Just when you thought it couldn't get any stupider comes this gem from the conservative Washington Times:
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.There are two fairly obvious problems with this. Firstly, only five of Sotomayor's opinions have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. That's hardly enough to reach a statistically sound conclusion. Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don't begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five. If you came into the office on a Monday morning, and I asked you whether you'd gotten out over the weekend, you probably wouldn't say: "Yes, I got out 66.67% of the time!" -- you'd just tell me that you went out on Friday and Saturday and then sat around and watched basketball on Sunday.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
But secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times' criteria. According to MediaMatters.org, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.
The reason that the reversal rate is so high, of course, is that the Supreme Court has a lot of discretion about which cases it chooses to review and rule upon, and is generally not going to be inclined to overturn law dictated by a lower court unless the legal reasoning is substantially questionable and has a strong chance of reversal. The better metric would probably be the number of decisions that the Supreme Court overturned out of all of Sotomayor's majority opinions -- whether the Court elected to review them in detail or not. According to the terrific SCOTUSBLOG, "Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150. I have no idea whether that figure is above average, below average, or somewhere in between, but three reversals in more than a decade's worth of jurisprudence strikes this layman as being an extremely solid track record.
EDIT: For a better informed (although not uniformly favorable) statistical take on Sotomayor's jurisprudence, see Eugene Volokh's post here.
71 comments
@Nate, 2 points. First it's SCOTUSBLOG, not SCOUTUSBLOG.
Second, a substantive point. I believe the cases on which Sotomayor was reversed were all decided by a majority but not unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. If you look at who the dissenters were in those reversals, I think you'll find the 4 left-of center justices (including Souter, by the way) supporting her appellate court decision.
In other words, a "reversal" does not mean a judicial error occurred. It means a majority of a different bank of judges -- in this case, the supreme bank of judges -- reached a different conclusion based on its reading of the law and the Constitution.
The SCOTUS, aprticularly the right wing hack job of a court that Roberts runs, picks cases it WANTS to overturn so if your case gets selected you are generally screwed before it starts. If you are lucky you might even get Scalia or Raoberts to say something unprofessional, uncalled, and high-and-mighty from the bench. Welcome to the Bush court - as biased as Cheney is!
So basically, the fact that there is disagreement(sometimes) on the Supreme Court means she shouldn't be nominated?
If that were the case, why have 9 justices? Why not just 1, if the "point" is to have consensus?
Stupid Washington Times.
High reversal rate would be a badge of honor for a democratic jurist. The current SCOTUS is one of the most reactionary activist courts in history.
I would be wary of someone who was "like thinking" with the likes of Roberts and Alito, that is corporatist stooges with disdain for the fourth amendment.
It is pretty interesting this line of attack is being used. Just when I think we would see the amount of mornic lines of inquiry subside from the growingly irelevant right, we see stuff like this, which not only is a ginat who cares on its face, but is also actually proof positive of the opposite of what they are trying to prove.
Wait, there are FOUR amendments?!? I thought it was just WE GET GUNS, GUNS, GUNS and then whatever the first amendment is...
Anyone know what the oh-so-important reversal rates were for the sitting justices? Or others that have been nominated by Republicans?
John-
The reversal rates for Roberts were zero, he never was a judge, for Thomas it was zero - he is still unqualified to be a judge, but it will be interesting see others. All have a much shorter tenure as a judge than Sotomayor.
Nate reflects a common misconception about why the SCOTUS takes cases. It is not generally a court for correcting errors or overturning ruling from lower courts based on the merits of the argument. Instead, most cases come after there has been a split in the circuit courts, such as the 5th Circuit in Texas ruling one way and the 9th Circuit in California ruling the other. That type of circumstance is when the Supreme Court usually gets involved in order to create a nation-wide legal opinion.
Nate
The linked to article was written by Eric Posner, not Eugene Volokh. I like how Eric Posner mentions that one judge has been "invoked" by name 175 times, while the next closest has been "invoked" only 23 times. No doubt it is Judge Posner who has been "invoked" 175 times.
Also, just by the imperfect data referenced, it appears that Judge Wood would have been a better pick than Sotomayor, which comports with the prevailing sentiment among knowledgeable commenters.
But all that is highly imperfect. I'm sure Sotomayor will have an easier time getting confirmed than just about any other judge, which no doubt contributed to Obama's decision.
Jay-
Yes and no. This activist court has used their power to become the "activist judges" for the right, while the right complains of "activist judges." The hypocrisy of the right continuues, simply look to what this court has done to patents in this country. How about discrimination against woemn and workers? Where was the split in jurisdiction on that?
Wood was the best choice, but Obama will save her for his second term.
Assuming that Obama gets another chance to nominate another Justice.
Stevens will be the only other to leave before 2016, and it is doubtful that any of the right wingers, or the commonly swing vote, Kennedy, will retire short of being carried out vertically.
Obama will likely not get a chance to swing the court out of the corporate and neo-con pockets.
If Wood was the best choice, then not making that nomination was a huge mistake.
Of course Sotomayor is qualified but it is disheartening to see that a conscious decision to base the choice heavily on concerns of gender or skin color.
