Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
  • Football
    • 2020 Football Schedule
    • 2020 Football Coaching Staff
    • 2020 Notre Dame Football Roster
    • 2020 Football Scholarship Chart
    • Notre Dame Football Injury News & Updates
    • Notre Dame Football Highlights
    • NFL Fighting Irish
    • Past Seasons & Results
    • Game Archive
    • Player Archive
  • Recruiting
    • Class of 2021 Commit List
    • Class of 2020 Commit List
    • Class of 2019 Commit List
    • Class of 2018 Commit List
    • Notre Dame Recruiting Film Evaluations
    • Visits News
    • Archives
  • Basketball
  • Forums
    • Chat Room
    • Football Forum
    • Open Forum
    • Basketball Board
    • Ticket Exchange
  • Latest News
  • History
    • Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
    • Notre Dame Rivalries
    • Notre Dame Bowl History
    • Notre Dame Traditions
    • Notre Dame National Championships
    • Notre Dame NFL Draft History
    • Touchdown Jesus
    • Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
    • Notre Dame Stadium
    • Past Results
  • Videos
  • Gear
  • About
    • Advertise With Us
    • Contact Us
    • Our RSS Feeds
    • Community Rules
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Home > Forums > The Open Forum
Login | Register
Upvote this post.
0
Downvote this post.

Supreme Court has reversed the Appeals Court decision in Ricci, 5-4.

Author: TakethetrainKnute (23344 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:14 am on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Replies to: Supreme Court has reversed the Appeals Court decision in Ricci, 5-4.


Thread Level: 2

The Supreme Court got it right...and I like the way they legislate from the bench, too!

Author: CC Fond (4901 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:42 am on Jun 30, 2009
View Single

In "certain, narrow circumstances" after tests are given, Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, employers may discard the results if they can demonstrate "a strong basis in evidence" that using the results would cause them to lose a disparate-impact suit.

This "strong basis in evidence" standard...it doesn't appear anywhere until now. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court always has and always will spell out new standards and tests that don't exist in any statute...and about 80-90% of the caterwauling over the Supreme Court being a "superlegislature" or "activist" is selective whining that turns a blind eye to the superlegislating and activism that occurs when it's to the liking of those who complain about the Supreme Court.


Thread Level: 3

Like I said, nobody on the bench is a strict constructionist.

Author: McSweeney (17753 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:16 pm on Jun 30, 2009
View Single

The Scalias of the judicial world only quote the Constitution chapter and verse if it happens to agree with their political ideology. Otherwise, they fudge like everybody else.

Thread Level: 2

The score is really 8 - 5.

Author: Tom Hynes (3629 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:04 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

Knute:

There is a saying in the legal profession, "the Supreme Court is not always right but it is always last". Thirteen Judges and Justices looked at this case. Four Supreme Court Justices, three Court of Appeals Judges and one District Judge ruled in favor of the Defendants. Five Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. In reality Justice Kennedy made the decision as he almost always does in these politically charged cases.

Tom


Tom Hynes
Thread Level: 3

I'll take meaningless statistics for $500, Alex.

Author: NDFaninNJ (10056 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:02 am on Jun 30, 2009
View Single

Ginsburg, in her dissent, wrote:

"Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.

"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.


Unless an objective of the law is to ensure that NO ONE suffers from racial discrimination. They made the right decision. Are you even disagreeing with that Tom?


I'm only here because my firewall blocks Valhamma.
Thread Level: 3

And it really is all about keeping score...facts of the case and fundamental fairness be damned.

Author: TakethetrainKnute (23344 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 7:39 am on Jun 30, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

I want to read that minority opinion...

Author: Killshot (13040 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:27 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

...talk about morons.

Thread Level: 2

With her 60% reversal rate, she gets it wrong more times than not. Justice is not a Hispanic Latina.

Author: TontoGoldstein (11011 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:21 am on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Link: Fuck Sotomayor and grievance politics

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

If you support Obama you are a racist.
Thread Level: 3

If Sotomayor is politically the opposite of the SC majority, isn't a 60% reversal rate assumed?

Author: McSweeney (17753 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:40 am on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

No. Because most SC decisions are not "ideological". Most are based on legal interpretation...

Author: NDFaninNJ (10056 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:49 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

and don't necessarily reflect the political sentiments of those on the Court. By your way of thinking, most SC decisions would be 5-4 or so, and I don't believe that is the case.

I'm only here because my firewall blocks Valhamma.
Thread Level: 5

If it is about political ideology it is 4 on the left, 4 on the right and J. Kennedy in the middle.

Author: Tom Hynes (3629 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:08 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Tom Hynes
Thread Level: 5

Isn't strict constructionism vs. a living constitution in and of itself an ideological argument?

Author: McSweeney (17753 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:09 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Thread Level: 6

Somewhat, but not all of the SC's cases are constitutional. Many are statute interpretation.

Author: NDFaninNJ (10056 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:26 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

And while there is an "originalist" aspect to those matters, it is much less "ideological" than the issue of a "living constitution".

I'm only here because my firewall blocks Valhamma.
Thread Level: 4

So, a Supreme Court with a few "Sotomayors" would uphold New Haven's intentional discrimination?

Author: TakethetrainKnute (23344 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:10 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

Three cheers for Latina "wisdom".

Thread Level: 4

No, it means she's an idiot.

Author: TontoGoldstein (11011 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:10 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

(no message)

If you support Obama you are a racist.
Thread Level: 5

I'm pretty sure she's not

Author: KCIrishfan (2899 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:32 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

No matter your feelings on her politics, the woman is a genius. Anyone who gets appointed to the Supreme Court is a freaking genius. I think Scalia is one of the most reprehensible people on Earth, but the man's legal mind is amazing.

I was pro-tron before it was cool
Thread Level: 6

This is classic

Author: Slacker (7011 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:08 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

coming from the George Bush is a moron crowd

Thread Level: 7

Never said that

Author: KCIrishfan (2899 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:05 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

Don't lump me in. I respect the office and the man. I disagree with him.

I was pro-tron before it was cool
Thread Level: 6

A genius? It is a political appointment. They needed a wetback female. End of story. The males on

Author: TontoGoldstein (11011 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:13 pm on Jun 29, 2009
View Single

the Court can be described as geniuses, or at least the white ones. There's actual competition for those jobs. The females - they should thank their lucky stars for their vaginas.

If you support Obama you are a racist.
Close
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS