Supreme Court backs white firefighters in bias case - Page 3

Kolo · July 3rd, 2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

The only thing she clearly is, is qualified.

As for playing the game, you do have blinders don't you. I suppose you think Bush's appointees are were all middle of the road moderates [the rest of us don't]

I didn't say the GOP should try to prevent her from being confirmed--I've said before on this board that Obama could have done far worse, and Sotomayor ought to be confirmed--although not until after the GOP takes a pound of flesh.

And I've never tried to downplay on this board that I'm a conservative. And I knew at the time Alito and Roberts are unabashed conservatives, which I why I thought and still think they were great choices.

wallyburger · July 4th, 2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulli

I have not read it, but I tend to agree with the decision. Seeing that it was a 5-4 decision, I don't get how Sotomayor could be really that "out of touch."

I am not saying the 5-4 vote was rigged, but it does seem that the slim margin won't piss the losers off as much as 9-0 would? It also saves one of the future Justices ( Soto ) enshrinement.

wallyburger · July 4th, 2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedStorm

I have a different question that may take this thread elsewhere....

Nidan brought up the following..

My question is on testing and my lack of understanding at how a minority can score lower on a test when everyone studies the same material, take the same tests, and have multiple choice questions. Can someone explain the biases or percievied bias of tests? What about verbal versus written?

The worms are stampeding out of your can. Close the lid.

wallyburger · July 4th, 2009, 04:58 AM

BTW, most Departments are requiring firefighters to also be Paramedics and or EMTs. It ain't just a matter of extinguishing fires with learned skills, it is about saving lives through trauma and emergency medical training. Bonus exam points for non discriminatory exclusion reasons don't help save lives. It is knowledge and the application that does.

Kolo · July 4th, 2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

I am not saying the 5-4 vote was rigged, but it does seem that the slim margin won't piss the losers off as much as 9-0 would?

Only as to those who don't read and/or don't understand the ruling. Like every single media outlet I've seen report it.

wallyburger · July 10th, 2009, 07:05 AM

Just another wart?

Quote:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Denied My Appeal and I Spent 16 Years in Prison For a Crime I Didn't Commit

By Jeffrey Deskovic, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2009.

Sotomayor put procedure over innocence as a federal judge.

My name is Jeffrey Deskovic. At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, a conviction that was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by a medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later -- almost three years ago -- when DNA evidence proved my innocence, while also identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. Since my release, I have made it my life's mission to battle against wrongful convictions and fight for legislation that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else. It is this fight that compels me to speak out about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Before I was exonerated, I sought out every legal avenue I could to win my freedom. I defended my innocence before the New York Appellate Division, raising such proof as the fact that the physical evidence found did not match me and arguing that the police violated my rights by coercing a false confession from me at the age of 16. The court ruled against me 5 to 0, concluding that there was nothing wrong with my interrogation and stating that there was "overwhelming evidence of guilt," despite the fact that there was no evidence beyond my forced confession. In truth, the DNA and the hairs found on the victim's body were evidence of my innocence.

When my lawyer was denied a chance to reargue the case on the grounds that the court's decision ran counter to the law and to the facts, we moved to the Court Of Appeals, the highest court in New York. I filed a Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in which I argued that my conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The year was 1997. The year before, Congress had passed Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism-Effective-Death-Penalty Act (often called AEDPA in legalese), which mandated that from then on, all state prisoners would have only one year to appeal to a federal court after being denied an appeal by their state's highest court. As a result, there was some confusion in the federal courts regarding the filing procedure; it was not clear how this new law would apply to cases already in the system. Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.

Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seized on the late petition, arguing that the court should dismiss my case without even considering my innocence claim. The court sided agreed. I then appealed my case to the 2nd Circuit. It was there that I first met Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

My lawyer gave three reasons why Judge Sotomayor and her colleague should overturn the procedural ruling: 1) Upholding such a ruling would cause a miscarriage of justice to continue; 2) Reversing the procedural ruling could open the door to more sophisticated DNA Testing; 3) The late petition was not my fault or my attorney's. To our dismay, Judge Sotomayor and her colleague refused to reverse the ruling. "The alleged reliance of Deskovic's attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance," they wrote. "Similarly, we are not persuaded that … his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit." A second appeal to Sotomayor's court resulted in the same decision. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case, and I remained in prison for six more years.

When I first learned that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was immediately alarmed. What would it mean for other people who were wrongfully convicted? Judge Sotomayor put procedure over innocence in my case. Could she be trusted not to do so again in the future? Could she be counted on to correct injustices when the facts indicated that and/or the legal arguments could demonstrate that a trial was unfair?

Judge Sotomayor condemned me to serve a life sentence for a murder and rape that I did not commit. That other innocent people could be denied relief based on procedural technicalities is no mere possibility; Take the case of Troy Davis, who faces execution in Georgia despite overwhelming proof of his innocence -- proof that has never been allowed in a court room. Consider, too, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alaska V.S. Osbourne, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that no prisoner has a constitutional right to access DNA Testing even when such testing could demonstrate innocence. That decision came down to a 5 to 4 vote; if Judge Sotomayor had been on the court, can anybody say with confidence that she would have voted in favor of DNA access?

There are human consequences to these decisions. I can still see the prison cell, the barbed wire, the isolation from my family, the depression, helplessness, frustration, abuse by prison guards, the constant physical danger in prison, no opportunities to build for my future, missing births, deaths, and holidays. We need to awaken this country to the role that judges play in perpetuating wrongful convictions by putting procedure over innocence, by putting finality of conviction over accuracy, and by rubber stamping appeal denials regardless of whether a trial was truly fair.

Judge Sotomayor will appear before the Senate next week. Given that she has been nominated to a lifetime appointment that affects all of our rights, what she did in my case -- condemning me to a life sentence based on procedure in the face of an airtight innocence claim -- should be part of the discussion. I want my case to be a part of the national discussion. I want Senators to ask Judge Sotomayor if she stands by her ruling, and whether she would rule that way in the future. If I could I would testify at the Senate confirmation hearing, about the human impact of Judge Sotomayor's putting procedure over innocence. Thus far, however, I have gotten no response from either side on Capitol Hill.

It is deeply dismaying that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have introduced my case to the national conversation about Judge Sotomayor. Do people remember Anita Hill? As serious as her allegations of sexual harassment were, I would think that my serving time in prison wrongfully and being condemned to a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent of would be even more serious. Why does Judge Sotomayor continue to ignore this story? Does President Obama agree with Judge Sotomayor’s ruling? Does he think that ruling served justice? Is that the type of “empathy” he wanted? I lost 16 years of my life. It seems evident that politics is trumping justice; that I am once again being wronged by the system.

To watch Jeffrey Deskovic speak about Sotomayor, go here.

To learn more about Deskovic's case, go here.

Louis · July 10th, 2009, 07:23 AM

Circumstance over procedure = bad

Procedure over circumstance = bad

This lady can do no right.

Mulli · July 10th, 2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.

His gripe is with his lawyer.

LoyaltyisaCurse · July 10th, 2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Conservative critics quickly seized on the decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, to demonstrate that Sotomayor was "out of sync" with mainstream legal thinking.

Out of touch with mainstream legal system? STHU moron: it was a 5-4 freaking decision by a court dominated by staunch conservatives.

LoyaltyisaCurse · July 10th, 2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolo

I think it's time the GOP played as hard as the Democrats do on Supreme Court nominees--which is to say, scrutinize everything she's ever said or written and hold all of it against her, and do so to score political points entirely outside the realm of confirmation hearings and the judicial branch.
.

This is the reason nothing ever gets done in this country. All the Republican Dinosaurs still have thier panties in a bunch over Bork and are looking for payback...

LoyaltyisaCurse · July 10th, 2009, 07:54 AM

[quote=SirStefan32;2054194]While she is clearly a racist, sexists, activist judge, considering Obama is the one who appointed her, it could have quote] What a bunch of crap!

Chris_Sanders · July 10th, 2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

Out of touch with mainstream legal system? STHU moron: it was a 5-4 freaking decision by a court dominated by staunch conservatives.

LIAC, this is your first strike. I suggest you back away from P&R and take a breather lest you incur more. You also may want to consider the ignore option.

LoyaltyisaCurse · July 10th, 2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

LIAC, this is your first strike. I suggest you back away from P&R and take a breather lest you incur more. You also may want to consider the ignore option.

I was not directing this at the poster, I was directing it at the assertion m ade in the article about being out sync. I assumed it was being attributed to a conservative spokes person... I am protesting this decision...

wallyburger · July 10th, 2009, 08:04 AM

Maybe I am incorrect in assuming that the higher the level in the system, the more likely errors are to be corrected. This is either an appeals level not wanting to step on toes or a level that is disinterested. Maybe this proves Sotomayor is not special, just mundane and quite average. That, imo , doesn't make her SCJ material. I want special at that level. She should be more like Wonder Woman than "nice". If it took 16 years of mistakes, to correct this injustice, then the incompetence just continues ramping up. Maybe she should talk about it. Convince people like me she deserves the trust of the position.

wallyburger · July 10th, 2009, 08:08 AM

Mods decisions not up for debate.