The most qualified should be chosen regardless of any meaningless factor such as gender and race. I despise this diversity nonsense since it is total bullshit. Diversity of ideas is important, you don't get that automatically by following feel-good PC diversity horse shit.
Err make that carried out horizontally. Sheesh!
"...will retire short of being carried out vertically."
No Viagra jokes, please. Clarence Thomas has enough pubic hairs in his coke.
Fred is right that the SCOTUS takes cases on appeal for a variety of reasons, not just to settle disagreements or differences in lower court decisions. They tend to be strategic about things, however, waiting for the right cases with the right parties that allow them (in principle) to make a clear ruling.
Also they don't want to fill up their docket with too many cases and thus may pass on some cases so that they can address the issue more definitively in another case that they may be "watching" develop down the line. Example: when they took the UMich affirmative action (AA) cases a few years ago, this was far from the first opportunity to make an AA decision since Bakke but it allowed the Court to update the established policy in a fairly thoroughgoing way.
In any case, it takes just 4 justices to grant certiorari, and thus any 4 can force the 9 to consider a case -- though this doesn't automatically mean that they will decide the case on the basis of the constitutional issues that the 4 who granted cert sought to address.
wv: versible -- the opposite of reversible?
Although Sotomayer is a solid pick, I was hoping that Obama would have chosen a justice more in line with Thurgood Marshall. Right now, the court is divided between conservatives and moderates. From the standards of thirty years ago, there are no liberals on the Court. I would liked to have seen a judge that was reversed at least 80 percent of the time nominated.
If Franken gets seated by the confirmation hearings, the Democrats will have a fillibuster proof majority. Thus, in these next two years, Obama can pick very liberal judges with very low risk that the nominees would be rejected.
Beavis, the Supreme Court has always always been subject to affirmative action , going back at least to the days of 'the Jewish Seat'. And thats not to say that is a bad thing. FWIW I think Sotomayor is far less an 'affirmative action' pick than say Clarence Thomas was. Sotomayor at least has a resume that makes her qualified for the court.
And I wouldn't make too many statements suggesting that Obama won't get to make too many picks to the court. Who knows which Justices might die in the next 8 years? Even Chief Justice Roberts has had his health problems in the past. So who knows how many appointments Obama might make to the court. I guess the pity might be that this is Obama's best chance for a radical appointment. But then maybe his rhetoric has some depth to it and he really does want to govern from the center/ center-left rather than be a flaming liberal?
In the controversial Ricci case which is up for S Ct review, Sotomayor ruled against the plaintiff would be firemen who scored highest on the test b/c there were no minority candidates who even passed.
Thus the white men could not get a job no matter how high they jumped.
That she did so w/o comment or opinion, the judicial equivalent of the dark of night, reveals as much about her intellectual dishonesty as her bias against white working class men.
She is the product of the Welfare State and Affirmative Action, having spent her entire life sucking off the public teat.
She is like a pro-football player who has been raised in isolation and within the athletic cocoon since childhood and has no conception of what it is really like to live an American life.
Whatever "empathy" she might have is a product of a dysfunctional existence and will do little to advance the national interest except to cement the pervasiveness of government in our lives.
Just like Obama she has a curious point of reference and her personal history is alarming and not reassuring.
You can be sure ACORN is rejoicing in her putative ascension.
Petekent01 (on twitter)
Nate, you should include another substantive point in your post.
A reversal of a Circuit Cout judge at the Supreme Court is not an indicator that the Judge has done anything wrong.
Judges are bound to apply the precedent of their own Circuit. Those precedents may be wrong, but they are the law. When the Supreme Court reverses, it is often reversing the Circuit, not the judge who wrote the opinion.
Welfare state of NY, you mean the highest producing states in the nation? Is the one referring to her as pretty much a "welfare queen" even close to as educated as she is? I would bet every last dollar I will ever make he is not, Pete please show us your advanced degrees with honors from Ivy's to receive your large check. My other question to Pete in that specific case is have you actually read anything about it, do you know why the lower court decided against them as well? And no one ruled against the firemen who passed, the city asked for a new test since out of the candidate pool, not a single minortiy passed even though they made up 33% of the pool, kind of startling and probably a good cause to see if the test was incongruent with the stated objective. And I'm glad you find Ivy league schools "curios" points of reference when the rest of the sane world finds them the height of scholastic acheivement. And no clue what American life is like, yeah, being raised in the poverty of NY, being diagnosed with a disease at a very young age and fighting on to LIVE the American dream, you sir, are scum and I am shocked Nate hasn't banned you for being a waste of life form.
PK,
Even by your standards thats a bad post. First off, the Ricci case was about promotions. The Firefighters all have jobs, the City of New Haven just decided not to award promotions based on the examinations which, though tested to avoid racial preferencing seemed in practice to favor white firefighters. Judge Sotomayor agreed with a lower court that they had the right to do so, and chose to submit the earlier opinion rather than write something new.
