Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
If white firefighters didn't bring up a lawsuit black firefighters would have. Clearly there's a reason why the courts exist. I can make the argument that fire fighting doesn't require a test beyond how to use your equipment, what to do in certain situations and how to climb up ladders.
|
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.
Quote:
|
You act like she's a servant of the SCOTUS and should therefore think like SC judges. Her job is to discriminate between cases and obviously she has a disagreement with what judges in the SC deemed a case worth looking at. Let's not act high and mighty either, you got Robers and Alito who are fresh arrivales from the Court of Appeals.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Federal judges do make policy, they're just not suppose to call it policy. Judicial ruling sounds much more pleasant to the ear but what is it really? What do you think the SC does? Thumbs up and thumbs down on policy is policy creation! Even my boy Mark Levin knows this.
|
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.