. Shouldn't have sat in on the ricci case given that obviously one can rationally believe she is biased. Anyone want to see what i wrote?
I'm not sure if Homunculus Hombreneus has ever worked an honest day in his life, but if he had, he would never make a dumb-ass bullshit statement like this:
"All of Obama's public actions and statements are intended to serve purely political ends."
Now, I have a sneaking suspicion that you're just as partial to an incompetent unitary executive as the average Bush supporter is. So it might surprise you that presidents actually have what us working stiffs refer to as "responsibilities." You know, things that are part of the job description: visiting troops, commemorating national events, getting up in the morning and going to the office. He also has to nominate Supreme Court justices in the event of a vacancy, for instance. Nothing inherently political about that - it's part of his "job description." Now, you might politicize his choice of nominee, but that's your problem. It doesn't mean that by doing his job and nominating someone, he's doing so primarily to serve a political end. But because you make it so, it's therefore impossible for all the rest of us moderates and independents to tell if that's really the case. All we know is that you're losing and making yourself look ridiculous in the process.
Next thing you know, elHombre will claim that when Obama addresses a joint session of congress in the State of the Union, he will be doing so in order to meet a political imperative rather than a vocational imperative. He will claim that signing or vetoing a bill presented to him (also something included in the job description) is a political act.
Obama makes you look little by allowing you to choose to politicize his every action, while he just performs his job duties in ways that the rest of the country merely sees as "competent". There's always a subtle little component thrown into each of these acts for you and your ilk to go bonkers over, but that's your problem. The rest of the country knows better than to sweat the small (and irrelevant) stuff. To the rest of us, all we see is you losing your temper. And your argument. And any supposition of respect for your political position.
Have a great eight years of insanity! The way things look, though, it will be a lot longer than that before greater than 20% of the country ever again listens to what you have to say.
Loser.
What do you know about the how human mind works that makes you think that our reasoning is abstracted from our real-world context?
Race and sex were the only real-world contexts addressed.
It is a fact that few white women (especially of my age, but then Sotomayor didn't include age) agree with me politically and economically.
So yes, based on my own rich experiences in the real world, I think reasoning can be abstracted from real-world contexts.
Montana
Um, opposing a racist/sexist on the Supreme Court is politicizing everything?
if anything my objection literally has nothing to do with politics. i would have voted against former klansman hugo black (admittedly a better man than that past would suggest). i don't care whether you are black or white, or a red stater or a blue stater, right is right and wrong and is wrong. a racist and sexist has no place as a judge.
"if anything my objection literally has nothing to do with politics."
Uh... yeah. Well, that's because your objection to Sotomayor is a more intelligent one than you will find anyone else here putting forward, Aaron.
However, as long as I've found someone intelligent here to listen to (and possibly debate), I think a more sensible and credible parsing of Sotomayor's statement has been made elsewhere. Plus, I think it's reasonable to challenge the false dichotomy of racist/sexist/bigot versus non-racist/non-sexist/non-bigot. I think it's naive to deny that most people have a wealth of impressions they've internalized about people based on different categories, no matter how organic or artificial, or how imposed, those categories are. Whether, and the extent to which, those impressions affect one's judgments and actions, is the more pressing concern. And I've read enough of what you've written to affirm that you know what you're talking about and are likely more than competent in your field.
As a non-lawyer (who is not completely ignorant of their craft however), I may, were we to continue the discussion, be inclined to deviate to a more nuanced discussion of how our impressions and experiences affect us - which, thankfully, was a point Althouse finally saw fit to raise. But you seem a worldly and intelligent enough lawyer to allow more inputs into your understanding of reality than most people who are given to argument would tend to tolerate.
Ah, Pompous, try familiarizing yourself with the definitions of "political."
It may give you some sense of how ridiculous your post of 9:15 PM really is. lol
Exactly Synova. the fact that they knew to study, and/or were able to study for a test (perhaps they had a chair and a desk, or knew where the local library was located and had enough gas in the tank to drive there), is in itself a signifier of privilege. Indeed, their success on the test is *evidence* of their privilege. This perfectly logical point is lost on those without the richness of latina perspective.
Ah elHombre. Try familiarizing yourself with an original argument for once. Such original arguments might make use of the fact that empathy is not the same thing as sympathy and the fact that you will have to accept that your preferred perspective -- which is just as political as Obama's or anyone else's (if less intelligently constructed) -- will no longer define the terms of these discussions in American society. Deal with that.