And you don't get to graduate Summa cum Laude from Princeton through affirmative action. That it is possible to do so from the Housing projects of the Bronx is surely, if she has ever had to rely on 'the welfare state' as strong an argument for the existence of the Welfare state as could be made. That she has knowledge of what it is to struggle and still succeed is surely something to celebrate and not to decry as 'a product of a dysfunctional existence and will do little to advance the national interest.'
Incidentally is there any more evidence of the uselessness of the term 'dysfunctional' than the fact that it is possible to rise from difficult family circumstances to be President or sit on the Supreme Court?
For real, Pete. No matter what they do, white men just can NOT catch a break in this country!
Sotomayor in her own words:
In a speech she stated her hope that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences,” including appreciation for Latin-American cuisine, “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
WTF?
Why is her cultural experience preferable to that of the white male? Why do we accept such obvious racism?
Imagine if a white male nominee had stood up and said the same, but speaking from the advantage of his majoritarian perspective and suggested as a white guy he could better represent the aspirations of a far larger segment of the population than say a Latina or Blatino or whatever.
The shockingly candid judge went on to say, “My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
Just keep the country club types out of it, I suppose!
In Obama's America only the fringe dwellers have relevant experience. The rest of us need not apply.
It's racism pure and simple and white folk and freedom loving people need to wake up to it!
(Wait till he comes after your 401ks as reparations -- who's gonna stop him? This Latina judge? I think not!)
http://tinyurl.com/r4xx6v
Petekent01 (on twitter)
How telling, MarkyMark:
You write in speaking of the tests that "though tested to avoid racial preferencing seemed in practice to favor white firefighters".
"Seemed” in what way?
Oh year, none of the dumb black guys could pass! Better re-design those tests! If dumb blacks can't pass then it must be a poorly designed test.
In your one post you explained more than that Chica did when she dashed the hopes of those men for promotion.
I guess as you point out these white guys should have just shut up and been grateful some black dude did not have their job in the first place. Never mind wanting to be promoted.
Now that is what I call "uppity!"
petekent01 (on twitter)
PK,
the point is that the tests were designed not to favor any racial grouping, and the results showed that they did in practice favor whites. The City of New Haven (note not Sotomayor) decided that they would prefer to reject those tests. Judge Sotomayor, I repeat, decided that that was their right, and agreed with the lower courts decision. I made no personal comment on the case. I simply don't know enough about the law and the circumstances of the case, and I doubt you do either. But it was not Sotomayor who denied the promotions, it was the City of New Haven.
And the point which the right seems to be missing about her comment about being a 'wise latina' is that she was saying that her latino status should not be a disqualifier and that as a 'wise' latina with a rich life experience she is in a better place to make judgements that just some ordinary white guy. She is not saying that all latinos are better than all white men.
Would you seriously prefer an America were ONLY white men can prosper? Thats very sad if you do. But I don't think even with Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court that particular body is not a threat to that, given that 6 of its number (2/3 of the court) would still be white men.
Last sentence of my last post should read
But I don't think even with Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court that particular body is a threat to that, given that 6 of its number (2/3 of the court) would still be white men.
PK, can you get any more stupid?
She is the product of the Welfare State and Affirmative Action, having spent her entire life sucking off the public teat.
1. She is proof that the welfare system has merit.
2. So working as a judge is sucking off the public teat? I guess that means you are sucking off what exactly?
PK -
Go read Dreher's mea culpa about the "wise Latina" comment.
And then go look up the definition of the term "in context."
Markymark -
Would you seriously prefer an America were ONLY white men can prosper? text
Visible minorities, women, gays, Jews, and some others used to be subject to much more unfair discrimination than is now the case. To some minds, that represented a relative advantage for people who are white males of Christian heritage, and that was a good thing.
Hence, to those minds, failure to discriminate against everyone else is unfair to white heterosexual non-immigrant Christian-heritage males.
This explains a very large proportion of the Republican electorate.
For full disclosure, I'm a pasty pale white heterosexual male of Christian heritage, who grew up in a rural area, but I prefer not to live in a society that practices discrimination.
The ludicrous claims that Sotomayor is discriminating against white males have been dismissed already, but to reiterate, the comment about Latina women being good judges was clearly a joke (and a perfectly obvious and tasteful one at that).
The city of New Haven defines a fire fighter promotion test as discriminatory if it gives different results when given to fire fighters of different ethnic groups. That's the city of New Haven. A lower court upheld the city's right to hold that view, and Sotomayor concurred. That kind of case - promotion policies within civil service jobs - is always ugly. Supporting the decision of the city and a lower court does not mark Sotomayor as a bigot.
It occurs to me that virtually every one of the GOP talking points against Sotomayor seems very very weak. Maybe a more thoughtful and intelligent critique will occur, maybe common sense will prevail and after a sensible and reasonable consideration of her experience and views, Sotomayor will be confirmed.
Again MarkyMark you stun me by saying the tests were unfair because "they did in practice favor whites".
Meaning what exactly? Because no black could pass they were unfair? Maybe the blx were dumb or not as competent as the whites?
The only thing that happened "in practice" was that the whites were smarter and passed and the blacks failed.
Do you think that unfair?
What about Med school exams and the FAA?
Only in Lake Woebegone, my friends, are all children "above average".
Let's dump the racist Latina before it's too late!
petekent01 (on twitter)
PK,
I am not saying the tests were unfair, I am not an expert on that, the City of New Haven said that.
Personally I do find it a bit baffling that only 2 latinos and zero African Americans passed the test. I don't believe that either ethnic group is any more or less intelligent as a race than white people. So I would respectfully suggest that perhaps the tests did have a racial bias. But I am no expert on that, and I doubt that you are. I think its perfectly reasonable for the City of New Haven to take a step back from this test, and I don't know of a legal reason for anyone to object to that. Unless of course you are suggesting that judges should take the activist course and tell the City of New Haven to overturn its decision??
PK said
She is the product of the Welfare State and Affirmative Action, having spent her entire life sucking off the public teat.
----------------------
and
In Obama's America only the fringe dwellers have relevant experience
-----------------------
and
Oh year, none of the dumb black guys could pass! Better re-design those tests! If dumb blacks can't pass then it must be a poorly designed test.
----------------------
Enough said.
You guys are way off on this Ricci/New Haven thing. I've got two acronyms for you that'll shoot your argument all to hell: the NBA and NFL.
Both of these professional sports leagues employ a highly disproportionate number of minorities - in this case, blacks - relative to the population at large and even within the 18-40 year old demographic. These are hundreds of guys making several hundreds of thousands - in some cases, millions - of dollars per year, yet no one questions the racial makeup and diversity of these two leagues.
Why is that? Why are we not concerned with the level of player development, recruiting, and opportunities for white athletes at the junior high, high school, and collegiate level to ensure there is a better balance and racial makeup within the professional ranks relative to the rest of the population? Why are we not doing something? Something must be inherently unfair to whites in how athletes are recruited and developed through their tender years as to prevent any significant number of them from reaching the professional ranks. That's the only explanation, right?
Yeah, right.
I want someone here, with an ounce of common sense, to explain to me how or why we don't raise a stink over the racial makeup and diversity of the NBA and NFL - presumably because we believe, or have surreptitiously been led to believe, that blacks have actually earned it (it being the obtainment of such a large and disproportional share of professional football and basketball relative to the black population in that age demographic) through, training, hard work, and determination - yet we DO criticize a test meant to serve as a barometer for promotions within the firefighter ranks in the city of New Haven because few minorities could pass it, meaning it was inherently biased to favor white candidates.
I want an explanation. A good one, please. Inane liberal drivel will be mocked mercilessly.
Casual observer, it's simple really. The New Haven case is based on a written test, not on actual firefighting ability.
your argument on whether the race factor is looked at is too obvious to not laugh at, you ignorant, self important prick. The reason is due to the fact that everyone signing the paychecks as majority owners of both leagues you mentioned are white. I can pretty much state with absolute certainty if the top sports leagues had all black owners and the discrepancy existed, you idiots would be crying bloody murder...PS. even if it was valid critique, it's a false equivocation as no public money goes into the paychecks of those leagues, where firefighters are paid entirely by public funds and have a greater obligation to not have discriminatory practices. At least you asked a valid, albeit dumb question, so while Pete Kent plays in traffic, mind watching him?
Casual Observer -
I want someone here, with an ounce of common sense, to explain to me how or why we don't raise a stink over the racial makeup and diversity of the NBA and NFL - text
Because throughout the history of the NBA and NFL, white men who can play have never, ever been discriminated against, and they aren't being discriminated against now.
presumably because we believe, or have surreptitiously been led to believe, that blacks have actually earned it (it being the obtainment of such a large and disproportional share of professional football and basketball relative to the black population in that age demographic) through, training, hard work, and determinationtext
No, they earned it by being better basketball and football players.
Once upon a time almost all NBA players were white. Then they were almost all African-American. Now, the number of white players, especially Europeans, has increased again. I have no interest whatsoever in getting into a discussion about whether great basketball players are born or made (beyond the obvious fact that they nearly always have to be taller than average). NBA teams hire whomever they think will play the best.
yet we DO criticize a test meant to serve as a barometer for promotions within the firefighter ranks in the city of New Haven because few minorities could pass it,text
I haven't criticized or given a damn about the New Haven firefighters' promotion test. What I have done is explained Sotomayor's relationship to it.
meaning it was inherently biased to favor white candidates.text
That is how only the city of New Haven defines bias, and only with respect to civil service tests. The narrow legal question was whether the city of New Haven has the right to define it that way
I have NOT remotely suggested that this is the fairest thing in the world. I don't know enough about it. I would say that the situation in New Haven sounds inherently difficult and tension-fraught.
What I have said is that this single case sure doesn't look like a reason to argue that Sotomayor has a pattern of bias against white men. If I thought she had a real pattern of unfair bias against ANYONE, I'd oppose her nomination.
Now, as for affirmative action, the elephant in the room, it is a difficult and divisive issue, and too much to discuss here. I will keep these comments brief.
In my view, it exists mainly for white people (legacy etc), but also for certain minorities, has little relevance, and, with some legacy exceptions, mainly provides talented people with an extra push they don't really need anyway, while having no effect on those who need the most assistance.
Having said that, to ascribe the achievements of President Barrack Obama or Judge Sonia Sotomayor to "affirmative action" would be naked, offensive racism. It would be a tacit admission that one would ascribe any academic or professional achievement by a "minority" to "affirmative action", possibly with a rare exception for those who serve one political ideology. It is obvious that people who have achieved as much as President Obama and Judge Sotomayor, academically and professionally, are exceptionally talented and hard-working.
I want an explanation. A good one, please. Inane liberal drivel will be mocked mercilessly.text
The explanation was childishly obvious.
Casual Observer -
This may be rude, but I'm forced to ask...
What are your own professional and academic accomplishments?
Is there some hidden record of impressive achievements that justifies your constant claims that others are "dipshits" and so on, relative to you?
She seems pretty much to the left. I do commend her rise from humble beginnings though.
Lies, damn lies and statistics...
When all else fails, manipulate the data.
OK, this is what I heard about the tests that the New Haven city council dismissed from Mario Solis-Marich on Denver's 760 via iHeartRadio (which is, btw, a very good app for iPhone and BlackBerry). Supposedly the test was bungled, in that it was written with input by one class of firefighters/officials (can't remember which exactly), but was intended for a lower class. Hence, there were questions that were irrelevant on the test for the rank being tested. This issue was brought before the firefighter's union, who brought this before the New Haven city council, who then concurred with the union and dismissed the tests, preferring to re-test everyone who had taken it. A group of firefighters who had passed the erroneous test sued the City of New Haven to prevent the re-test. The District Court ruled on the side of the City. The case was appealed to Sotomayor's court, which is typically tasked in looking at whether there were problems in the lower court, NOT to retry the case (although the presence of new evidence for such things like a criminal case would allow the appeals court to vacate the verdict and send the case back down for retrial). As such, Sotomayor and her associate judges saw nothing in the procedure or judgment to merit overturning the lower court's decision.
And finally, something to consider is that the Supreme court has more discretion on its rulings. When the Supreme court rules, it only has be in line with statute law. All case law, whether set by a lower court or a previous Supreme decision, can be considered in their decision, but does not bind them in any way.
Pete Kent, Casual Observer and all the other freeptard trolls, what kind of words would you have for a Supreme Court nominee who said the following at their U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee nomination Hearing:
I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.What a bleeding heart liberal?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
One last thought on casual observers absurd observation. Firstly I hardly need to mention the likes of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or Jake Long or Matt Staffor, who incidentally is on more guaranteed money than any other player in the NFL despite not actually ever having played a game yet. But actually the NFL has a pretty good record at ending discrimination in the NFL and it's method has been shown to work.
It's called the Rooney Rule, and mandates that any NFL team must interview at least 1 ethnic minority candidate for every head coach or front office position. It's 20 years since the first black coach on the modern NFL. Even still AA coaches were not getting the chance to fill coaching positions despite the success of Art Shell and Dennis Green. Now 2 of the last 3 Superbowls have been won by teams coached by African Americans. The NFL is still a little self conscious about the lack of AA quarterbacks, though the number is growing. But the general Manager of the team hiring Matt Stafford is AA, so the large contracts in the NFL has little or nothing to do with the race of the player.
Because throughout the history of the NBA and NFL, white men who can play have never, ever been discriminated against, and they aren't being discriminated against now....
No, they earned it by being better basketball and football players.
Haha! This is too funny. Do you have any proof to back up either one of these statements? Yeah, didn't think so.
We're just supposed to believe your sheer assertions on the matter, huh? I think I got mocked the other day for doing the same thing. I made statements that seemed obvious and common sensical, in my eyes, and was excoriated for not squaring what I said with facts. Yet you do the same, and we're just supposed to take you at your word? How in the freakin' world would you know that white players never have been or are not now being discriminated against in the NFL or NBA? Get a clue, asshole.
Just to clarify, blacks make up a disproportionate share of professional basketball and football and we can state flatly, "They worked hard and earned it" with no recourse, but minorities struggle on a written test intended as a qualifier for promotions, and we know for a fact there was bias. That about sum it up?
You just displayed the absolute height of double-standard bigotry.
As to my professional and academic credentials, I have a post-graduate degree and work as a senior consultant in a very challenging and competitive field.
One last thing and this is directed at John. First off, right back at you with the insults you knuckle-dragging, mentally handicapped troglodyte.
Your argument is a non sequitur and doesn't get to what I'm addressing. Yeah, the vast majority of the owners are white, they sign the paychecks, blah blah blah. That says nothing about the player development that goes on in junior high, high school, and college ranks. That's where these kids are transformed into something ready for the next level or just another wannabe. Those "white owners" are not in the picture and aren't a factor until years later until these kids have already been groomed for a professional sports career. Who's responsible for targeting kids for player development and recruiting? How do we know there isn't bias in what kids are pushed to achieve? You can't answer that (admittedly, neither can I), but there's a good chance that somewhere in the intricate network of amateur sports programs in the country, there is some amount of bias and discrimination going on against white athletes to lead to such disproportionate numbers at the professional ranks. Who knows, it might be rather pervasive.
And one final point, that was a ridiculous argument about the firefighters because it was a public sector job and that making it more important to defend against discrimination. Discrimination should be prevented EVERYWHERE, public or private sector. Rest assured, if you perceived discrimination anywhere in the private sector, I'd bet you'd be howling at the top of your lungs for it to stop.
Jackass.
Casual observer, it's simple really. The New Haven case is based on a written test, not on actual firefighting ability.
Another non sequitur. The promotions were for captain and lieutenant positions. Although your abilities in the field are still vital, there is an evolution of management skills that need to be tested as well. It's not always about physical ability.
Think of a group of contract bricklayers. One guy in the bunch can easily lay more bricks than his counterparts but is a terrible communicator and organizer (and would thus harm overall productivity if he were in charge and had to make managerial decisions). He's most valuable still as a worker bee and NOT as a leader for this hypothetical crew should an opening ever arise. Based on your idea, however, just because he has the best "in the field" ability - i.e. he can lay more bricks than the others in a shorter time period - he should be given greater consideration for a promotion.
And markymark, you're just rambling with your anecdotal assessment of Manning, Brady, et al. I never said there weren't white athletes. Just that there were far, far fewer in the NBA and NFL than you'd expect given the demographic makeup of our general population aged 18-35. You didn't even address the issue...just blindly took a stab in the dark. At least harold laid out a critique, albeit a weak one with holes in it.
I just shot you assholes down one by one.
Hey CO, I'm still standing, b****!
your response shows a complete lack of intelligence, so thanks, I really need not say more. the subsequent questions you ask are inane. It is easily proven all throughout the system that the VAST majority of coaches at all levels are white. Let's not even get into wealth's role, since most lower income kids don't have parents who can take time off from work to coach youth sports and such. I resort to insults becaus either you haven't learned anything with your "advanced" degree, or you are deliberatley obtuse, either way, you're an idiot, that's not an insult, just fact judging from your posts. I won't even go into the facts of the specific case you speak of, because you're obviously too dumb to see you have no clue what you are talking about...On second thought, little one (mind, not body), maybe you should go play in traffic with PK.
Actually, I decided to give you one more piece of wisdom as to why you see more minority athletes in the 2 sports you mention compared to any other sports and it is entirely econoomic. hockey and baseball tend to be far more expensive sports for groups to play (Baseball only due to a lack of public playing fields) where the specific 2 sports you mention happen to have one thing in common, very cheap to play. Get 10 guys together to spend 30 bucks on a football and it's good to go, 35 on a basketball and find a court (hence why more and more players are coming from the south due to all year long weather outdoors as well)
markymark said... And you don't get to graduate Summa cum Laude from Princeton through affirmative action.No, but you can get in ahead of more qualified applicants via affirmative action. Just ask George W.
Of course, they don't call it "affirmative action" for mediocre white men with important fathers. I think they call it being a "legacy".
You guys - John, mostly - are missing the substantitive portion of my argument and focusing solely on whether or not there is racism in the amateur ranks of football and basketball. I can no more prove that there is - either in rare, isolated cases or is more pervasive - discrimination than you can prove there isn't any.
My point is to show that there is a disproportionate success rate for minorities in the NBA and NFL relative to the demographics for similar age groups in the general population. On the surface, you assume (just like harold with his sheer assertion), with no supporting facts or data, that blacks in the NBA and NFL "earned it" and that minorities in New Haven are being discriminated against.
In summary, you're saying,
"When we see minorities succeed at something at a rate that's at or above levels we would otherwise assume based on general population demographics, then we know there is no discrimination in the system, against either whites or minorities. But when we see minorities succeed at something at a rate that's below levels we would otherwise assume to be the case based on population demographics, then we know there is some form of systemic bias or discrimination against minorities preventing them from achievement."
As I said above, that is an incredible double-standard and the height of bigotry.
Because throughout the history of the NBA and NFL, white men who can play have never, ever been discriminated against, and they aren't being discriminated against now....
No, they earned it by being better basketball and football players.
Casual Observer sputtered... Haha! This is too funny. Do you have any proof to back up either one of these statements? Yeah, didn't think so.
Pro sports rewards performance. How do we know this? Look at the contracts. People who perform make the big bucks. Lots of evidence.
As to "proof" that racism against whites DOESN'T exist, you are asking somebody to prove a negative. That's stupid. REALLY stupid. Do you have proof that you don't have sex with farm animals? No? Hmmmmm. Can't prove it, so it must be true.
All you have to do to prove your point is show proof of the positive, i.e. qualified excellent white players blocked form playing because of their race. Should be easy, right?
Man, you are dumb as a stump. We need a better brand of trolls.
Joshua,
Seeing as how you haven't stated anything contrary to what I've said, it's kinda hard to "shoot you down."
Either you agree with me, are ambivalent about the subject or are too apathetic (or lazy) to respond, or you disagree but cower in fear because you know you have flawed logic...
