Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 72

Thread: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

  1. #19
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by matclone View Post
    The appellate court did hear the case, as did the district court case before that. With respect to Sotomayer, the present case shows, at the least, that it was closely contested at the Supreme Ct level, and that the lower court majorities sided with her view. To claim that this shows poor judgment on her part means that you would logically also find poor judgment by the many judges who sided with her at the District, Appeal, and Supreme Ct level. But you won't, cause you haven't been told to think that way. Also, it's quite clear you haven't a clue what judges really do other than decide cases. But you're all ready to dismiss them (well, certain ones anyway) as having poor judgment.
    Sotomayor and her fellow judges on the Ricci case did not hear the case ( I dont believe). They recieved the case and issued a summary order (one paragragh) agreeing with the lower court denying a rehearing. If they had actualy took the time to comb over the case and issue a more detailed and complete ruling this matter might have never made it to the supreme court. If it had there would have been a better base for the judges to go on. The Supreme court issued nearly 100 pages in decision and decent, the District court (sorry I said appelet before) could only muster a paragraph. Her cases have been before the SC 7 times and overturned 5 71% failure.

    Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court (this is from CNN)

    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009

    • Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)



    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

    • Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)


    • Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
    • Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)


    • Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

    • Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)


    • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

    • Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)


    • Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

    • Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)


    • Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)


    • Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

  2. #20

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Chance174 said:

    Do you see how Spider responded to his statement and the way you responded? Same general response but he wasn't being an asshole like you.

    To insult someone by saying they only think the way they are told is low even for you.


    Messageboards aren't for kindergarteners......
    Your ignorance is painful to witness.....

  3. #21

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by Black-n-Red View Post

    Messageboards aren't for kindergarteners......
    Pointing out that how someone can disagree without being insulting and/or being an ass isn't acting like a kindergartener. You are right though I could have formulated my response better. That being said if you think that is acting like kindergarteners then you should take some of your own advice.

  4. #22

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    OK (sigh), I'll explain it more simply for you, Chance.

    You, somehow, are more offended by someone (Matclone, in this instance) implying that another poster (UGLY) believes everything they read from certain ideological viewpoints.

    In response to said offense, you call someone (Matclone) an "asshole".

    Now, please explain to me what any normal person might find more offensive (or childish) on a messageboard??????

    NOTE* If I was going to respond like a kindergartener, I would have squawked about your name-calling of Matclone but I didn't because I'm pretty sure Matclone's ego is safe from your personal attacks. Thus, there is no need for me to go charging in to defend Matclone because, being the big boy that he is, he can handle himself on here.
    Last edited by Black-n-Red; 06-30-2009 at 10:06 AM.
    Your ignorance is painful to witness.....

  5. #23

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Interesting reaction to ruling in my area.....

    Supreme Court ruling could make fire department diversity difficult

    By Tom Kertscher of the Journal Sentinel
    Posted: Jun. 29, 2009


    <!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- Begin HTML Module -->Related Coverage

    <!-- End HTML Module -->

    <!--endclickprintexclude-->A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a reverse discrimination case shouldn't stymie fire departments that are seeking to diversify their ranks, but it could make such efforts more difficult, Milwaukee-area attorneys said Monday.
    Some fire departments in suburban Milwaukee County - which have only one African-American among their 600 firefighters - have said they are trying to attract more minority applicants.
    The high court ruled 5-4 Monday that the fire department in New Haven, Conn., committed reverse discrimination against white firefighters by deciding to throw out the results of tests it used in deciding promotions.
    The city said it threw out the results because no African-Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions.
    Jeff Hynes, co-chair of the Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association, said the decision does not mean fire departments can fail to employ minority firefighters.
    "Employers who interpret this decision as giving them the green light not to diversify do so at their own peril," he said.
    But Hynes, who represents employees, also said that Monday's ruling is evidence that a reverse-discrimination lawsuit like that in the New Haven case stands a better chance of succeeding today than it would have 15 to 20 years ago.
    "My hope is that this decision in no way slows down the monumental challenge we have in our community in developing more diverse workforces, particularly our local fire departments," he said.
    A Journal Sentinel survey in May found that only one African-American, with the West Allis Fire Department, is among the more than 600 firefighters who work in the Milwaukee County suburbs.
    Your ignorance is painful to witness.....

  6. #24

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    It has been pointed out that her decision was in accordance with existing law and this SC decision rewrote the law.
    Damn activist judges!
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  7. #25

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I think that it is clear that the court is split along conservative and liberal tendencies. It doesn't matter who appointed them.
    I think the court has some members that are liberal relative to the other judges and some that are conservative relative to the other judges, the key is that it's all relative. I'm sure some people would argue that the court is split between the super liberal and the somewhat conservative while others would argue it's split between the slightly liberal and uber-conservative.

    For example, the judge who's currently considered the 'swing vote' (Kennedy maybe?) was one of the more conservative judges when he was appointed, now he's the moderate. Have his viewes changed in that time? or has the court gotten more conservative?
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  8. #26
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    Sotomayor and her fellow judges on the Ricci case did not hear the case ( I dont believe). They recieved the case and issued a summary order (one paragragh) agreeing with the lower court denying a rehearing. If they had actualy took the time to comb over the case and issue a more detailed and complete ruling this matter might have never made it to the supreme court. If it had there would have been a better base for the judges to go on.
    Like I said, you have no idea what judges do. Where you came up with this crap I don't know, but I can guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY
    Her cases have been before the SC 7 times and overturned 5 71% failure.
    Is 5 of 7 statistically relevant? What is the ratio of appellate decisions that are overturned by the Supreme Ct? [blank]. How about the cases where the Supreme Court denies a writ of certiori, i.e., that that they decide they just aren't going to hear, thereby upholding the appellate decision? (most end up this way). How many of Sotomayor's cases fall into this category? [blank] Does the fact a decision gets overturned make the lower court (wait, your condemnation is not for the lower courts or their judges, just for a certain judge), make a certain judge a poor judge? It's obvious you haven't thought about these things. You're ready to condemned someone's life work, someone who's work you're not familar with--because someone else told you that's how you should think.
    Last edited by matclone; 06-30-2009 at 12:08 PM.

  9. #27
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: US SCt Rules for Ricci; against City of New Haven

    Quote Originally Posted by Chance174 View Post
    Do you see how Spider responded to his statement and the way you responded? Same general response but he wasn't being an asshole like you.

    To insult someone by saying they only think the way they are told is low even for you.
    You're right, I can be an asshole, especially when someone makes false or misleading claims in an attempt to demean someone else. My sense of justice and fair play somehow gets aroused. Silence would be consent. So I comment.

    In this case I heard one too many insults directed against a high court judge (Sotomayor). You guys like to think of yourselves as conservatives but you show little or no respect for those who have worked their way to high positions, which seems pretty anti-conservative to me. And so conservative appears to be nothing more than a label to hang your hat one--a choosing of sides if you will.
    Last edited by matclone; 06-30-2009 at 12:11 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •