The Ricci Case
By PoliPundit ~ May 29th, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
One of the most significant issues in the Sotomayor nomination is the Ricci case, where white firefighters were discriminated against.
You can draw your own conclusions by reading the “unusually terse” appellate opinion (which Sotomayor participated in), and the District Court’s opinion, which it affirmed.
Subscribe to blog feed.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
High courtSHOULD overturn ricci case.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Sotomayor is on record that says judges make policy and not interpret the law. So now we have a so called conservative blog that doesn’t want the legislature and President to make policies.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
General David Petraeus says U.S.A. violated Geneva convention.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Only thing is that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply in the GWOT since the opposition isn’t in unforms.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
acroso, is Al Qaeda a signatory to the Geneva Convention? In addition, isn’t Al Qaeda in violation of the Geneva Convention since they have gone so far as to behead US POWs? Of course all of us here expect for you to show some outrage about Al Qaeda’s treatment of US POWs.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Of course all of us here expect for you to show some outrage about Al Qaeda’s treatment of US POWs.~~~no oakleaf
Don’t hold your breath
May 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
acroso’s silence regarding this matter is deafening.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Well if Bush-Cheney is responsible for breaking Geneva conventions, should they be punished?
May 30th, 2009 at 6:42 am
are
May 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I insists that they haven’t broken the Geneva Convention. Non-uniformed enemy combatants (like Al Qaeda) are classed as spies and saboteurs by the Geneva Convention, and as such are not afforded the privileges that would be applied to honorable soldiers who fight in accordance with the rules of war (e.g. having open arms, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, etc.).
acroso, you are just a reactionary. You have constantly railed about Geneva Convention violations but you (including many others) have no idea about what’s in the Geneva Convention.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am
acroso,
Should we prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed under the Geneva Convention for beheading Daniel Pearl? Water boarding isn’t pleasant but it beats the hell out decapitation.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
JSP-
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Geneva convention does apply to the noncombatants. Even if it didn’t, we have a more expansive U.S. war crimes act of 1996 that would apply even if Geneva didn’t. Third, General Patraeus thinks we did violate Geneva so we wouldn’t have to worry about the second point.
As for your question No give him a jury trial. The war on terror is not a “war.”
May 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
U. S. Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal, too.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html
So what’s your point? Just because the court rules one way doesn’t make them right. I suppose that you endorse the Kelo decision as well.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Ok then skip what the S.C. thinks since you don’t agree with the way our law is interpreted , and just look at it from a moral grounds.
Why was Bush torturing people?
May 31st, 2009 at 3:00 am
Back to the Ricci case. Court decisions such as the 2nd Circuit’s in Ricci are how Clarence Thomas has gotten everything he has: by discriminating against people who were qualified for academic and professional advancement for which Thomas was NOT qualified but received anyway solely because of his race. Until Conservatism admits that Thomas is a racist, Conservatism will not be able to overturn affirmative action.
In short, Frank Ricci should blame Clarence Thomas for the discrimination Frank Ricci has suffered.
May 31st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Bush’s rationale for “torturing” terrorist suspects was to retrieve information that would prevent future terrorist attacks. Think of it this way. Do you consider being decapitated torture? Do you consider being incinerated torture? Do you consider being blown up torture? Do you believe that the people in the WTC who initially survived the planes crashing into the building who later jumped to their deaths because of their inability to breath due to the heavy smoke were tortured? I do. So, the rationale for “torturing” terrorist is the prevent the future torture that they will commit towards others.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Acorso,
Two questions…First, cite the law that was violated by waterboarding? Second, why, being a communist, are you posting on these boards?
May 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Ok then skip what the S.C. thinks since you don’t agree with the way our law is interpreted ”
I guess that you favor slavery now, too.
May 31st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Let’s go back to when FDR had the Japanese in internment camps. The Supreme Court ruled that legal, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
So now I suppose that you would want all the Muslims in internment camps from 911 onward.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
What?
No thread about the murder of Dr Tiller?
May 31st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
JSP – wrong since Clarence Thomas got appointed to the Supreme Court job. No one can apply for that job since it is a political appointment. If you say that Clarence Thomas got his job by affirmative action, then I’m claiming that the Annointed One got the Presicency by affirmative action as well. Plus I can claim that Eric holder was an affirmative action political appointment as well since there are better lawyers out there as well.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Gracious information, umpteen thanks to the author. It is inexplicable to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelming. Very much thanks again and goodluck!