Hail to

[Guest]

the Supreme Court for standing up to reverse discrimination! My feeling is that if you can't pass the test, you don't get the position. Simple and too the point. Were the argument to have been that the test was intentionally rigged to exclude one group of people over another then I would suggest that the test be revamped for fairness and retaken.

Raise yourself to the standard, not lower the bar. Equality is not two sets of standards!

[Guest]

the Supreme Court for standing up to reverse discrimination! My feeling is that if you can't pass the test, you don't get the position. Simple and too the point. Were the argument to have been that the test was intentionally rigged to exclude one group of people over another then I would suggest that the test be revamped for fairness and retaken.

Raise yourself to the standard, not lower the bar.

I agree with you...just a bit disappointed that the vote was so close !

[Guest]

If I didn't really agree with the court..and I do on most levels. One could make the claim that 5 conservitive activist judges just out voted 4 moderate to liberal activist judges. Just look at the ruling that Kennedy wrote.

They made new law today.

[Guest]

If I didn't really agree with the court..and I do on most levels. One could make the claim that 5 conservitive activist judges just out voted 4 moderate to liberal activist judges. Just look at the ruling that Kennedy wrote.

They made new law today.


Not sure I understand your logic.

Did you disagree with this comment by Kennedy...""No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-member majority."

OR...this one....."Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,"

[Guest]

If I didn't really agree with the court..and I do on most levels. One could make the claim that 5 conservitive activist judges just out voted 4 moderate to liberal activist judges. Just look at the ruling that Kennedy wrote.

They made new law today.

:shrug: I don't understand your response. Why is EVERYTHING political? The ruling was a simple, logical, response to what should be obvious, that discrimination of ANY kind is wrong. New law, hardly!

[Guest]

...another case which did not get anything close to top billing.

SCOTUS refused to hear (and thus left the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision as binding) a "free speech" case where a Topeka, KA church which loudly and cruelly pickets at funerals of US military personnel was barred to do so by a Missouri law. The 8th COA reversed a lower court decision barring the picketing until the constitutionality of the law is resolved.

This is a case where the actions of this particular group of people is utterly reprehensible (to me, anyway), yet their "First Amendment" right was de facto affirmed by the majority of SCOTUS justices, otherwise the case would have been heard. I can't imagine anyone on the bench approving of the actions of Rev, Phelps and his group, but SCOTUS did not "make law from the bench" on a situation where darned few would have criticized them from getting legally creative on this one. Instead, they just did their jobs, and probably shook their collective heads on the irony.

http://www.kansascity.com/437/story/1295627.html

http://corporate.findlaw.com/scripts/viewcase.pl?court=8th&party=phelps-roper&subject=0&casenum=0

[Guest]

If I didn't really agree with the court..and I do on most levels. One could make the claim that 5 conservitive activist judges just out voted 4 moderate to liberal activist judges. Just look at the ruling that Kennedy wrote.

They made new law today.

Ah...hmmmm.....Better read up on it a little. Looks like all 9 justices did not agree with Sotomayer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/07/newsweeksocialists.jpg

[Guest]

Just blind obedience.
This happens to be a very simple case of correcting a wrong that was done.
Ain't no more clear than that.
The headlines I saw in this morning's St. Petersburg Times hits the nail on the head....."Case against whites reversed"

btk

[Guest]

:shrug: I don't understand your response. Why is EVERYTHING political? The ruling was a simple, logical, response to what should be obvious, that discrimination of ANY kind is wrong. New law, hardly!

I couldn't say it any better. :bowdown::bowdown:

[Guest]

:shrug: I don't understand your response. Why is EVERYTHING political? The ruling was a simple, logical, response to what should be obvious, that discrimination of ANY kind is wrong. New law, hardly!

Did you miss the part about there being no precedent! If there is no precendent then it is NEW law.

I am just using the same phrase that has been used so much by the right wing.

[Guest]

I couldn't say it any better. :bowdown::bowdown:

You would be wrong it is clearly NEW law. Not that I disagree with the ruling but new law just the same.

[Guest]

Ah...hmmmm.....Better read up on it a little. Looks like all 9 justices did not agree with Sotomayer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

It not about Sotomayer. It was a panel of judges that left the lower court ruling in place as it was the current law. This is clearly NEW law.

[Guest]

Did you miss the part about there being no precedent! If there is no precendent then it is NEW law.

