The "wise latina" Sotomayor

[DaShi]

Oerdin, lets have a run down of the terms, shall we?

Socialist: a member of the Socialist party; the theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

Liberal: someone who favors progress or reform, as in political or religious. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant; open minded; not literal interpretation but in fact liberal interpretation; a person of liberal views

Liberalism: The quality or state of being liberal; a political and social philosophy advocating individual freedom and protection of civil liberties.

Conservative: a person who preserves existing conditions, institutions, or to restore traditional ones; cautious, moderate; traditional

Independent: thinking or acting for oneself; not depending or contingent upon something else; a person who votes without regard to the party affiliation of candidates

Now these are literal definitions, the interpretation and action of the 2 parties are not always so cut and dry as definitions are.

Simply wow. You are extremely naive and full of yourself. Being an independent by your definition does not exclude you from being a liberal or conservative. That you further list liberalism and not conservatism in there only shows that you have some personal issues with liberal thought and are not in the middle.

The reason liberals are associated with socialism, in my perspective, is that the majority of liberal ideals are in parallel with socialist ideals. As follows, universal health care, government control of business, control of education, taxation differentiated by class (more for upper), government sponsored programs for under privileged citizens.

That's faulty logic. That's like saying an elephant is the same as a donkey because they are both grey.

Conservatives are in conflict of those ideals, also known as radicals by some.

You seem to have no clue what you are talking about. Radicals are people on either extreme of the spectrum.

I am in the middle, as I agree with somethings of both sides and do not make my vote based on party affiliation.

You are no where near the middle. You are strictly a conservative by your own claims and definitions. You may try to convince yourself that you are above party politics, but you will vote republican regardless because you support primarily the same conservative ideals of that party. That does not make you any more independent than a hippie voting for Nader.

And also, there literally are socialist in America. American Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality Party, and Progressive Labor Party to name a few. Not all active, but goes to show there are socialists in the US. Biden is actually associated as a socialist, more so fascist though.

This is your biggest problem. You can't form cogent thoughts. The existance of socialists in America has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Since it is hard to believe that anyone this clueless and naive. . .damn I forgot about Sloww. Maybe you aren't a DL.

[Dinner]

Socialist: a member of the Socialist party; the theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

Wrong. Communism is where all means of production is owned collectively. Socialism is where certain key industries needed for the national good or for national security are owned by the state. Typically this is primarily heavy industry especially the arms and automotive industries or associated industries important to the other two (like the steel industry). France in the 1950's is an excellent example of socialism where key industry leaders were made into "national titans" which were government owned (like Renault in the auto industry) but several smaller privately owned companies also existed (Peugeot, Citroen). Sweden used to own Volvo, the state of Lower Saxony (in Germany) still owns 20.1% of VW, Jaguar & Land Rover used to be part of British Leyland which was owned by the British Government, etc...

[Zevico]

Oerdin, the distinction you make between state ownership of the means of production as 'communism', and state ownership of certain industries as 'socialism', is debatable. Mostly because the two terms have taken on more or less the same meaning. Don't base your disagreement on rhetorical differences.

[Dinner]

I'm basing it on what my Political Science teacher told me back in college. It's a matter of degrees.

Unless of course you think 1950's France was the same as the Soviet Union or China in the late 1950's but if you do then you're insane.

[Zevico]

You know what? This is like an idiot's convention. I'm not going to address the idiocy that emerged in this thread, because it would be pointless. I am going to try to put it back on topic, just a little bit.

Firstly, the fireman's case. The facts are that the relevant legal authority (the "authority") for the promotion of firemen ignored the results of a promotion test and decided to hold another test. It did so because it feared that the black firemen would take issue with its validity. No black firemen had passed the test whereas other black firemen had passed other promotion tests in different areas of the State. The plaintiffs were fireman who passed the promotion test. They included a number of white candidates, as well as one hispanic candidate. They argued that the state had discriminated against white candidates by refusing to follow the results of the test.

Relevant questions for that case include:

1. Does the authority have power to disregard the results of a test of a promotion, or to reissue the test?
2. If so, on what grounds?
3. If grounds include 'fear of legal action in respect of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act', then the State acted legally.
4. HOWEVER, the authority acts illegally if, in spite of (1)-(3) being resolved in favour of the authority, the authority has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 by ignoring the result of the test.
5. FURTHER, the authority acts illegally if, in spite of (1)-(4), it has violated the 'Equal Protection' clause of the American Constitution.

The defendant, the plaintiff, and the court appear to have assumed at all times that issues (1)-(3) were resolved in favour of the relevant legal authority. That is, leaving aside certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause, the relevant legal authority was empowered to ignore the results of its own test in accordance with the requirements of State law. I congratulate Zakubandit for picking on the issues utterly irrelevant to this case--the authority's power to ignore its own test results--and stating that they were determinative, and ought to have been decided differently by the court.

Questions (4) and (5) were resolved in favour of the authority by the trial judge. Sotamayor and her colleagues agreed with the trial judge for the reasons he gave.

More, including plaintiffs' and defendants' arguments, available here: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?...Stefano,_et_al.

Trial judge's opinion, followed by the 2nd circuit opinion (including the 6 member dissent) available here:

http://www.rbs0.com/ricci.pdf

Now, off you go everyone. Read the judgements, come up with your own opinions. Pencils down in 3 hours.

[Zevico]

Lastly, I should point out that Sotamayor and her colleagues agreed with the trial judge's reasons whilst another judge gave his own opinion, agreeing with them. Judge Parker says in reference to the dissentient criticism of Sotamayor (please note, DinoDoc):
[/quote]
The adherence of a Court of Appeals to the decision and reasoning of a district court is anything but novel. In fact, the practice pre-dates the formal establishment of this Court in 1891 by at least fifty years. United States v. Libellants & Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 590, 15 Pet. 518, 10 L.Ed. [Cite as: 530 F.3d at 92] 826 (1841) (“The Circuit Court, by a mere pro forma decree, affirmed the decree of the [Connecticut] District Court.... And from that decree the present appeal has been brought to this Court.”). This Court has followed this practice on numerous occasions in appeals covering myriad issues. See, e.g., In re Bankers Trust Co., 450 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam); Murphy ex rel. Estate of Payne v. United States, 427 F.3d 158, 159 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); In re Red Dot Scenic, Inc., 351 F.3d 57, 58 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam); United States v. Gluzman, 154 F.3d 49, 50 (2d Cir.1998);
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Sinicropi, 84 F.3d 116, 116 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 949, 117 S.Ct. 360, 136 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996).
The plaintiffs were entitled to a careful and thoughtful review of their claims. The panel
decided that the district court had given them just that, and thus adopted the district court's reasoning in its per curiam opinion. Nothing more is required. [/quote]

That said, I haven't read the full reasons of the dissentient side, or the trial judge's reasons, and I don't pretend to understand the case law on either Civil Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause. Plus, exams. Plus, I know this is a waste of time. Plus, sleep. Gnight.

[zakubandit]

Thanks Zev for more info on the subject at start.