Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
I haven't seen the test but I'm pretty confident it was a job knowledge test, similar to a test the military services use for promotion. How about the people who perform the best on the test get promoted, regardless of race. Period. If I'm the CIty of New Haven, I'll fight a lawsuit saying the test was racially biased if I know I've done my due diligence and the test is not biased.
|
You assume we're all on equal footing. I haven't seen the test either so I can't make an argument for it or against it. I will say this though, if the test was all physical the result would be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
I don't think she's a servant of the SCOTUS and no one's acting "high and mighty". All I'm saying is if her court's ruling is overturned by the SCOTUS by anything other than 5-4, her "legal reasoning" will be called into question.
|
Perhaps but lets be honest, she is merely disagreeing with other judges and it's hard to imagine a judge that hasn't disagreed with other judges. That line of attack is easily rebutted and pretty worthless if you don't mind me saying so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
I've read the book and the whole premise is that Federal judges shouldn't be making policy they should be interpreting laws and settling cases based on law, not what their political agendas are or what they think is the "empathetic" thing to do.
|
I know, my point was that SC has always been filled with political ideologues and empathetic people who make policy. Levin's opinion not withstanding SC judges can do whatever the hell they want. The Constitution places no limits upon what they can or can't do beyond conducting themselves ethically.