I am just using the same phrase that has been used so much by the right wing.
I just finished reading all 93 pages of the SCOTUS decision, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion. For those interested, it's at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

As with most decisions where there are competing questions of law, the "what if's" tend to get lost in the sound-bite press reports and mini-analyses provided in 30-second video segments by the various media experts. The Court was clear that the only thing which was decided was a matter of Title VII law, and not any Constitutional clam. So, the Congress is now back in the position of amending Title VII to clarify beyond question what SCOTUS ruled in, and that can include reversing through clarity the SCOTUS decision. Thus, if the hue and cry is that "SCOTUS got it wrong," the ball is clearly in Congress' field of play to change it all at Congress' leisure.

For those who are indeed open-minded, please read the decision and included opinions. After that, ask the question if the decision was indeed logical, or if "law from the bench" would have occurred had the decision been other than what was decided? It really does take a full read of the entire package, and not the selected excerpts from the right-or-left media.

[Guest]

Did you miss the part about there being no precedent! If there is no precendent then it is NEW law.

I am just using the same phrase that has been used so much by the right wing.

There is no precedent in law that discrimination is unlawful? It seems that some believe in discrimination if it applies to a particular social agenda.

We have no rights or freedom if government is allowed to engage in social engineering.

[Guest]

Partisans argue back and forth over whether conservative justices will rule only on the law and liberal justices might "make law" by introducing issues broader than the statutes in making appellate decisions. That will be a never-ending argument.

Many have said that the cases that ultimately make their way to SCOTUS are often the result of poorly-written or inconsistent statutes requiring SCOTUS to make judgements on the intent of legislatures because the laws themselves don't always provide clear and unquestionable guidance to the judiciary. That being the case, I find myself wondering how an appellate court, including SCOTUS, can possibly avoid "making law from the bench"? If the laws themselves are faulty, then making decisions with only partial guidance from written law has to be the result. The precedents or the common law are certainly not the product of legislative action. All the precedents provide are some examples of how other judges adjudicated situations where the written law is unclear. The resultant body of law has little to do with whether a judge is liberal or conservative or a true "constructionist judge" as those who place total reliance on the Constitution demand.

I guess the flip side of my question might be: if laws enacted by legislators were perfect in both language and consistency--that is, the application of the law to any set of circumstances should easily lead to proper adjudication--then what role would there be for any appellate court other than addressing the question of whether the lower court judge properly applied the written law? There would be little need or role for precedents or the common law--only the application of "perfectly written" statutes. There would be little role at all for a second level appellate court like SCOTUS.

But we all now that statutory law is not perfect, nor will it ever be. That being the case, how can an appellate court--any appellate court at any level--avoid "making law from the bench"?

[Guest]

Partisans argue back and forth over whether conservative justices will rule only on the law and liberal justices might "make law" by introducing issues broader than the statutes in making appellate decisions. That will be a never-ending argument.

Many have said that the cases that ultimately make their way to SCOTUS are often the result of poorly-written or inconsistent statutes requiring SCOTUS to make judgements on the intent of legislatures because the laws themselves don't always provide clear and unquestionable guidance to the judiciary. That being the case, I find myself wondering how an appellate court, including SCOTUS, can possibly avoid "making law from the bench"? If the laws themselves are faulty, then making decisions with only partial guidance from written law has to be the result. The precedents or the common law are certainly not the product of legislative action. All the precedents provide are some examples of how other judges adjudicated situations where the written law is unclear. The resultant body of law has little to do with whether a judge is liberal or conservative or a true "constructionist judge" as those who place total reliance on the Constitution demand.

I guess the flip side of my question might be: if laws enacted by legislators were perfect in both language and consistency--that is, the application of the law to any set of circumstances should easily lead to proper adjudication--then what role would there be for any appellate court other than addressing the question of whether the lower court judge properly applied the written law? There would be little need or role for precedents or the common law--only the application of "perfectly written" statutes. There would be little role at all for a second level appellate court like SCOTUS.

But we all now that statutory law is not perfect, nor will it ever be. That being the case, how can an appellate court--any appellate court at any level--avoid "making law from the bench"?

The way it works has been reasonably summarized in a Congressional Research Service report which provides explanations for the why's and how's of dissecting a statute and the comparative analysis efforts involved in determining legislative intent. (please see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf)