Everyone Into Sotomayors' Pool!

[Wizard777]

I've noticed a great disparity here on what is and isn't racism with two subjects. The Sotomayor nomination and the Swim Club in Philly Suburb. So lets combine the two current issues to see if we're being somewhat hypocritical in our views. Welcome to Sotomayors pool.

What if Sotomayor threw some white fire fighters out of her pool over racism? Does this make Sotomayor a racist? What if Sotomayor had been previously quoted as saying. As a wise latina woman I can swim better than a white man. Is she racist and possibly even sexist? If we can forgive and overlook Sotomayors "unfortunate choice of words." Why can't we also forgive and overlook the unfortunate choice of words by the people at the Swim Club? It's not like those people at the swim club have been nominated to the Supreme Court where their unfortunate choice of words will bear the weight of supreme law. Their unfortunate choice of words will not deny Constitutional Rights and Protection to the entire country and successive generations. Now on those threads I've seen a great desire to fight even the appearance of racism everywhere at all costs. Everywhere but the Supreme Court where it really counts? Hmmm....... It looks like we have some soul searching to do. So let it rip.

[lame54]

1. Her words weren't unfortunate...

not when taken in context

[Wizard777]

3. Lets read between the lines.

Her comment indicates that she believes she can make the better decision because white men cannot be discriminated against. They can't have experience with being the victim of discrimination. Case law simply does not support this. Her decision in a case involving white men that SCOTUS later found to have been discriminated against has reflected that perceivable belief.

[marmar]

2. Talk about a stretch........

:eyes:

[Wizard777]

4. Latino/Latina supremacy isn't much of a stretch from White supremacy.

Both think they are "better." Neither will allow for equality.

[marmar]

5. Latina Supremacy? You can't be serious.

nt

[Wizard777]

6. Ooookay, When someone thinks they are "better" simply because they are Latina. What do you call it?

When someone thinks they are better because they are white and having the insight and experiences only white's can have. We call that white supremacy. So if someone thinks they are better because they are Latina and having the insight and experiences only Latina's can have. Why wouldn't that be Latina Supremacy?

Surely you don't believe minorities to be incapable of prejudice, bigotry, and racism?

[marmar]

8. That's not what she meant and you know it. That's a completely intellectually dishonest argument.

n/t

[Wizard777]

9. Then please explain it to me. What did she mean?

To me she's saying her experiences as a Latina makes her better qualified to make decisions on discrimination that a white man. The unspoken being that white men can't have experiences with discrimination as victims. Only perpetrators.

I could be more understanding of this if we didn't have a Judicial Code of Conduct that says Judges are to avoid even the appearance of Impropriety. Such as biases and partiality. She seems to jump smack dab in the middle of it with both feet. Canon 4 directs that a judge should refrain from, for example, jokes or remarks that may demean individuals "on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status." Her comment demeaned white males. That's a double whammy. If she meant it was because of even a perceived superior socioeconomic status. It's a triple whammy.

Someone is being intellectually dishonest here. I'm open minded enough to consider that it might be me. So I eagerly await you explanation.

[ashling]

7. Un - Rec! Misuse of apostrophe in subject line.

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

10. LOL!

[ashling]

14. Eats, Shoots, and leaves

:rofl:

[Wizard777]

11. Not really. Okay could be a sentence.

But I felt it was more appropriately part of or linked to the following sentence. That converts the period to an apostrophe.

I guess you also take issue with Sotomayors' bilingual redundancy of "Latina Woman?"

[ashling]

13. Her name is Sotomayor, not Sotomayors

The possessive would be Sotomayor's

"Converts the period to an apostrophe"??? No offense, but what are you talking about?
:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

15. It's owned by the Sotomayor family, not just an individual.

:eyes:

[ashling]

16. Gotcha'

I hadn't thought of it that way. I wonder if they have a copywrite seeing as how the own it?

:rofl:

However, in that case it should be the Sotomayors

Do not try to one up the apostrophe police :rofl:

[Wizard777]

19. More coffee! My bad, I was thinking coma.

:dunce: But I'm awake now.

[rucky]

12. The judgements made in the firefighter case did not directly address discrimination.

The legal question was: Can the city change the rules in the middle of the game, just because they don't like the way it's playing out?

The test they passed/failed could still be discriminatory, as the city feared after the fact. We won't know unless that's challenged and decided upon in court. Sotomayor says the city was justified in nullifying the results. SCOTUS says no, they're not - they should've caught any flaws before the exam went out.

[Wizard777]

21. Oh yes it did. It was a discrimination case.

What they found was that the fire department committed discrimination against the fire fighters that passed the test trying to avoid a perceived discrimination suit from the fire fighters that failed. You can't say, it's not a discrimination suite when they scraped the test based on the racial disparity between those who passed and those who failed. What you cited was part of the reasoning in the decision. But it was not the whole of the reasoning.

There are other cases of discrimination against whites. We had one here in Maryland back in the 80's. We had a supermarket chain called Big B. The B stood for black. They refused to hire a white woman as a cashier because she was white. She sued them for discriminatory hiring practices and won.

[rucky]

23. That's how it's being portrayed in the media.

for obvious reasons. But if you read the judges' opinions, they're very clear to separate discrimination from the scope of the judgement. Even Scalia - believe it or not.

[Wizard777]

24. But I have read the opinion. That's how I know what you cited is part of the opinion.

But it's not the whole of the opinion. The fire fighters that passed the test sued because they were denied promotions because of their race. SCOTUS agreed with them. It's really that simple. They sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a racial discrimination suite.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf">Certain white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test performance sued the City and some of its officials. Theirs is the suit now before us. The suit alleges that, by discarding the test results, the City and the named officials discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, inviolation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You might want to reread the decision.

[MellowDem]

17. You won't get any honest answers...

You should see what the reaction was to this story:

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

I can't find the thread anymore, but the OP was about how it must not be true and the family has to be lying. It's just strange how in one case the story is taken for granted as surely true and the other it is labeled as false right away even though both stories were sorely lacking on full information.

And there were those in the thread who pointed this out to the OP, which was good to see.

[Wizard777]

20. I agree with that whole heartedly. I have yet to get an honest answer to this question.

If Sotomayor was nominated by Bush instead. Would you still overlook her remarks an afilliations. Would they still be a poor choice of words or the albatross around her neck?

Well never mind an honest answer. I have yet to get an answer. "That's a good point" is the closest thing to an answer I've gotten on that question.

[Number23]

18. Wow. I keep looking for the "lolz" and the

:rofl: smiley in your OP.

Seeing neither, I can't help but think that this is not sarcasm. Which actually terrifies me...

[Wizard777]

22. Racism is racism.

It doesn't matter if its from whites that think they are better than black kids in a swimming pool or if it's from a Latina that thinks she's better than a white man in a jurist pool. But apparently some people think minorities should get a free pass on their racism. That terrifies me.

[obliviously]

25. You have some honkin balls! N/T