Werthless wrote:Louisiana legislature... attacking the world's problems. (Hurricane Chris commemoration starts at 4:30, rap at 6:30)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=jpEdJ_tlX2A&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm very pleased that the court struck a blow for whitey today.

“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action.
...
Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and the four members of the court’s conservative wing, said the case required the court to try to reconcile two aspects of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment.

The “original, foundational” core of Title VII, Justice Kennedy wrote, prohibits intentional discrimination against individuals on the basis of race — “disparate treatment,” in the legal jargon. But the law also prohibits some seemingly neutral practices that have a “disparate impact” on members of racial groups.

Many of the plaintiffs in the case — 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic — studied intensively for the test, giving up second jobs and missing family celebrations. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, said he studied for 8 to 13 hours a day, hiring an acquaintance to tape-record the study materials.
...
But the majority did not rule out consideration of disparate impact altogether. Employers may consider potential racial impact “during the test-design stage,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

And, in “certain, narrow circumstances” after tests are given, he continued, employers may discard the results if they can demonstrate “a strong basis in evidence” that using the results would cause them to lose a disparate-impact suit.
...
Justice Ginsburg wrote that there was a long history of race discrimination in firefighting. She added that people good at taking tests were not necessarily the best leaders in public safety emergencies.

In her statement from the bench, Justice Ginsburg said the firefighters who sued “understandably attract the court’s empathy.” (In her written dissent, she said the plaintiffs “attract this court’s sympathy.”)

Justice Alito, in his dissent, said that was not enough.

“ ‘Sympathy’ is not what petitioners have a right to demand,” Justice Alito wrote. “What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law — of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.”

I am just trying to put feelers out there on the people that I respect and know well that voted for Pres.Obama

Don't feel like you have to respond to this, but I actually respected Bush a ton respected his stance on his non-wavering in times of trial, but for me it just goes to show how biased the media is and how they can sway the public. Guys, I know some of you don't like this stuff, but this makes me curious, because "if" I voted for him I would sense entitlement to him. Are we still in full favor of him as you were when you voted or are you still saying that he needs more time? We have an Iranian possible president who is not in favor of him and a North Korea that would not anything else at this point than to eradicate us from the planet because of the stance we take in the U.N.
the world partied it up when he was elected, i am just wondering if that "change" is happening that everyone wanted and everyone is still partying it up for Obama and "change"?
I don't ever want to sound like a jerk or pessimistic person, but this is the country that I live, love and would die for if it ever came to that, I just want to be the best steward possible of it.

Here are some simple things so far though
Obama so far -

1.) If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

2.) If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

3.) If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

4.) If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

5.) If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

6.) If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

7.) If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

8.) If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

9.) If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

10.) If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

11.) If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?



So, tell me again what makes Obama so much like a "god" and Bush so much like a dunce and its only been 5 months.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm very pleased that the court struck a blow for whitey today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30 ... f=business

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, said he studied for 8 to 13 hours a day, hiring an acquaintance to tape-record the study materials.

CalvinBall wrote:A friend just sent me this email. Should I even respond?

I am just trying to put feelers out there on the people that I respect and know well that voted for Pres.Obama

Don't feel like you have to respond to this, but I actually respected Bush a ton respected his stance on his non-wavering in times of trial, but for me it just goes to show how biased the media is and how they can sway the public. Guys, I know some of you don't like this stuff, but this makes me curious, because "if" I voted for him I would sense entitlement to him....


....So, tell me again what makes Obama so much like a "god" and Bush so much like a dunce and its only been 5 months.

Last week Democrats were able to pass a politically treacherous cap-and-trade bill out of the House. The Democratic leaders were able to let 44 members vote no and still bribe/bully/cajole enough of their colleagues to get a win. This was an impressive achievement, and a harbinger for health care and other battles to come.

But the new approach comes with its own shortcomings. To understand them, we have to distinguish between two types of pragmatism. There is legislative pragmatism — writing bills that can pass. Then there is policy pragmatism — creating programs that work. These two pragmatisms are in tension, and in their current frame of mind, Democrats often put the former before the latter.
...
The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.

When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

Why? (I mean, why can't we fix all these problems, and why are we unable to overcome the "massively powerful private interests or ideological campaigns based in cynicism and the pursuit of power.")

I think we're $#@! because we rely on a structurally flawed system to try to solve society's problems.

David Brooks wrote:When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense..

jerseyhoya wrote:

David Brooks wrote:When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

David Brooks wrote:When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

You didn't quote what brooks wrote, and what you quoted is not humorous in & of itself, so if you're making a joke here, it's kinda hard to follow

CalvinBall wrote:A friend just sent me this email. Should I even respond?

I am just trying to put feelers out there on the people that I respect and know well that voted for Pres.Obama

Don't feel like you have to respond to this, but I actually respected Bush a ton respected his stance on his non-wavering in times of trial, but for me it just goes to show how biased the media is and how they can sway the public. Guys, I know some of you don't like this stuff, but this makes me curious, because "if" I voted for him I would sense entitlement to him....


....So, tell me again what makes Obama so much like a "god" and Bush so much like a dunce and its only been 5 months.

The irony of using Ricci against Sotomayor has always been that the reason this case resonates for so many people is due to empathy for the white firefighters. That irony is underscored by today's ruling, as Justice Kennedy devotes multiple paragraphs at the beginning of his opinion to highlighting all of the facts (as opposed to legal arguments) which make people sympathetic to Ricci. Conversely, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, noted upfront that the white firefighters "understandably attract this Court's sympathy," but it must be the law -- i.e., long-standing legal precedent and the purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- which determines the outcome.

From the start, those protesting Sotomayor's decision in Ricci did so by appealing not to law, but to emotion, non-legal precepts of "fairness" and empathy -- at the very same time that those very same people mocked the notion that those considerations should play any role in judicial decision-making.

(3) For all the chatter about "judicial activism" and that dreadful Roberts metaphor of "a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes," it is so striking how frequently conservative judges invalidate policies which conservatives dislike as a political matter. Here we have the conservative wing of the Court declaring illegal the employment decisions of local government officials, who used a political approach -- diversity -- which conservatives dislike on policy grounds. So often, the outcomes of the allegedly neutral conservative judges are completely consistent with (and aggressively advance) the political preferences of conservatives (Bush v. Gore being only the most obvious example). Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise -- the true test for whether one applies the law independently of political and outcome preferences.

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe, but I'm pretty sure it's Arlen Specter's fault somehow that we're getting these politically viable mismashes that don't make sense.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm very pleased that the court struck a blow for whitey today.