Pro sports rewards performance. How do we know this? Look at the contracts. People who perform make the big bucks. Lots of evidence.
Pretty much every company/business in the private sector rewards performance, yet discrimination/bias still exists (i.e. more qualified minorities get passed over for less qualified whites). Do you doubt this happens still in America? You're taking the pure free marketers argument (see The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism to understand what I'm talking about). They say that in a merit-based system, all else equal, discrimination won't exist because the success of the company is incumbent upon them hiring the best person, no matter what. I would have never guessed you subscribe to a far-right economic approach given your otherwise leftist ranting.
Oh, and as I said above to John, these players are developed at the amateur level. My argument is as much why black athletes may be recruited and pushed to succeed while they are still not being paid to play than when they are. If they've been unfairly favored at the amateur level, then of course they'll be better later on as professionals and seemingly superior (in greater quantities) to white athletes, thus being awarded those nice contracts.
As to "proof" that racism against whites DOESN'T exist, you are asking somebody to prove a negative. That's stupid. REALLY stupid. Do you have proof that you don't have sex with farm animals? No? Hmmmmm. Can't prove it, so it must be true.
Non sequitur and irrelevant. First, my sex life is irrelevant to the discussion of discrimination/bias in New Haven or amateur/professional sports. Quit throwing around nonsense. Second, where's the proof that the New Haven test has bias. Simply because the minorities didn't do as well as we'd expect given the racial makeup of the test-takers. Maybe, for that sample size, the minorities just didn't have the intellectual acumen to compete relative to their white counterparts. Maybe in another city on another state, minorities would "overperform" relative to the racial makeup of the test-takers.
Man, you are dumb as a stump. We need a better brand of trolls.
No, we need better "regulars." Or whatever you'd like to call yourself. I'm here to tell ya, the "troll" is winning this one because you assholes keep shooting yourselves in the foot with the same old tripe.
Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven case was actually conservative.
The usual conservative complaint against "judicial activism" is that the judge contradicts a democratically elected body.
The case was brought by private citizens against a legislative body (New Haven City Council). Had she sided with the white firefighters, she would have been legislating from the bench over the wishes of the duly elected city council and presumably the desires of New Haven's voters. How would that in itself not have been the judiciary overreaching it's powers?
A conservative argument could easily be made that if you don't like the decisions of the New Haven City Council, then campaign to elect new council members who will make more conservative decisions, but don't go crying to the courts every time a council vote goes the wrong way.
Should a judge be allowed to decide that Texas' re-districting is fair? Should a judge be allowed to force gay marriage on a state like Iowa after the legislature passed a state DOMA? Should a judge be allowed to tell states like Louisana and Utah that they can't outlaw abortion, like in Roe? Should a judge be allowed to tell Bay Harbor islands, Florida that they can't have a nativity scene at Christmas time?
I suspect conservatives don't mind a legislature's decisions being over-ruled if conservatives disagree with what the legislators decided.
CO,
Persaonally I think you are getting yourself bogged down in a side issue. There may be a racial preference shown in high school and college sports, but it is there because the more talented athletes tend to be minorities. But if there is racism involved I would still suggest it tends to be in favour of white people. (Even despite the Rooney rule there is a disproportionate number of white coaches in the NFL, and a disproportionate number of white quarterbacks in the league.)
But as for players, are you suggesting that say Republican voting Joe Gibbs preferred to recruit black players through some sort of reverse racism? Or conservative Republican Tom Benson employs african american players at the New Orleans Saints through some sort of affirmative action?
But it all has very little to do with Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the court. Exactly how does this relate to the Ricci case? Remember Sotomayor was not saying that New Haven SHOULD bin the contested examination, simply that they were legally entitled to.
Casual Obs.,
I think what you're missing here is that your observation is really a mirror of the New Haven case, not a counter argument. While there may be higher percentage of minority players on the field at any given time than in the general population, when you look at each sporting organization as a whole, including management and ownership, you see the same pattern that you see in businesses across the country: minorities are overrepresented in the low-paying, "unskilled" areas and underrepresented in the high-paying, "skilled" areas. Do you really want to make the argument that across the board, minorities do not have the “mental acumen” to coach, manage or lead?
What you’re ignoring here, which is very frustrating for folks that want to make progress on race issues, is that a) we’re only ONE generation removed from blatant legal racial discrimination in this country and that b) removing those legal barriers did not alter the disparity in resources, power and influence caused by several hundred years of oppression and exploitation. Affirmative Action isn’t about social justice; it’s the math of compound interest: People with more resources, invested earlier, will always, always have more than people who start out later and with less. Unless you have actions like the Rooney Rule or the City of New Haven taking a second look at its testing policy, we’ll continue to live in a world shaped by the atrocities and mistakes of our forbearers. And folks like you who try to guilt minorities into backing down because of “reverse racism” are only impeding the process, keeping us from getting to a truly level playing field.
Casual Observer -
I have some bad news for you.
Making stupid comments, but then lacing them with insults, doesn't turn them into intelligent comments.
When we see minorities succeed at something at a rate that's at or above levels we would otherwise assume based on general population demographics, then we know there is no discrimination in the system, against either whites or minorities.text
What are you talking about? No-one said that. Can't you handle dealing with what people actually said?
You asked why no-one cares that there are a disproportionate number of African-Americans in the NBA and the NFL (whereas MLB contains a disproportionate number of Latinos and the NHL contains a disproportionate number of whites).
I made the simple "assertion" that there is no evidence of discrimination against whites at the level of pro sports. (Whether white kids are less likely to choose to enter football programs or whatever is a different question.)
It's obvious that there isn't. Coaches need to win.
In my subjective opinion, only a bitter, unhappy whiner would think that talented white athletes are being kept out of pro sports by a conspiracy.
But when we see minorities succeed at something at a rate that's below levels we would otherwise assume to be the case based on population demographics, then we know there is some form of systemic bias or discrimination against minorities preventing them from achievement.text
No-one said that either.
However, only an imbecile or liar (or one who is both) would deny the history of racial discrimination in the US.
For example, why were pro baseball players disproportionately less likely to be black before WWII? Because of overt discrimination.
Because of the extreme past history of discrimination, our society is now alert to the possibility of discrimination, and makes efforts to correct it.
As I said above, that is an incredible double-standard and the height of bigotry.text
No, it only seems that way to you because in my now unchangeable opinion, you are a whiner.
No-one has said that they approve of discrimination against straight white males. I certainly don't. On the other hand, as a straight white male who started dirt poor and worked my ass off and made something of myself, I never encountered any. Maybe I would have if I was trying to be an English professor at Bryn Mawr, but I didn't. And I witnessed plenty of winking, smirking racism against "minorities".
Apparently, you don't want society to be alert for and correct discrimination against "minorities".
Perhaps you are insecure about your ability to compete if "minorities" are not kept out by discrimination.
Tough luck. It doesn't work that way anymore. And even when it did, just being white wasn't good enough. You still had to do more than sit in a basement and whine.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - for now. Some people are outright racist - they just want discrimination because they hate people of other ethnic groups. I'm assuming that you're just a typical "boo hoo hoo I'm being discriminated against and persecuted" whiner, which is still a lot better than being a racist.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - for now. Some people are outright racist - they just want discrimination because they hate people of other ethnic groups. I'm assuming that you're just a typical "boo hoo hoo I'm being discriminated against and persecuted" whiner, which is still a lot better than being a racist.
Thanks for at least that much. While I disagree with some, or much, of what you say, at least you've appraoched the issue with some dignity and clarity and presented your argument in a cogent manner.
My final word on the matter. I'm against racism/discrimination/bias in all shapes and sizes. But I'm also against the inherent assumption that seems to come up when we see minorities "overperform" or "overachieve" - in ANYTHING, be it academics, professional fields, or sports - relative to what we'd expect given a particular demographic makeup and we can boldly declare that they've "worked hard" or "earned it" in those cases, but when we see minorities "underperform" or "underachieve", the assumption seems to be that they were/are somehow being discriminated against.
I have a few questions for you rocket scientists.
1. WTF does the ethnicity of a sports team have to do with the appointment of a SC Justice ?
2. Who taught the idiot article writer how to do math ? If Sotomayor had 5 cases submitted to the SC, and the SC overturned 4, that is a 20% success ratio, or 80% failure ratio, however you care to look at it. This is simple 4th grade math and not requiring a statistical analysis. Her other cases that did not see the SCOTUS have no bearing here, as the writer only used the 5 cases submitted to the SC, and including the others in the equation is not only stupid but mathematically invalid.
3. I want someone to explain how a written test could possibly be racially biased, I can think of only 1 offhand; you have 2 pictures 1 of which is a white person, the other one of a non-white, and a caption that asks which would you rescue first?
Most firefighters I, know would not answer the question, and would put a very nasty foot note next to it explaining to the test writers what idiots they were for putting such a stupid question on a firefighters test.
3. The only requirements I can possibly think of as essential in a SC Justice are their ability to read and understand the Constitution, and an ability to interpret and adjudicate the case in question as to its Constitutional merits.
This ladies track record as to adjudicating a case within Constitutional bounds, has a 80% failure rate.
@Casual
You may have an advance degree but you only got it because you were a legacy pick. You didn't get into the school on you own. You daddy who had to discriminate against a better smarter black man in the Jim Crowe days to even get a job then used that money in the form of donations to get you in. You are therefor always trying to attack other who got into school without merit because deep down you know you didn't get in.
I have all the proof I need, just as you do with Sotiomayor. The fact she has more experience then any other judge in 100 years and honors from a Ivy league is proof, so what ever you say isn't proof.
You fear equal competition. I have all the proof I need!!!
It's sad your so bitter and still play the victim with all your success in life.
@Horizon3:
The average rate for overturning cases brought before the SCOTUS is about 75%. Judge Sotomayor had 3 of 5 cases overturned, or 60%, less than the overall rate of overturning cases of 75%.
There's one thing I agree with you on, Horizon3. This is not rocket science. Move away here, folks. Nothing to see.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment