Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Artaguito

Sonia Sotomayor Nominada A La Corte Suprema

117 posts in this topic

La cantidad de eventos adversos a los latinos en el sist legal......es inmenso.

Sotomayor.......sera la proxima jueza suprema......BORICUA>>>!!!!

me pregunto.....cual sera su opinion de..los genocidas...de espana...???

si ella...es paje de la reinita apestosa..isabel.????

Y si.......el concepto de la mujer caguana figura en su cultura...boricua...!!???


(seguramente no....esto no lo ensenzan en la escuela....
el concepto de que la mujer ABORIGEN es la madre patria de la cultura
Boricua...)

o si..???? Edited by LAX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Esto fue escrito antes de las elecciones:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nz...zNlNWNlOWMzOTc=

Thursday, October 02, 2008



Obama Supreme Court Candidate Sonia Sotomayor—Part 1 [Ed Whelan]


In the hope or illusion that America’s voters will soberly consider what is at stake in this presidential election, I continue my exploration of the sort of candidates that a President Obama can be expected to appoint to the Supreme Court. (My previous posts in the series are on Harold Koh, Parts 1 and 2, and Deval Patrick, Parts 1 and 2.)


Highlighting the emphasis on diversity over quality in judicial selection, Justice Scalia has joked that “the next nominee to the Court will be a female Protestant Hispanic”. Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor fits at least two-thirds of the description. Plus, she’s acquired a reputation as a very liberal judge. For these reasons, she’s widely mentioned as a leading Supreme Court candidate in an Obama administration.


A striking opinion this past June by highly regarded Second Circuit judge (and Clinton appointee) José Cabranes exposes some remarkable and disturbing shenanigans by Sotomayor. Cabranes’s opinion, joined by five of his colleagues (including Chief Judge Jacobs), dissented from his court’s narrow 7-6 denial of en banc rehearing in Ricci v. DeStefano. (Cabranes’s opinion begins on the ninth page of this Second Circuit order.)



In Ricci, 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter charged that New Haven city officials engaged in racially discriminatory practices by throwing out the results of two promotional exams. As Cabranes puts it, “this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”



The district judge, Janet Bond Arterton, issued a 48-page summary-judgment order ruling against the firefighters. Summarizing Arterton’s opinion, Cabranes clearly finds highly unusual that Arterton could grant summary judgment for the city officials notwithstanding her acknowledgement that the evidence was sufficient to enable a jury to find that the city officials “were motivated by a concern that too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted. Further, Cabranes finds it remarkable that such a “path-breaking opinion” was “nevertheless unpublished.”

On appeal, Cabranes’s account indicates, the judicial effort to bury the firefighters’ claims got worse. In a case in which the parties “submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages,” in which two amicus briefs were filed, and in which oral argument “lasted over an hour (an unusually long argument in the practice of our Circuit),” the panel, consisting of Sotomayor and fellow Clinton appointees Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack, “affirmed the District Court’s ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph”—which Cabranes quotes in full and which gives the reader virtually no sense of what the case is about. Four months later, just three days before Cabranes issued his opinion—and after the panel evidently knew that it had evaded en banc review—“the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court’s opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.” As Cabranes sums it up:



This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.



And then this killer understatement:



This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.



Cabranes and his five colleagues clearly believe that Sotomayor and her panel colleagues acted as they did in order to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them. Cabranes’s opinion expresses his “hope that the Supreme Court will resolve the issues of great significance raised by this case” and his judgment that plaintiffs’ claims are “worthy of [Supreme Court] review.”


Quite an indictment—by a fellow Clinton appointee, no less—of Sotomayor’s unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Y esto en Slate, un website que dista muchisimo :

http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/

The Sotomayor Mystery
Why didn't she explain herself in this year's big race case?
By Emily Bazelon
Updated Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 10:46 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is smart and sharp, and her formidable track record on the bench should put to rest any lingering doubts that she isn't. (Speaking of which: Why was the left, or at least the center, criticizing one of its own?) But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

Ricci is a hard case with bad facts—a case that could do serious damage to Title VII, one of Congress' landmark civil rights laws. In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven's black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like granting a driver's license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.

Faced with these complaints, which translated into both political and potential legal fallout in a city that is nearly 40 percent African-American, New Haven withdrew its test.* But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test.

The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed. The court heard argument in Ricci in April. New Haven didn't fare well.

The high court's decision in the case will come in June, before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. The problem for her will not be why she sided with New Haven over Frank Ricci. The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along. The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
politica.....esa es la razon....la sotmayor No es superwoman...!!! es Boricua!!!

la sotomayor...........hizo lo correcto....lo que ella creyo ser justo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
La sotomayor jugo a la politica para, como dice el articulo: "preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring" y Cabranes la llevo al patibulo que ella misma se erigio.

Si el examen se fabrico para darle entrada a las minorias, entonces los que pasaron debieron haber sido promovidos pues como dice el articulo: "But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test."

En otras palabras, segun Sonia, la XIV enmienda no te protege si eres blanco... Olvidate que la dislexia es una discapacidad, aqui lo importante es cuidarle la finquita a las minorias que llevan ya casi medio siglo beneficiandose de la discriminacion inversa o cuotas raciales. Cuando sera esta una sociedad de iguales si no sueltan la muleta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 10 2009, 03:29 PM) [snapback]2864021[/snapback]
La sotomayor jugo a la politica para, como dice el articulo: "preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring" y Cabranes la llevo al patibulo que ella misma se erigio.

Si el examen se fabrico para darle entrada a las minorias, entonces los que pasaron debieron haber sido promovidos pues como dice el articulo: "But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test."

En otras palabras, segun Sonia, la XIV enmienda no te protege si eres blanco... Olvidate que la dislexia es una discapacidad, aqui lo importante es cuidarle la finquita a las minorias que llevan ya casi medio siglo beneficiandose de la discriminacion inversa o cuotas raciales. Cuando sera esta una sociedad de iguales si no sueltan la muleta?


Hehehe! Este es el mismo argumento de los ignorantes de la ley y los reglamentos, intentando aplicar "sentido comun" en procedimeintos altamente estructurados de los que no saben un carajo.

Mira Charlie, que la decision de la jueza aparenta ser injusta, pues si, yo tambien estoy de acuerdo con eso.

Pero de nuevo, que la decision aparente ser injusta no significa que fuera la decision equivocada dentro de los margenes definidos por la letra de la ley.

Tu leiste la decision y los "briefs"? Los entendiste? Porque la pregunta que se presento ante Sotomayor et al. (porque no fue solo ella) era bien simple y clara. De hecho, no se porque tanto revolu con esa decision cuando la gran aprte de la

Anyway, este es el problema de gente "comun" analizando issue legales . . se creen que solo porque algo es "obvio" ya sin ton ni son es lo correcto legalmente . . . news-n-coffee.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Je,je,je,je... Ahora me salve yo con el Perry Mason baturro... Querras decir que quizas El Juez Cabranes y el Juez en jefe de ese circuito, que los dos le votaron en contra a Sotomayor en la decision de 6-5 estaran equivocados y que son unos "ignorantes de la ley y los reglamentos, intentando aplicar "sentido comun" en procedimeintos altamente estructurados de los que no saben un carajo"??? Por lo visto, y por lo que dice la nota, el caso ya se vio bajo la Corte Suprema y pareceria que los bomberos jinchos le deben ganar el caso a la Ciudad de New Haven en una decision a ser anunciada justo antes de que Sonia, "la caguana" tenga que ir a explicar su curriculum a el comite Judicial en las vistas congresionales. Le va a saber a chicharrones de sebo.

Disculpemne su eminecia gris de la tremenda corte de Cafe Boricua... Ja,ja,ja,ja... Me has hecho reir de lo lindo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html


MAY 29, 2009
A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny

By SUZANNE SATALINE, JESS BRAVIN and NATHAN KOPPEL
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.

The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

The ruling is now turning into perhaps the most contentious of the 4,000 Judge Sotomayor made in 17 years on the federal bench, and it is likely to come up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The justices whom she may soon join on the high court are expected to rule within weeks on the case, which they took on an appeal by white firefighters.




Attorney Karen Lee Torre, front left, in January at the federal courthouse in New Haven, Conn., with Frank Ricci, front right, lead plaintiff in the city firefighters' reverse-discrimination case.


Firefighters here said Thursday that court decisions so far have left bitterness in the department. Several men seeking a lieutenant's job gave up second jobs to devote themselves to studying, said their lieutenant.

"They know if they read the books and studied, it means more money in their pockets for the rest of their lives," said Lieutenant James Blakeslee, a 14-year veteran. "To Sotomayor, it didn't cost her a dime. It cost these guys a lifetime."

Company members said promotions could translate into annual salary boosts of several thousand dollars, as well as significantly more pension money.

A total of 118 applicants took the two tests for promotion to lieutenant or captain in late 2003, and 59 earned passing scores. Because there were limited vacancies, only the top scorers were eligible for promotion -- a group of 17 whites, and two Hispanics. None of the 27 black firefighters with passing scores was eligible.

New Haven city lawyers advised the city's Civil Service Board to reject the results, warning the city could be exposed to a race-discrimination lawsuit by minority firefighters if it let the exam stand. The board heard conflicting views on whether the test could have been re-engineered to have a less disparate impact. It split 2-2, which meant the exam wasn't certified.

Firefighters whose scores gave them a good chance at being promoted filed suit, alleging their rights had been violated under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution's equal protection clause. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, said he prepared exhaustively for the test and paid someone to record study materials so he could learn by listening.

At hearings in July 2006, the firefighters' lawyer, Karen Lee Torre, argued the city tossed the exams because elected officials were worried about losing support among black voters.

The city's attorney, Richard Roberts, denied the allegation. He said the city's only motive was avoiding a discrimination suit from minority firefighters. He noted during the trial that the independent Civil Service Board had made the decision.

U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, a Clinton appointee, ruled for the city. She concluded the city's effort to avoid discriminating against minority firefighters was "race neutral," because "all the test results were discarded, no one was promoted, and firefighters of every race will have to participate in another selection process."

The firefighters appealed her ruling and the case landed with a three-judge panel at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007.

In oral arguments, Judge Sotomayor dominated the questioning in her trademark aggressive style and tried to poke holes in the logic of both sides. At one point, in sharp questioning of Ms. Torre, the judge suggested it would make sense for the city to say, "Let's look at it and see if there's a better way of doing this."

"We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired," Judge Sotomayor told Ms. Torre at the argument's end. But "if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?"

Ultimately Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues, Robert Sack and Rosemary Pooler, upheld the district judge's decision with brief comments. They called the earlier ruling "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned." The full Second Circuit declined to rehear the case, prompting criticism from one of the circuit's judges, Jose Cabranes, who suggested the firefighters had been given short shrift.

Judge Cabranes said at the time that the panel had "failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal." On Thursday, he said, "It is in the nature of appellate judging that one disagrees from time to time with a colleague." He added that he was proud of Judge Sotomayor.

At Supreme Court oral arguments in April, Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed at the claim that rejecting the results was racially neutral. "It's neutral because you throw it out for the losers as well as for the winners?" he asked. "That's neutrality?"

Chief Justice John Roberts, who views with distaste nearly all racially conscious government actions, suggested that the city junked the results because people of the wrong race came out on top. Does the city "get do-overs until it comes out right?" he asked. The court's four solid conservatives appeared likely to get a fifth vote in Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has found race-conscious programs acceptable only if they don't target specific individuals.

The justice who seemed most sympathetic to New Haven's position was the man Justice Sotomayor would replace. New Haven was placed in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation," said Justice David Souter.

Back in New Haven, the promotions are on hold, and firefighters still debate whether the test was fair. One white firefighter who took the test said it was "as well-run as you possibly could have" and asked realistic questions about emergency situations.

Should the Supreme Court reverse the Second Circuit, the complaining firefighters would have a chance to prove their claim at trial.

—Evan Perez contributed to this article.
Write to Suzanne Sataline at suzanne.sataline@wsj.com, Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com and Nathan Koppel at nathan.koppel@wsj.com


Sounds to me as if the City's lawyer admitted that they were afraid of getting sued by disgruntled minorities, shich is not the same as actually discriminating aginst them... As Justice Roberts stated: the city junked the results because people of the wrong race came out on top. Does the city "get do-overs until it comes out right"?

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
That dago...Ricci ...can still be made in the Mafia ... make a career out of it and come on top. Is there EEO/AA in the Mafia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 11 2009, 12:57 AM) [snapback]2864063[/snapback]
Je,je,je,je... Ahora me salve yo con el Perry Mason baturro... Querras decir que quizas El Juez Cabranes y el Juez en jefe de ese circuito, que los dos le votaron en contra a Sotomayor en la decision de 6-5 estaran equivocados y que son unos "ignorantes de la ley y los reglamentos, intentando aplicar "sentido comun" en procedimeintos altamente estructurados de los que no saben un carajo"??? Por lo visto, y por lo que dice la nota, el caso ya se vio bajo la Corte Suprema y pareceria que los bomberos jinchos le deben ganar el caso a la Ciudad de New Haven en una decision a ser anunciada justo antes de que Sonia, "la caguana" tenga que ir a explicar su curriculum a el comite Judicial en las vistas congresionales. Le va a saber a chicharrones de sebo.

Disculpemne su eminecia gris de la tremenda corte de Cafe Boricua... Ja,ja,ja,ja... Me has hecho reir de lo lindo...



Nope, eso no es lo que digo . . .

Esa decision fue 6-5, tu prefieres creer que los que tenian la razon son dos de los 5 opositores, yo solo te digo que hubo 6 a favor.

Como te dije antes, la corte de apelaciones existe para aclarar situaciones dudosas. Y eso fue lo que hicieron, y la decision fue 6-5, como deberian ser todas las decisiones de corte de apelaciones, porque si la decision fuera unanime o aun abrumadora, entonces significa que ese caso nunca debio llegar a esa corte porque era algo que se caia de la amta.

Ninguno de los jueces que estan en la corte de apelaciones son unos pendejos, todos son juristas super preparados y conocedores de la ley, los reglamentos, y mas importante aun, las implicaciones "far and wide" de las decisiones que toman.

El punto es que tu, en tu ignorancia de los procedimientos legales (lo cual no tienen nada de malo admitir), discutes como si la decision fuera claramente equivocada, cuando la realidad innegable es que es un issue absolutamente "fuzzy". Y al fin y al cabo, no importa cuan apasionadas, inteligentes y extensas sean las opiniones juridicas en disension, siguen siendo opiniones de minoria.

Cuando la corte Suprema decida, pues esa sera la decision final y punto; y si la opinion de Sotomayor se decide como equivocada, pues great, dsde el punto de vista legal TIENE que ser asi porque la Corte Suprema lo decidio. Para eso esta la Corte Suprema. Pero no importa lo que decidan la realidad sigue siendo la misma, el issue no es algo que podamos decir que la solucion es obvia.

Nunca me contestaste, leistes la decision y los briefs?

Vamos por un momento a dejarnos de las meirdas personales que tanto nos entretienen, ok? Y vamos a pensar este caso de verdad . . . Dime que tu crees, una ciudad realiza pruebas para bomberos donde cada vez los resultados de las pruebas salen, en terminos raciales, bastante balanceados.
Un dia deciden "mejorar la prueba"; hacen una nueva y establecen una serie de protocolos apra determinar si la nueva prueba es neutral en terminos de raza, pero esos protocolos, por razones que no vienen al caso, nunca se completan.
Le dan la prueba a los participantes y resulta que, en un distrito donde los negros y los blancos salian siempre mas o menos iguales, ahora con la nueva prueba resulta que los blancos le comieron el culo bien brutal a los negritos. Tu no crees que eso al menos levanta la duda de que la prueba nueva no esta "racialmente balanceada", sobre todo cuando los protocolos nunca se completaron?

Dime, si tu fueras la ciudad esa, que hubieras hecho, certificar una prueba que todo indica esta "flawed" y asi abrir la puerta para que los negritos te demanden bajo Title IV, o decidir que la prueba no es validad (aun cuando entonces los blanquitos te van a poner exactamente la misma demanda)?

Huh? Que harias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno mi estimado chupatintas, dos de los 5 opositores son el Juez Cabranes y el juez en jefe del circuito. Ademas, 6-5 no es ningun gran endoso y una decision de un solo parrafo en un caso que gira en torno a la XIV enmienda no es algo para manejar de tal manera.

Ja,ja,ja,ja... Me vas a decir que no hay decisiones de apelaciones por unanimidad?

La gran diferencia es que tu achacas mi "ignorancia" a falta de entrenamiento, mientras que la tuya parece carecer de tal explicacion. Yo no es que lo discuta, sino que los medios estan especulando con alto grado de certidumbre que la Corte Suprema va a pasar por la piedra la decision de Ricci justo antes de las vistas de la niuyorican.

Que si lei la decision y los briefs???
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=...tefano%2C_et_al.


Aqui el punto, es que ya hay dos casos en que la aspirante a juez ha fallado en contra de gente caucasica con opiniones breves y un tanto "cavalier".

La Ciudad mando a hacer el examen. Entre los que pasaron hubo gente afroamericana, pero no estaban entre las mejores notas. De que demandarian a la ciudad es indudable porque esta el abogado charlatan y parasitico etnico al garete, pero si tomaron todas las providencias para hacer del examen uno justo, la misma no prevaleceria. La unica manera de acabar con el abuso de estos charlatanes es afrontando sus calumniosas demandas siempre y cuando se haya obrado en el marco de la ley... Aun cuando las cortees hoy dia estan atiborradas de jueces que se consideran los defensores del privilegio de las minorias cuya pereza escolar es auxiliada por el esquema de cuotas que les permite ingresar a entidades donde de otro modo no pueden, como fue el caso con la Sotmayor que admite que sus puntuaciones de examenes no estaban en la misma liga de sus companeros de universidad.

Given the asumption that the city did what it had to do to make the test "color-blind", I'd make them provethat the city acted in a discriminatory manner. In this case, it seems to have engaged in reverse discrimination in a fit of "sharpton-phobia".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 11 2009, 04:25 PM) [snapback]2864166[/snapback]
Bueno mi estimado chupatintas, dos de los 5 opositores son el Juez Cabranes y el juez en jefe del circuito. Ademas, 6-5 no es ningun gran endoso y una decision de un solo parrafo en un caso que gira en torno a la XIV enmienda no es algo para manejar de tal manera.

Ja,ja,ja,ja... Me vas a decir que no hay decisiones de apelaciones por unanimidad?


Ha! De nuevo diciendo que digo cosas que no digo . . .

Seguro que 6-5 no es un gran endoso! Acaso no has leido lo que escribo? Ese es el punto, que la mayoria de los decisiones de la Corte de Apelaciones deberian ser asi, porque ese tipo de decision es tipico de casos que no son ni "claramente correctos" ni "claramente incorrectos".

So, que me quieres decir? que como uno de los opositores es Cabranes y que el otro es jefe entonces se debio haber hecho lo que ellos dicen? Papo, la decision fue 6-5 y punto. ganaron los 6 . . los cinco perdieron y ya! Ahora pa' la corte Suprema.



CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 11 2009, 04:25 PM) [snapback]2864166[/snapback]
La gran diferencia es que tu achacas mi "ignorancia" a falta de entrenamiento, mientras que la tuya parece carecer de tal explicacion. Yo no es que lo discuta, sino que los medios estan especulando con alto grado de certidumbre que la Corte Suprema va a pasar por la piedra la decision de Ricci justo antes de las vistas de la niuyorican.


Para ti lo que digan los medios es lo que es . . . ok. Yo prefiero ver las cosas por mi mismo y formarme mi opinion . . .

CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 11 2009, 04:25 PM) [snapback]2864166[/snapback]
Que si lei la decision y los briefs???
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=...tefano%2C_et_al.
Aqui el punto, es que ya hay dos casos en que la aspirante a juez ha fallado en contra de gente caucasica con opiniones breves y un tanto "cavalier".

La Ciudad mando a hacer el examen. Entre los que pasaron hubo gente afroamericana, pero no estaban entre las mejores notas. De que demandarian a la ciudad es indudable porque esta el abogado charlatan y parasitico etnico al garete, pero si tomaron todas las providencias para hacer del examen uno justo, la misma no prevaleceria. La unica manera de acabar con el abuso de estos charlatanes es afrontando sus calumniosas demandas siempre y cuando se haya obrado en el marco de la ley... Aun cuando las cortees hoy dia estan atiborradas de jueces que se consideran los defensores del privilegio de las minorias cuya pereza escolar es auxiliada por el esquema de cuotas que les permite ingresar a entidades donde de otro modo no pueden, como fue el caso con la Sotmayor que admite que sus puntuaciones de examenes no estaban en la misma liga de sus companeros de universidad.

Given the asumption that the city did what it had to do to make the test "color-blind", I'd make them provethat the city acted in a discriminatory manner. In this case, it seems to have engaged in reverse discrimination in a fit of "sharpton-phobia".


Gracioso! Si son blancos los que demandan, es gente luchando por su derecho; pero si son negros losq ue demandan entonces son abogados charlatanes y parasiticos etnico al garete

En eso en bold esta la clave, y si hubieras leido los briefs en vez de estar opinando de la opinion de otros, sabrias que la ciudad no hizo eso . . . y por eso el resultado en si de la prueba es prima fascie de que habia algo nebuloso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sounds like a Hush Bimbaugh dittohead....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(Inegron @ Jun 11 2009, 03:39 PM) [snapback]2864169[/snapback]
Ha! De nuevo diciendo que digo cosas que no digo . . .

Seguro que 6-5 no es un gran endoso! Acaso no has leido lo que escribo? Ese es el punto, que la mayoria de los decisiones de la Corte de Apelaciones deberian ser asi, porque ese tipo de decision es tipico de casos que no son ni "claramente correctos" ni "claramente incorrectos".

So, que me quieres decir? que como uno de los opositores es Cabranes y que el otro es jefe entonces se debio haber hecho lo que ellos dicen? Papo, la decision fue 6-5 y punto. ganaron los 6 . . los cinco perdieron y ya! Ahora pa' la corte Suprema.
Para ti lo que digan los medios es lo que es . . . ok. Yo prefiero ver las cosas por mi mismo y formarme mi opinion . . .
Gracioso! Si son blancos los que demandan, es gente luchando por su derecho; pero si son negros losq ue demandan entonces son abogados charlatanes y parasiticos etnico al garete

En eso en bold esta la clave, y si hubieras leido los briefs en vez de estar opinando de la opinion de otros, sabrias que la ciudad no hizo eso . . . y por eso el resultado en si de la prueba es prima fascie de que habia algo nebuloso.


No es solo que fue una decision cerrada, sino que la opinion inicial, y no publicada, omitia los puntos mas salientes del caso.

No. Te quiero decir que porque es Cabranes, y el Juez que preside sobre el circuito, se le debe de dar algo mas de peso. En la Corte Suprema, parece que le fue bastante mal a la ciudad.

Sin importar el color, cuando a una persona se le deniega lo que se le dijo que se le daria a cambio de sus esfuerzos, esto es una falta grave. Lei la opinion y la ciudd habia contratado a una empresa para rendir una prueba que no premiara en base a las variables demograficas. El hecho que 17 afroamericanos pasaron el examen, pero no rindieron para lograr la promocion solo indica que los que mas estudiaron son los que mas avanzaron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 12 2009, 01:57 AM) [snapback]2864220[/snapback]
No es solo que fue una decision cerrada, sino que la opinion inicial, y no publicada, omitia los puntos mas salientes del caso.

No. Te quiero decir que porque es Cabranes, y el Juez que preside sobre el circuito, se le debe de dar algo mas de peso. En la Corte Suprema, parece que le fue bastante mal a la ciudad.


Ha! Claro, vamos a darle mas peso a los que te CONVIENE darle mas peso . . . Vamos entonces a eliminar el panel de jueces, y de ahora en adelante todo se decidira por lo que diga Cabranes . . .Si Charlei, si . . . Tremenda idea . . . hehehe!! hysterical.gif


CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 12 2009, 01:57 AM) [snapback]2864220[/snapback]
Sin importar el color, cuando a una persona se le deniega lo que se le dijo que se le daria a cambio de sus esfuerzos, esto es una falta grave. Lei la opinion y la ciudd habia contratado a una empresa para rendir una prueba que no premiara en base a las variables demograficas. El hecho que 17 afroamericanos pasaron el examen, pero no rindieron para lograr la promocion solo indica que los que mas estudiaron son los que mas avanzaron.


Ahora es que se ve que no leiste un carajo los briefs, y si lo hiciste no entendiste nada. Se contrato una compañia para diseñar la prueba y la diseñaron, pero nunca la probaron para certificar que era "race neutral".

Claro, lo que tu dices definitivamente puede ser cierto, quizas los negritos no estudiaron lo suficiente, eso nadie duda que es una alternativa muy valida y real. El problema es que no es la unica alternativa posible. Tambien es muy posible que la prueba no era neutral.

Es por no saberse cual de las alternativas es la correcta que Sotomayor Y LOS OTROS CINCO JUECES, afirmaron la decision de la corte inferior.

Tu te sigues llenando la boca diciendo que la Corte Suprema la va a dar reverse, pero ya veremos; el issue no es tan claro como tu te crees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
JA,ja,ja,ja,ja,ja.... Sigues con tu argucia de que e lcriterio de CAbranes y del juez presidente del circuito tienen la misma valia que el de Sotomayor... Quizas en un marco estrictamente numerico, si. Pero estamos hablando de dos lumbreras legales y no de ti o de mi. Ademas, la critica de Cabranes tenia mucho mas que ver con la falta de analisis de criterios centrales a la demanda.

No lo digo yo, sino que lo han dicho analistas mas serios que tu o yo. Pero tienes razon. La opinion saldra en visperas de la vista de su confirmacion y no dudo que dara mucho de que hablar. En vias de mientras, uno de los que la van a entrevistar se ha expresado sobre el tema de la aparente pereza intelectual de la jurista:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions wants more detail from Sotomayor
Posted by Mary Orndorff -- The Birmingham News June 10, 2009 5:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to provide more detail on her questionnaire Wednesday because some of her answers were incomplete.

"The least we can expect is complete and full answers," the Alabama Republican said.


Six other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee joined Sessions in his letter to Sotomayor.

Republicans also have complained that Senate Democrats set a July 13 hearing on Sotomayor's nomination over their objections. They say the schedule is too rushed for them to complete their investigation into her extensive record. Democrats counter that the timing is similar to that given for President George W. Bush's court nominees.

President Barack Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter submitted a huge portfolio of her work on June 6. But Sessions complained it left out too many key documents that were requested, such as material from when she was editor of the Yale Law Review.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that some of Sotomayor's work product is still being pulled from old files, such as from when she worked as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He said anything missing from the questionnaire will be provided.

Sessions also objected to Sotomayor's explanation that she couldn't give the committee reports and memoranda she wrote on court issues because they related to internal court deliberations and were not public.

Also among the 11 areas of concern for Republicans is Sotomayor's explanation about her membership in the Belizean Grove. The judge in her questionnaire said she didn't think the exclusively female organization "invidiously discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

Sotomayor also in several instances provided a general topic for speeches and lectures she gave, but not a detailed summary, as the committee requested if a full text was not available.

Jeff Sessions no es ningun pensuaco... Que se cuide la Sonia que la van a desnalgar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 12 2009, 11:08 AM) [snapback]2864263[/snapback]
JA,ja,ja,ja,ja,ja.... Sigues con tu argucia de que e lcriterio de CAbranes y del juez presidente del circuito tienen la misma valia que el de Sotomayor... Quizas en un marco estrictamente numerico, si. Pero estamos hablando de dos lumbreras legales y no de ti o de mi. Ademas, la critica de Cabranes tenia mucho mas que ver con la falta de analisis de criterios centrales a la demanda.


Es que eso es asi!! Es solo cuestion de numeros! Todos los jueces son lumbreras juridicas . . . news-n-coffee.gif

CITA(charlie319 @ Jun 12 2009, 11:08 AM) [snapback]2864263[/snapback]
No lo digo yo, sino que lo han dicho analistas mas serios que tu o yo. Pero tienes razon. La opinion saldra en visperas de la vista de su confirmacion y no dudo que dara mucho de que hablar. En vias de mientras, uno de los que la van a entrevistar se ha expresado sobre el tema de la aparente pereza intelectual de la jurista:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions wants more detail from Sotomayor
Posted by Mary Orndorff -- The Birmingham News June 10, 2009 5:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to provide more detail on her questionnaire Wednesday because some of her answers were incomplete.

"The least we can expect is complete and full answers," the Alabama Republican said.


Six other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee joined Sessions in his letter to Sotomayor.

Republicans also have complained that Senate Democrats set a July 13 hearing on Sotomayor's nomination over their objections. They say the schedule is too rushed for them to complete their investigation into her extensive record. Democrats counter that the timing is similar to that given for President George W. Bush's court nominees.

President Barack Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter submitted a huge portfolio of her work on June 6. But Sessions complained it left out too many key documents that were requested, such as material from when she was editor of the Yale Law Review.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that some of Sotomayor's work product is still being pulled from old files, such as from when she worked as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He said anything missing from the questionnaire will be provided.

Sessions also objected to Sotomayor's explanation that she couldn't give the committee reports and memoranda she wrote on court issues because they related to internal court deliberations and were not public.

Also among the 11 areas of concern for Republicans is Sotomayor's explanation about her membership in the Belizean Grove. The judge in her questionnaire said she didn't think the exclusively female organization "invidiously discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

Sotomayor also in several instances provided a general topic for speeches and lectures she gave, but not a detailed summary, as the committee requested if a full text was not available.

Jeff Sessions no es ningun pensuaco... Que se cuide la Sonia que la van a desnalgar.


Esto es un issue mas que nada politico, so, hay opiniones de un lado y de otro que nada tienen que ver con los hechos de este caso . . .

Ya veremos que decide el Supremo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0