Or don't deal with that. But then we'll see which one of us has decided to become ridiculous. And duped.
Sorry Dude. History is broader than just America circa 1929 - 1989. Try crawling out of your 79-year old mind and your boring sandbox in Texas every now and then. Or am I being pompous and professorial again?
Maybe I'm just proving Sotomayor's/Obama's point.
You want to have an intelligent discussion? Then prove that you're capable of it and stop pretending that your talking points and condescension are a substitute for intelligently engaging anything.
Montana
I won't put down any of the other people here with the exception of FLS, because he is such an ignorant bigot and partisan hack.
I will say this. I reject utterly as false the notion that we all have our prejudices, if that is what you are trying to say. People can and do live lives without racial or gender based prejudice. Bluntly, I am one of them.
And more importantly the canons of judicial ethics say that where a person can reasonably question a person's ability to be impartial, they should disqualify themselves. that statemetn creates the need for her to step out on any case involving a white male, a hispanic female, or racial or gender discrimination generally, which leaves the question: what is left? That goes double when you realize that this would include cases where just the lawyers are white. Will firms cynically decide they need to put a latina forward as their advocate in each case in order to gain her trust in the "wisdom" of their side. This statement is far more troubling than most people are giving it credit for. It tears right at one of the principles we have considered absolutely essential: equality before the law. It started way back in england with the idea that even kings and nobles should be subject to the same laws we are, it found expression in our declaration of independance and fourteenth amendments, to name a few signposts. It was Martin Luther King's dream some 46 years ago. The spirit of all that is good in america has stiven to live up to that ideal. And for her to betray it...
It goes far, far beyond politics for me.
It's one thing to say that judges are often influenced by their race/gender/other personal factors.
It's another thing entirely to embrace the bias, and say it can be a good thing (if it's the RIGHT race/gender/etc.)
Sotomayor has crossed over from legal realism to blatant racism. That's not how a "real" judge acts. That's how a political hack acts.
Synova: "Insisting that no... no reasonable person really objects to affirmative action, they're just racist *anyway*... you're wrong about that. "
I didn't say that no reasonable person objects to affirmative action. There are good reasons to object to it, just as there are even better reasons to object to legacy admissions.
I said that a person who attributes a successful minority's success to AA rather than merit is probably going to hold racist views regardless.
Real AA is actually pretty rare and doesnt have nearly as much of an "unfair" effect on a person's success as unearned, inherited wealth.
Two more thoughts, having slept on things.
First, FLS’ comment that if the white firefighters don’t like the blatant discrimination, they should leave and go somewhere else is stupid for another reason. As Synova pointed out, the distribution of talent in a given area is not always going to be 100% proportional by race. So in New Haven, maybe by luck of the draw white people are disproportionately talented. But meanwhile in Stamford, black people are, to make up an example. That can happen randomly.
But the deeper stupidity of FLS’s comment is that by offending these white firemen, and saying, “if you don’t like it, leave”—um, aren’t you risking creating a disproportionate distribution of talent? I mean, it seems safe to say that the white people who did best on the test were probably the best white firemen. So suppose they all decided to go to North Haven, instead. Then suddenly the best North Haven firefighters will be disproportionately white.
And it gets worse. So then suppose they take the promotion exam there (because, as the case noted, promotion exams were used all over Connecticut). So then the results come back and again, a disproportionate number of white people would be advanced. So, if they decided to treat racial justice like cleaning the fridge as FLS suggests, they would throw out THOSE scores, too. So FLS would create racial disparity, not diminish it.
Second, I never got around to actually defending the cartoon, because I think Althouse has the wrong take on it. I see it more as a criticism of how everyone is talking about her “compelling story” (almost always in exactly those words, showing these are talking points), and not talking about her qualifications. And also stressing her empathy, etc. And the phrase “what constitution?” is not necessarily indicating ignorance of the very existence of the constitution, but a lack of concern about it. Now one very fair criticism of the author is to say he could have used clearer language. If he was going for a lack of concern, rather than a lack of knowledge, he could have instead had her say, “who cares about that?” But I think there is a real possibility, Ann, that you just misunderstood the cartoonist's intent.
"thown out because he was white"...that type of characterization is from the Rush Limbaugh book of false statements.
Have you actually read the case? the test was tossed out BEFORE there were any actions taken on the results. there was no discrimination as there were no actions taken.
you guys really need to read your own stuff rather than have it fed to you.
Pompous wrote: Try familiarizing yourself with an original argument for once. Such original arguments might make use of the fact that empathy is not the same thing as sympathy and the fact that you will have to accept that your preferred perspective -- which is just as political as Obama's or anyone else's ...
Actually, Pompous, you're the one who originally defined the discussion in terms of Oblahblah's politics back at 7:45 PM. Have you forgotten already?
You seem to be arguing with yourself. Let me help you:
... learn to separate which of his actions and statements serve purely political ends, and which don't ....
Evidently, you didn't like my response, which has provoked a series of non sequiturs, straw men and ad hominem attacks from you.
I'll try to be more agreeable next time. Meanwhile, there are pills for hysteria. Sadly, they won't make you smarter.
Hdhouse
> the test was tossed out BEFORE there were any actions taken on the results. there was no discrimination as there were no actions taken.
That’s ridiculous and, bluntly, legally wrong. Of course there was discrimination here. They did something differently in consideration of the races of the people involved. The only question is whether it is legal or illegal discrimination, which is a tougher question.
The easy way to understand it is if you reverse the races. Imagine if a black people did disproportionately well on the test and NH said “oh crap, we are going to have too many black people promoted. Throw out the test.”
The fact that it was white people who did “too well” doesn’t mean a thing when determining whether it is legal or not.
Where the law does care about skin color is that there are two unique defenses that could be offered here. The first was that they were concerned about avoiding “disparate impact” discrimination suits; the second is they could have claimed that there was an affirmative action program.
But anyone who cares about equal protection law should be concerned about the federal courts getting the concept of discrimination wrong. If this decision stands and becomes the law of the land, then employers can keep throwing out the results until they get one they like, to the detriment of black people, and claim under this precedent it is not discrimination.
I fully expect a supreme court correction on this point.
"Don't you see how unfair this marginalization is?"
Two comments:
First, those nominating her should identify her decisionmaking process as the relevant issue then. It's not our fault liberals advance her by claiming how wonderful it is to finally have a hispanic and at least two women on the court. Obamas surrogates advanced no excellence of decisions arguments to support her, and virtually everything that has come out on point since is in response to criticisms of specific decisions.
Second, most of the comments revolve around statements she has made. We didn't make her think her latina experiences count for something while white male experiences are meaningless.
Oh, it gets better. According to the ABA, she is a member of La Raza.
Translation, literally: "the race."
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
Sheesh. Sorry, Ann, but this is a serious problem.
I do think she will be a Supreme Court judge who will rule from prejudice.
Most excellent graphics
Aaron,
There is a difference between bias and prejudice. Some kind of bias is always inherent in anyone's understanding of a given topic (there is no such thing as a viable tabula rasa/blank slate theory of knowledge), but that does not necessarily negate the incorporation of new evidence into one's thinking regarding that topic. Prejudice, on the other hand, means to prefer passing judgment before one has considered any evidence at all - as the etymology suggests. This a different concept.
To assert otherwise, one has to assume that people can have completely open minds which never make use of assumptions - no matter how provisional those assumptions are. This doesn't seem possible - let alone likely, even when it comes to social matters.
To conflate between bias and prejudice might be a useful exercise in combatting discrimination. But it flies in the face of all that is known about how the mind works - by making connections, no matter how tenuous - between repeatedly, simultaneously observed phenomena. In more enlightened people this process is, hopefully, balanced by parsing out the way those connections are made and learning to discriminate between correlation and causation, and by being more resourceful generally in how one goes about learning about the world. But to deny an inherently flawed reliance on provisional assumptions as a primary method for learning about the world, is untrue and not reasonable. The presumption of a scientific mind and an attachment to the scientific process are not generalizable across the whole of human cognitive activity. If you think they are, you must have a more charitable view of the average person's intelligence than I do.
As for your other points regarding English kings and MLK, yes, those too are political figures, playing parts in a political process. Your noble way of understanding such people and the ideas they opposed or espoused, respectively, may well go beyond any political interest. But it would be a mistake of elHombre's meager caliber of intelligence to decry a phenomenon one is fighting against as "political" while pretending that one is not playing an equally political role in so doing.
You may find FLS somehow more odious than anyone here. But when it comes to willfully perpetuating outright lies and other flawed versions of reality, there are many here as guilty as he, if not moreso, of doing so out of the excuse of their own gargantuan collection of biases. FLS, OTOH, seems to just like playing a logic game of his own. But to deny that a willingness to examine one's blind spots is a virtue that we cannot expect of everyone (and certainly not of knuckle-draggers like the ad hominem addict elHombre) is to assume the ascription of a superior intelligence to every human being. That doesn't seem reasonable. Are you prepared to do that?
Montana
Twist and turn all you want, but if a white man had said that he felt white men were better judges, then he not only wouldn’t be nominated, he would probably be impeached and removed from office.
Further the legal standard is this: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned[.]” Forget whether you think she is a bigot or not, do you think her impartiality might reasonably be questioned? It’s a low bar, because the standards of behavior for a judge is pretty high. At the very least, she had no business hearing a reverse discrimination case.
Try this as an exercise. Imagine if you were the attorney of Ricci, one of the white firefighters. And you had a choice of judges (you don’t in real life, but whatever). Which would you pick? Soto, or anyone else?
We all know the answer to that.
And again, as for your claim that we all have biases, not all of us have racial/gender biases.
I will add at the end, that Ann's original point that minorities and women are often denegrated as legal thinkers is valid generally even if i am not sure if this cartoon is an example of it.
For instance, there are few people who extoll the virtue of Thurgood Marshall's opinions, but i have always found him to be one of the most cogent and articulate lefty judges around. (and note, in the context of law, articulate is a good thing.) i won't say i agreed with everything he said, but his intelligence was always obvious.
And thomas may not be a talkative justice, but his opinions stand up next to scalia and is in fact better than rehnquist was. he was like scalia without the over the top barbs, which admittedly seemed off putting at least some of the time.
I could go on and on, but the short version is that I think there is truth to the notion that women and minority legal thinkers are undervalued.
Have you actually read the case? the test was tossed out BEFORE there were any actions taken on the results. there was no discrimination as there were no actions taken.I think that's what they call being "legalistic."
It's an obvious loop-hole and opportunity to do something without "legally" doing it. It's "We want to do this illegal thing... how do we get away with it?" "Why, all you have to do is not certify the test. If you don't "certify" the test, it's just like the test never existed."
ACTIONS were taken.
A great deal of effort was taken, and people paid, to create the test. The testing parameters were determined and announced, including that the test would be used to award promotions. Study lists were published and distributed so that people would know how to prepare for the test.
A whole heck of a lot of ACTIONS were taken.
The fact that the city, when threatened with lawsuits, found a technicality they could use doesn't make what they did right or good or wholesome or even *legal*.
The fact that liberals here don't see just how much this stinks is incredible.
And like always... if the races of those involved were reversed the fact that the city and FD found a technicality they could use to get the result they wanted would be viewed as clear racism and discrimination.
"Twist and turn all you want, but if a white man had said that he felt white men were better judges, then he not only wouldn’t be nominated, he would probably be impeached and removed from office."
Do you really not believe that there is a difference between a member of a majority, historically privileged class, making such statements and someone who is not a member of such a class making such a statement? I understand we are talking about judges, and the standard of absolute impartiality is a high one, and one we do not expect from your everyday man on the street. But I suspect that a move to impeach and remove from office wouldn't result simply from the deviation from impartiality, but because the societal reaction to bigotry against an oppressed minority is understandably different than bigotry against someone who has had the privilege of not having to prove their worth and value against assumptions that have been unfairly and persistently made of them due to their skin color. Disagree if you want, and then tell me about how anti-white, anti-able bodied and anti-person-of-privilege discrimination have been anywhere near as problematic as their counterparts. I didn't know that they were, but maybe I fell asleep when they were teaching that course on anti-White lynchings and male disenfranchisement.
There is a difference between a juridical standard and a social standard; in order to make the case for Sotomayor's inability to uphold the former, you should probably commit to a better effort to differentiate it from the latter.
As for this, however:
"At the very least, she had no business hearing a reverse discrimination case."
I see no reason to disagree.
"I could go on and on, but the short version is that I think there is truth to the notion that women and minority legal thinkers are undervalued."
I fail to see the distinction between this concession you finally make here - that experiences matter (even if bred of something as oversimplified as a divergent demographic category), and my assertion that biases are inescapable. "Bias" may have an intrinsically negative connotation, but that's just semantics. All experiences which shape our understanding of the world can be as limiting in some sense as they can be enriching in others.
The fact that Sonia Sotomayor is female and Hispanic and that she got the nomination because of that does not nullify or degrade the legal credentials that she also has.This is refreshing to read. The reality is that Supreme Court nominees are picked for all kinds of political reasons, desired outcomes (desired even by those who claim to be strict constructionists), etc. Given that that is a reality, then vet them on their credentials and qualifications.
Montana
> Do you really not believe that there is a difference between a member of a majority, historically privileged class, making such statements and someone who is not a member of such a class making such a statement?
In terms of qualification to sit on a case? Um, no.
> Disagree if you want, and then tell me about how anti-white, anti-able bodied and anti-person-of-privilege discrimination have been anywhere near as problematic as their counterparts.
I define racism as the opposite of Martin Luther King’s dream: to judge by the color of one’s skin, and not the content of one’s character.
I point out that Soto has indicated that she judges other judges not by the color of her skin, and not the content of her character. And your excuse is to point to her skin color; to judge her comment not by its content, but by the color of her skin. You can’t see what is wrong with that.
> I didn't know that they were, but maybe I fell asleep when they were teaching that course on anti-White lynchings and male disenfranchisement.
Which is precisely what is wrong in your thinking. I was born in 1972. I have never discriminated against anyone. Why should I be deprived of my right to impartial justice because of what other people did who happen to have a similar pigmentation?
Collective guilt is wrong. It is wrong to assume that because one black man mugged you that all black men are thieves. It is equally wrong to assume that because some other white person discriminated against you that all whites should pay the price for that. Indeed that is often precisely the wrong we committed in the past. Some people from Japan fought in WWII, and I imagine there was some actual spying activity from Japan in the US. But to lock up every single Japanese American was wrong.
And indeed if we adopt your model of collective guilt, then we could plausibly argue that internment was morally correct. After all, people of that group did attack us at Pearl Harbor, not to mention the massacres in the Phillipines, and in Nanjing. Sure, those were Japanese citizens, but why should guilt stop at a border? Of course that is problematic in my wife’s case given she is a mix of Japanese, Filipina, and Chinese, meaning about 1/3 of her is collectively guilty for atrocities committed on the other 2/3, if we take your collective guilt theory to the umpteenth degree. Also I am part Scottish and Welsh, so I guess I would be justified in discriminating against the English, if we follow your logic; which is problematic, because I am also part English, too. But likewise, I suppose I am responsible for the clash between the Scotch-Irish and the regular Irish. Oh, and God help me, I am also part German. So I guess I am responsible for the holocaust, even though all of my family was in America before WWI. And as for slavery in America, well the Spanish were oppressed by the Moors, so I guess for them slavery was just payback for the collective guilt of Africans, right? That is the absurd results you get when you assume a theory of collective guilt.
Or we might say this instead. I am responsible for myself and no one else; I bear no guilt but that which arises from my own conduct. What my ancestors did, or what people who look like me did, is not my fault and I should bear no consequences for their misconduct. Justice O’Connor once said that at the heart of the guarantee of equal protection is a person’s right to be treated as an individual and not the member of a larger class or group. You might wish to deny me that equal protection of the law, but I refuse to cede it to you. And you may wish to excuse racism, but I will not. You may wish to discard Martin Luther King’s dream and decide that he did indeed die in vain. I will not.
I know this is now an old thread, but still active, it looks.
I wonder what the divine Ms. Althouse would say to this from the Corner?(Post from Andy McCarthy about impartiality...in a juror.)
Response broken into 2 parts to accommodate the 4,096 character limit."I point out that Soto has indicated that she judges other judges not by the color of her skin, and not the content of her character."
Maybe you mean this literally. Maybe you are just confused.
"And your excuse is to point to her skin color; to judge her comment not by its content, but by the color of her skin."
What excuse? I drew a separation between the requirements of a judge and what you can "require" of anyone else. Did you not read that part? Probably not. Nice straw man.
"You can’t see what is wrong with that."
Fucking read what I write before jumping your moralizing, high-horse guns and chastising me for what you imagined I wrote. In other words, control yourself.
"> I didn't know that they were, but maybe I fell asleep when they were teaching that course on anti-White lynchings and male disenfranchisement.
Which is precisely what is wrong in your thinking. I was born in 1972. I have never discriminated against anyone. Why should I be deprived of my right to impartial justice because of what other people did who happen to have a similar pigmentation?"
Who is talking about individual rights? I am talking about the quantification of effects across and throughout a society.
"Collective guilt is wrong. It is wrong to assume that because one black man mugged you that all black men are thieves. It is equally wrong to assume that because some other white person discriminated against you that all whites should pay the price for that. Indeed that is often precisely the wrong we committed in the past. Some people from Japan fought in WWII, and I imagine there was some actual spying activity from Japan in the US. But to lock up every single Japanese American was wrong."
But to charge the Japanese government for reparations resulting from its own war crimes - whether that government's funds were raised by taxing the Japanese people or not - would not be?
Part 2 of Response"And indeed if we adopt your model of collective guilt, then we could plausibly argue that internment was morally correct. After all, people of that group did attack us at Pearl Harbor, not to mention the massacres in the Phillipines, and in Nanjing. Sure, those were Japanese citizens, but why should guilt stop at a border? Of course that is problematic in my wife’s case given she is a mix of Japanese, Filipina, and Chinese, meaning about 1/3 of her is collectively guilty for atrocities committed on the other 2/3, if we take your collective guilt theory to the umpteenth degree. Also I am part Scottish and Welsh, so I guess I would be justified in discriminating against the English, if we follow your logic; which is problematic, because I am also part English, too. But likewise, I suppose I am responsible for the clash between the Scotch-Irish and the regular Irish. Oh, and God help me, I am also part German. So I guess I am responsible for the holocaust, even though all of my family was in America before WWI. And as for slavery in America, well the Spanish were oppressed by the Moors, so I guess for them slavery was just payback for the collective guilt of Africans, right? That is the absurd results you get when you assume a theory of collective guilt."
This is the dumbest slippery slope I've ever heard - which is probably why you took a googleplex of sentences to write it. Any government that has ever compensated anyone can be argued, in just as abstruse a fashion as you prefer, to be collectivizing guilt onto its citizens due to the fact that they contribute to its revenue. Try throwing the civilized representation of society into your storyboard, the government, and your argument becomes a little more complicated. It also becomes a little more civilized and tidy. But maybe you prefer an understanding of rights and responsibilities between groups of people that mimics the logic of anarchistic blood feuds than one that appropriates the idea of civilized and decent governments acting on behalf of those otherwise unrepresented nations.
Part 3 of Response"Or we might say this instead. I am responsible for myself and no one else; I bear no guilt but that which arises from my own conduct. What my ancestors did, or what people who look like me did, is not my fault and I should bear no consequences for their misconduct."
But others should?
Racism doesn't exist?
Racism will be effectively ended by a focus exclusively on individual rights, and by pretending that people don't naturally form (non-exclusive) groups with others of like mind, or shared experiences, or shared history? You honestly believe this?
You are living in a fantasy. And you are starting to sound like a fanatical, unrealistic misanthrope.
"Justice O’Connor once said that at the heart of the guarantee of equal protection is a person’s right to be treated as an individual and not the member of a larger class or group."
You know, you can actually be both.
"You might wish to deny me that equal protection of the law, but I refuse to cede it to you."
Easy Tiger! I know you spend your waking hours running through brilliant arguments in your mind that you will someday throw around in court. Might want to save them for that day instead of imagining that someone else is making the case for the argument you want to destroy. I'm sure I could also construct an elaborate series of plays in a game of chess, but running over to the board and throwing it and all the pieces over doesn't mean you win the game. It means that you're prone to temper tantrums.
Or in other words, methinks it possible that someone went off his antipsychotic meds today.
"And you may wish to excuse racism, but I will not."
Ok. Any effort to understand the effects of a phenomenon are now an effort to excuse them. Brilliant reasoning there, counselor. Does moral neutrality figure into your sociological revolution here? Can a phenomenon of human behavior ever be understood objectively, or does one require your high-horse moralizing before we debate the evolution of social psychology, for instance?
You really are an easily disturbed one.
"You may wish to discard Martin Luther King’s dream and decide that he did indeed die in vain. I will not."
It really is true that someone who has a hammer thinks that every problem is a nail, isn't it?
Chill out.
Post a Comment