QuoteAP source: Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (AP) - Officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama intends to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor (SUHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter if confirmed by the Senate. The officials spoke to AP on condition of anonymity because Obama has not yet announced his decision.
:bowler:
Do you normally have pronunciation guides in news pieces?
Quote from: The Larch on May 26, 2009, 08:16:12 AM
Do you normally have pronunciation guides in news pieces?
Normally not, no. Assuming she's the nominee, the guides will probably go away within a few days once the pronunciation of her name is widely known.
Oh...well...I have such a strong opinion on this...
Does she like good and oppose evil?
You couldn't have posted something more detailed than that Cal? It doesn't say anything about her views, politics or judicial philosophy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 09:10:28 AM
You couldn't have posted something more detailed than that Cal? It doesn't say anything about her views, politics or judicial philosophy.
I presume Languishites are veteran Googlers and can thus find that information on their own. Besides, that's all that was in the article. :huh:
:(
Granholm could have been the first Canadian-American justice. How long will we continue to be discriminated against?
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 08:40:47 AM
Oh...well...I have such a strong opinion on this...
Does she like good and oppose evil?
Has she ever smoked marijuana? Has she ever found pubic hair on a can of Coca-Cola and remarked about it to a subordinate? There are many unanswered questions.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 26, 2009, 09:13:51 AM
:(
Granholm could have been the first Canadian-American justice. How long will we continue to be discriminated against?
You just want to get rid of that cunt. I don't blame you, but don't pawn her off on the rest of us.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 26, 2009, 09:19:36 AM
You just want to get rid of that cunt. I don't blame you, but don't pawn her off on the rest of us.
What's the worst that could happen? She wouldn't have to balance a budget as a Supreme Court Justice. It's the perfect job for her.
She is a judicial activist. A threat to the Constitution and will be destroyed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 09:10:28 AM
You couldn't have posted something more detailed than that Cal? It doesn't say anything about her views, politics or judicial philosophy.
She was a protege of Daniel Moynihan, who got Bush (H.W.) to nominate her to her first federal judicial position to the district court in Manhattan. I have never appeared in front of her. Anecdotally, my impression is that she is solid but not one of the judicial stars of the Circuit.
Quote from: The Larch on May 26, 2009, 08:16:12 AM
Do you normally have pronunciation guides in news pieces?
Only when the name will be mis-pronounced by people unfamiliar with it. I've heard people in the office pronounce it as "Soto Mayor".
Quote from: Savonarola on May 26, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 26, 2009, 09:19:36 AM
You just want to get rid of that cunt. I don't blame you, but don't pawn her off on the rest of us.
What's the worst that could happen? She wouldn't have to balance a budget as a Supreme Court Justice. It's the perfect job for her.
Her perfect position is being thrown back across the border.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 26, 2009, 09:42:39 AM
Her perfect position is being thrown back across the border.
She's a Puerto Rican, Mr. Raciss. We own them, remember? :)
Some of the cases out there on the Net on which she ruled on make me less than fully excited about her. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what goes into making decisions on cases.
I loved how NPR was talking to soeone about potential nominees, and they stressed that Obama was committed to finding the "best person for the job" and then proceeded to list nobody but women, and predicted that it would be a black or hispanic woman who got the spot.
Affirmative action on the USSC! Awesomesauce!
I saw a quote by Obama last week someplace that was the length of a small paragraph, and he indeed said in the first sentence that he wanted the "best person", and at the end of the paragraph made it clear that this person would "reflect the changing face of America" or whatever.
At least this one is honest about her judicial activism, with her "the court is where policy is made" comment. And Al Sharpton really likes her-- that's a big plus.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2009, 09:55:31 AM
Al Sharpton really likes her-- that's a big plus.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on May 26, 2009, 09:45:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 26, 2009, 09:42:39 AM
Her perfect position is being thrown back across the border.
She's a Puerto Rican, Mr. Raciss. We own them, remember? :)
Me and Sav was talking about the governor of Michigan, Mr. Nosy.
Eh. I'd be happier if it didn't seem like she was being chosen to curry favor with women and hispanics.
From CNN:
QuotePossible Controversial Positions and Statements
• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George Bush, but it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, who recommended her to Bush.
• In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm]
• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)
• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)
• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)
Other Notable Cases
• Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)
• Major League Baseball Strike: As a district court judge, Sotomayor issued an injunction against team owners for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act during collective bargaining negotiations with the MLB players association. The owners had sought to end the system of free agency and salary arbitration and imposed a lock-out against players as negotiations began to break down. The ruling ended the longest baseball strike in history. National Labor Relations Board vs. Major League Baseball, 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2009, 09:55:31 AM
At least this one is honest about her judicial activism, with her "the court is where policy is made" comment. And Al Sharpton really likes her-- that's a big plus.
I see that the right-wing blogosphere is already out in force with their FUD campaign of serial argumentative fallacies.
So far we have quote a fragment of a sentence out of context and guilt by associative endorsement. Surely we can squeeze in a slippery slope, a strawman, and a dubious appeal to false authority?
How can you say that it is out of context?
She goes on to explain that in fact she completely understands the context under which she said it (and how it would be reported), and in fact it is precisely the context those who find the comment concerning are talking about.
Quote from: Caliga on May 26, 2009, 10:04:16 AMQuote
• In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm]
This is a very bad-looking piece of transcript.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:46:57 AM
I loved how NPR was talking to soeone about potential nominees, and they stressed that Obama was committed to finding the "best person for the job" and then proceeded to list nobody but women, and predicted that it would be a black or hispanic woman who got the spot.
Affirmative action on the USSC! Awesomesauce!
Affirmative Action is having lower standards for certain minorities not picking from fully qualified people who happen to be minorities.
It is annoying but I can understand the desire to have the government reflect the Demographics of the nation. It gives it more legitimacy.
Having said that this Sotomayor lady does seem to have some...controversial opinions. I wish he could have gotten somebody who seemed more moderate.
Quote from: Caliga on May 26, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
From CNN:
Possible Controversial Positions and Statements
:bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding:
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 10:09:25 AM
How can you say that it is out of context?
She goes on to explain that in fact she completely understands the context under which she said it (and how it would be reported), and in fact it is precisely the context those who find the comment concerning are talking about.
Because it is clear from the transcript she is making a *descriptive* statement about the role of the federal courts in interpreting and applying the law (one which BTW is entirely accurate) as opposed to be *prescriptive* statement about what the role of the courts should be ("I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it.")
There are some judges and legal scholars who prefer to obfuscate this issue and pretend as if it is possible to apply the law in inidividual cases without having a significant policy effect and impact. I think it is refreshing that Judge Sotomayor spoke candidly about a reality that everyone who interacts with the judiciary knows about - and it is particularly unfortunate that ideologues would seek to punish that candor. I would rather have a judiciary that is honest about what it does than one that pretends it is something it is not, while pursuing a covert agenda.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:19:20 AM
:bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding:
What should they have called the article then? Maps of what the United States would look like in the alternative history if Sotomayor is appointed?
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 10:21:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:19:20 AM
:bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding::bleeding:
What should they have called the article then? Maps of what the United States would look like in the alternative history if Sotomayor is appointed?
Why the hell would I have anything against the title of the article? I'm obviously responding to her views. Surely you don't won't me to quote the whole long list do you?
Also, how would that be alternate history? That's a future timeline.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:46:57 AM
I loved how NPR was talking to soeone about potential nominees, and they stressed that Obama was committed to finding the "best person for the job" and then proceeded to list nobody but women, and predicted that it would be a black or hispanic woman who got the spot.
Affirmative action on the USSC! Awesomesauce!
Affirmative Action is having lower standards for certain minorities not picking from fully qualified people who happen to be minorities.
Bullshit. When you limit your selection list to only people of a certain demographic, you cannot claim you are looking for the best person for the job.
You can claim you are looking for the best female minority, but that is not the same thing at all.
And it is most certainly affirmative action. If we limited the list to only white people, we would call this "affirmative action" racism.
Is she related to Cuban high jumper Javier Sotomayor?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:25:26 AM
Why the hell would I have anything against the title of the article? I'm obviously responding to her views. Surely you don't won't me to quote the whole long list do you?
Any particular issue upsets you the most?
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
I wish he could have gotten somebody who seemed more moderate.
Of the 3 female candidates mentioned, she is probably the most moderate. She is ex-prosecutor, has a tough law-and-order rep, was originally appointed by a republican president. I would advise treating much of the CNN list with a grain of salt. first, b/c it is singling out the few cases that got Supreme Court review out of thousands she participated in. Second, b/c the legal issues presented in these cases were not exactly the issues as presented by CNN.
I do not think she is the single most qualified candidate to serve on the Court, by any stretch, but I do thing the accusation of radical liberalism is very far from the mark.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 10:26:52 AM
Bullshit. When you limit your selection list to only people of a certain demographic, you cannot claim you are looking for the best person for the job.
You can claim you are looking for the best female minority, but that is not the same thing at all.
And it is most certainly affirmative action. If we limited the list to only white people, we would call this "affirmative action" racism.
Ok it's racism and sexism and not affirmative action. Clearly he is only looking for a woman who is a minority to balance out the court for political purposes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:28:36 AM
Of the 3 female candidates mentioned, she is probably the most moderate. She is ex-prosecutor, has a tough law-and-order rep, was originally appointed by a republican president. I would advise treating much of the CNN list with a grain of salt. first, b/c it is singling out the few cases that got Supreme Court review out of thousands she participated in. Second, b/c the legal issues presented in these cases were not exactly the issues as presented by CNN.
I do not think she is the single most qualified candidate to serve on the Court, by any stretch, but I do thing the accusation of radical liberalism is very far from the mark.
Well what the heck do I know about legal opinions? I get most of my legal knowledge form the various rants on this message board.
If you say she is moderate I guess she is the best we will get.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:25:26 AM
I'm obviously responding to her views.
that list mostly contains a list of cases. How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list? For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
that list mostly contains a list of cases. How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list? For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?
Scalia has been moving to the left for a long time now...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:25:26 AM
I'm obviously responding to her views.
that list mostly contains a list of cases. How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list? For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?
This right here speaks to her personal views and makes me want to vomit.
QuoteAt a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
Affirmative Action is having lower standards for certain minorities not picking from fully qualified people who happen to be minorities.
I understand that this is what
you believe AA to be, but its advocates certainly wouldn't agree with you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 10:25:26 AM
I'm obviously responding to her views.
that list mostly contains a list of cases. How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list? For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?
This right here speaks to her personal views and makes me want to vomit.
QuoteAt a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 11:17:45 AM
Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?
I think Tim's detailed analysis of her views showed that clearly, Mr Smartypants.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 11:17:45 AM
Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?
That statement says that impartial judicial decision-making may be a disservice to the country.
Judges who think like that need to be retired judges.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 11:17:45 AM
Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?
I completely disagree with her and agree with Mrs O'Connor. One should strive to overcome the differences of gender and national origin, not embrace them. One should attempt to be as objective and impartial as possible.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 11:17:45 AM
Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?
That statement says that impartial judicial decision-making may be a disservice to the country.
Judges who think like that need to be retired judges.
Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?
I think judges should strive to leave that personal baggage behind, but concede that it's probably almost impossible to do so.
I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 11:39:33 AM
I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.
What she is saying is not so different from an old saying that we wouldnt want a criminal court judge who hadnt been thrown out of a pub at least once in his youth.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 11:15:39 AMI understand that this is what you believe AA to be, but its advocates certainly wouldn't agree with you.
Well I can only speak to what I believe it to be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
I completely disagree with her and agree with Mrs O'Connor. One should strive to overcome the differences of gender and national origin, not embrace them. One should attempt to be as objective and impartial as possible.
The irony being that the big criticism of O'Connor was that she decided cases more on gut feeling than on rigorous legal analysis.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?
Interesting. So you think judges should decide cases based on their ethnic/gender preferences rather than the law?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 11:39:33 AM
I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.
True, but there is a difference between lamenting the extent to which different judges would reach different decisions in the same based on their background and experience, and celebrating that fact.
Once we accept the idea that judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preferences, we have created a situation where "justice" depends explicitly on whether one has the clout or luck to get the "right judge" for one's case.
We would universally abhor this language coming from a white male.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 12:19:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 11:39:33 AM
I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.
True, but there is a difference between lamenting the extent to which different judges would reach different decisions in the same based on their background and experience, and celebrating that fact.
Once we accept the idea that judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preferences, we have created a situation where "justice" depends explicitly on whether one has the clout or luck to get the "right judge" for one's case.
We would universally abhor this language coming from a white male.
I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.
I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:24:37 PM
I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.
I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".
Go back to Russia, Commie.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 11:46:51 AM
Well I can only speak to what I believe it to be.
Again, so long as you do not mistakenly believe that anyone understands what you mean by the words you post, you can assign any meaning to any word or phrase you "believe" them to have.
However, one should generally not try to correct someone using the near-universally-accepted meaning of Affirmative Action in order to assert the superiority of a meaning based on your private beliefs.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:24:37 PM
I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.
I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".
I disagree with both of these assertions. I think you are reading into her statement that which you wish to hear, and in fact that you ignore her last sentence in that (as "odd") when it isn't odd at all, given her position.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 12:39:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:24:37 PM
I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.
I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".
I disagree with both of these assertions. I think you are reading into her statement that which you wish to hear, and in fact that you ignore her last sentence in that (as "odd") when it isn't odd at all, given her position.
You are correct that I seem to more or less ignore that one sentence. For her to say that people come with their own biases and experiences is fine - but when she says that the experience of a latino woman would be better than a white male, well, given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 09:10:28 AM
You couldn't have posted something more detailed than that Cal? It doesn't say anything about her views, politics or judicial philosophy.
She was a protege of Daniel Moynihan, who got Bush (H.W.) to nominate her to her first federal judicial position to the district court in Manhattan. I have never appeared in front of her. Anecdotally, my impression is that she is solid but not one of the judicial stars of the Circuit.
Katzmann is a much better option, IMHO.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:49:27 PM
but when she says that the experience of a latino woman would be better than a white male, well, given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.
Yeah, I think we should all stop being so lawyerish about everything she's saying.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:49:27 PM
given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.
That would certainly be what one would hope - but I am not so sure that is the case.
<_< Great, the Timmay-taint reaches the Supreme Court.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?
Interesting. So you think judges should decide cases based on their ethnic/gender preferences rather than the law?
Nope. But I don't thinks she's arguing that. I think she's pointing out that the traditional interpretation of the law has been skewed by the fact that the majority of judges are old white men; which is hard to dispute.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?
Interesting. So you think judges should decide cases based on their ethnic/gender preferences rather than the law?
Nope. But I don't thinks she's arguing that. I think she's pointing out that the traditional interpretation of the law has been skewed by the fact that the majority of judges are old white men; which is hard to dispute.
It is hard to dispute that the majority of judges are "old white men", but it is trivial to dispute that this has resulted in the law being "skewed".
I have no problem with old white, black, or light brown women being judges at any level - the idea that their race or gender is valuable outside their competence however, is exactly the opposite of what judges ought to be.
Quote from: Fireblade on May 26, 2009, 01:09:35 PM
<_< Great, the Timmay-taint reaches the Supreme Court.
Perhaps it will be: overturned! :w00t:
Quote from: Fireblade on May 26, 2009, 01:09:35 PM
<_< Great, the Timmay-taint reaches the Supreme Court.
I'm against her though. I thought the "taint" only covers those I root for.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
Nope. But I don't thinks she's arguing that. I think she's pointing out that the traditional interpretation of the law has been skewed by the fact that the majority of judges are old white men; which is hard to dispute.
I think that she is suggesting that judges
should allow their gender or ethnicity to influence their decisions.
The argument that "old white men" are a group that "skew the law" is certainly one that is trivial to dispute. None of the groups "old" nor "white" nor "men" are monolithic, so to argue that all three used together is monolithic is absurd.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:24:37 PM
I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.
I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".
I doubt she would say that, too, but without reading between the lines, the quote is horrible. She's claiming that her minority status makes her a more qualified decision-maker, without even qualifying which sorts of decisions she's referring to.
At best, it's an egomaniacal faux pas.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 12:49:27 PM
You are correct that I seem to more or less ignore that one sentence. For her to say that people come with their own biases and experiences is fine - but when she says that the experience of a latino woman would be better than a white male, well, given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.
It is possible that every one of these strange statements makes sense within some wider context without the need to take them at face value. I think it more reasonable to assume that she means what she says than to assume that she doesn't, though.
We need more info to be sure, but on the basis iof what i have seen the woman seems as unqualified for the court as Thomas, and as blatantly partisan a choice as Alito.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
Nope. But I don't thinks she's arguing that. I think she's pointing out that the traditional interpretation of the law has been skewed by the fact that the majority of judges are old white men; which is hard to dispute.
I think that she is suggesting that judges should allow their gender or ethnicity to influence their decisions.
The argument that "old white men" are a group that "skew the law" is certainly one that is trivial to dispute. None of the groups "old" nor "white" nor "men" are monolithic, so to argue that all three used together is monolithic is absurd.
I wish you were wrong. Predicting outcomes for litigation would be so much easier if there was some kind of monolithic view from the bench.
Quote from: PDH on May 26, 2009, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
that list mostly contains a list of cases. How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list? For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?
Scalia has been moving to the left for a long time now...
Well that's just because Ginsberg keeps stealing his seat and moving him over.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 12:19:23 PM
we have created a situation where "justice" depends explicitly on whether one has the clout or luck to get the "right judge" for one's case.
That situation already exists to some extent now, for reasons aside from racial and gender identification.
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 12:51:42 PM
Katzmann is a much better option, IMHO.
Another Moynihan guy, but I think the President was looking for someone sans penis.
In Canada, selection of judges for the top court goes by a sort of quota for regions, I understand - based I suppose on the notion that having these different regional backgrounds provides some valuable different insights. Of course, provincial laws do differ, significantly so in the case of Quebec, which I suppose makes regional difference balancing a better idea than racial or gender based balancing (though I suspect some of that happens too).
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 03:14:43 PM
In Canada, selection of judges for the top court goes by a sort of quota for regions, I understand - based I suppose on the notion that having these different regional backgrounds provides some valuable different insights. Of course, provincial laws do differ, significantly so in the case of Quebec, which I suppose makes regional difference balancing a better idea than racial or gender based balancing (though I suspect some of that happens too).
There certainly is some gender balancing that goes on.
The issue of language is also pwoerful - there was a minor controversy over whether apppointees must be know French.
That being said I am unaware of any SCC appointments that have gone to persons of non-European ancestry.
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 03:14:43 PM
In Canada, selection of judges for the top court goes by a sort of quota for regions, I understand - based I suppose on the notion that having these different regional backgrounds provides some valuable different insights. Of course, provincial laws do differ, significantly so in the case of Quebec, which I suppose makes regional difference balancing a better idea than racial or gender based balancing (though I suspect some of that happens too).
I once looked at this for some reason I cant now remember. The representation from some regions is constitutionally mandated - eg Quebec. For other regions the number is by tradition. The logic is that the diversity is then adequately reflected on the Court. This was more of a concern back when the big constitutional battles were over division of power type issues. I dont really see the logic now outside of Quebec which is, I agree, a special case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 03:59:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2009, 03:14:43 PM
In Canada, selection of judges for the top court goes by a sort of quota for regions, I understand - based I suppose on the notion that having these different regional backgrounds provides some valuable different insights. Of course, provincial laws do differ, significantly so in the case of Quebec, which I suppose makes regional difference balancing a better idea than racial or gender based balancing (though I suspect some of that happens too).
I once looked at this for some reason I cant now remember. The representation from some regions is constitutionally mandated - eg Quebec. For other regions the number is by tradition. The logic is that the diversity is then adequately reflected on the Court. This was more of a concern back when the big constitutional battles were over division of power type issues. I dont really see the logic now outside of Quebec which is, I agree, a special case.
The breakdown is (IIRC):
3 Quebec
3 Ontario
2 West
1 Maritimes
note that one entire region of the country gets left out entirely... <_<
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 03:59:30 PM
I once looked at this for some reason I cant now remember. The representation from some regions is constitutionally mandated - eg Quebec. For other regions the number is by tradition. The logic is that the diversity is then adequately reflected on the Court. This was more of a concern back when the big constitutional battles were over division of power type issues. I dont really see the logic now outside of Quebec which is, I agree, a special case.
The breakdown is (IIRC):
3 Quebec
3 Ontario
2 West
1 Maritimes
note that one entire region of the country gets left out entirely... <_<
And it's the region of the country where no one lives, imagine that. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 04:05:34 PM
And it's the region of the country where no one lives, imagine that. :lol:
The Canadian people are missing out on the wisdom of the Eskimos. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2009, 04:05:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 04:01:55 PM
note that one entire region of the country gets left out entirely... <_<
And it's the region of the country where no one lives, imagine that. :lol:
:yeahright:
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
I think that is how we ended up with Clarence Thomas. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
I'm pretty sure it's BB's subtle way to put himself forward as a candidate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 12:51:42 PM
Katzmann is a much better option, IMHO.
Another Moynihan guy, but I think the President was looking for someone sans penis.
My sole interest is in having my undergrad con law professor on the Supreme Court. All else pales in comparison.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
Today is a particularly bad spelling day for me. I am grateful I have a secretary who does all my work related typing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
We have some outstanding jurists in the North. :angry:
And some pretty good trial lawyers too... :whistle:
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 03:21:35 PM
The issue of language is also pwoerful - there was a minor controversy over whether apppointees must be know French.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 06:29:56 PM
We have some outstanding jurists in the North. :angry:
And some pretty good trial lawyers too... :whistle:
Are any of them fluent in English?
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 01:44:03 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
Nope. But I don't thinks she's arguing that. I think she's pointing out that the traditional interpretation of the law has been skewed by the fact that the majority of judges are old white men; which is hard to dispute.
It is hard to dispute that the majority of judges are "old white men", but it is trivial to dispute that this has resulted in the law being "skewed".
I have no problem with old white, black, or light brown women being judges at any level - the idea that their race or gender is valuable outside their competence however, is exactly the opposite of what judges ought to be.
I dunno. I guess I'm just having trouble recognizing the law as being this abstract thing judges can find by waving their hands. Look at the disagreements on the Supreme Court as it stands now. Does anybody think Ginsburg's opinion in gender discrimination cases isn't colored by her experiences?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 26, 2009, 05:10:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
I think that is how we ended up with Clarence Thomas. :(
The justice from the South?
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 26, 2009, 05:10:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
Imagine if we had to appoint a member of the Sumpreme Court from a population of a few thousand. Requiring someone to come from the Maritimes is bad enough.
I think that is how we ended up with Clarence Thomas. :(
The justice from the South?
It's not well known, but Clarence Thomas was based on a character from "Gone with the Wind".
This article seems pretty good:
QuoteThe Battle Ahead by Tom Goldstein
What will Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process look like?
The White House has just announced Sonia Sotomayor as its Supreme Court nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee will likely hold hearings in the third week of July, permitting written committee questions the following week and a floor vote before Congress leaves for its summer recess on the weekend of August 8. Absent the discovery of an ethical transgression, the Democratic majority on the Senate guarantees confirmation, so the new Justice will take her seat when the Court opens its 2009 Term on October 5.
Well before the hearings and votes, the immediate struggle will be to define both the nominee and the president (in light of his selection).
Here, I discuss the lines of attack.
The attacks are inevitable and tremendously regrettable, just as they were for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. A cottage industry--literally an industry, given the sums of money raised and spent-now exists in which the far left and right either brutalize or lionize the President's nominees. Because the absence of controversy means bankruptcy, it has to be invented by both sides, whatever the cost to the nominee personally and to the integrity of the judiciary nationally.
That is not to say that there aren't legitimate--in fact, critical--debates over issues like judicial philosophy and the proper way to interpret the Constitution that can and should be front and center in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. But the most extreme interest groups and ideologues are transparently uninterested in that reasoned debate as they rush to caricature the nominee and the opposing viewpoint.
Because proponents' and opponents' claims about nominees are provided for public consumption through the mass media, they involve bumper sticker messages; there is not much nuance. Almost always, they collapse into assertions of ideological extremism, as when some on the left attempted to portray John Roberts as a (secret) ideologue and single-minded tool of the government and corporations against individuals.
Sponsored By:
Click here to find out more!
The public reaction to Roberts' confirmation illustrates that Americans thankfully still think for themselves and that the White House's most effective tool may be the nominee herself. But beyond a short statement at the announcement and fleeting remarks during courtesy visits to Senators, the nominee's appearance at actual hearings won't come for six weeks, which could be too late to repair her image if a sustained assault from the right actually took hold in the meantime. Controlling the narrative in the short-term will be essential.
I discuss below the four most probable lines of attack that committed ideologues are likely to advance, but to my mind basic political considerations make it very unlikely that mainstream Republican politicians will vocally join the criticism. The view of some that the nomination of Sotomayor will require the President to invest additional political capital seems completely wrong to me. Absent of course some ethical problem, the President simply has the votes.
Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.
Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative.* She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service-as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.
For Republican Senators to come after Judge Sotomayor is not only hopeless when it comes to confirmation (something that did not deter Democrats in their attacks on Roberts and Alito) but a strategy that risks exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally, assuming that the attacks aren't backed up with considerable substance.
Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.
The most likely dynamic by far is the one that played out for Democrats with respect to Chief Justice Roberts. Democratic senators, recognizing the inevitable confirmation of a qualified and popular nominee, decided to hold their fire and instead direct their attacks to President Bush's second nominee. Justice Alito was the collateral damage to that strategy. Here, with Justice Stevens's retirement inevitable in the next few years, Republican senators are very likely to hold off conservative interest groups with promises to sharply examine President Obama's second (potentially white male) nominee.
Overall, the White House's biggest task is simply demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate, not a choice based on her gender and ethnicity. The public wants to know that her greatness as a Justice is informed by her personal history and her diversity, not that it is defined by those characteristics. For that reason, the focus on "empathy"--rather than the "wisdom" or "good sense" of the nominee in light of her experience--plays out poorly, in my opinion.
Opponents' first claim--likely stated obliquely and only on background--will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. The public expects Supreme Court Justices to be brilliant. Harriet Miers was painted (frequently, by conservatives) as not up to the job. The same claim (absurd to anyone who has talked with him) is still made by the left about Clarence Thomas. By contrast, John Roberts was described as brilliant and Sam Alito as exceptionally smart.
The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn't the match of the other Justices.
The second claim--and this one will be front and center--will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and "judicial activist." (Put to the side the emptiness of the labels--i.e., that one person's principle (e.g., a decision invalidating state laws authorizing punitive damages) is another's "activism.") There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. In the ideological cases where her rulings have been reviewed by the Supreme Court (for example, Malesko and the pending Ricci case), her views have aligned with the left of the current Court.
The third claim--related to the second--will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees. The three pieces of evidence initially cited for that proposition will be (i) the disposition of the Ricci case (in which a panel on which Sotomayor sat affirmed the dismissal of white firefighters' claims in a very short and initially unpublished opinion), (ii) a panel appearance in which she acknowledged that appellate judges effectively make policy, and (iii) a speech in which she talked about the role of her gender and ethnicity in her decision making.
These reeds are too thin for that characterization to take hold. The public neither understands nor cares about the publication practices of the courts of appeals. It also is easily able to accept a judge's recognition of the lawmaking effects of her decisions and the influences of her background. There just isn't any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.
Finally, critics will characterize her as gruff and impersonable, relying on excerpts from oral arguments and anonymous criticisms in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. Judge Sotomayor's personal remarks will resolve this question for the public, to the extent it cares at all. But there isn't any reason to believe that she is anything other than a tough questioner. My impression from her questioning at oral arguments is that it is similar to the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and (in cases in which he was particularly engaged) Justice Souter.
All in all, Judge Sotomayor's easy confirmation seems assured.
And her full comments, that are being discussed here, can be read in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html&OQ=_rQ3D2Q26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=1d39a4f9Q2F(Q3CBd(Q27kQ3DQ26akkO-(-77Q24(7V(.V(yQ26(DkQ51bObQ3DQ26(.V3yQ27LBrOBQ60OrcOqQ51
On my drive home, I was listening to NPR's "All Things Considered" and they had interviews with a lot of people from many political stripes who had had dealings with Sotomayer, and the one thing they all agreed upon was that she was not ideological. So, it seems that JR is right to question the validity of the selective-sourcing of the CNN article, and BB's doubting of the validity of the meaning implied by the mined quotes also seems warranted, barring further evidence.
All this makes me happier with the choice... barring further evidence.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2009, 04:01:55 PM
note that one entire region of the country gets left out entirely... <_<
The territories are inferior to the provinces, especially since the three of them together add up to the population of a smallish city.
QuoteOverall, the White House's biggest task is simply demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate, not a choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
That is going to be tough, seeing as she was the choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 07:40:26 PM
On my drive home, I was listening to NPR's "All Things Considered" and they had interviews with a lot of people from many political stripes who had had dealings with Sotomayer, and the one thing they all agreed upon was that she was not ideological. So, it seems that JR is right to question the validity of the selective-sourcing of the CNN article, and BB's doubting of the validity of the meaning implied by the mined quotes also seems warranted, barring further evidence.
All this makes me happier with the choice... barring further evidence.
Personally, I think I am not so opposed to the idea of "judicial activism", or rather that I think the charge is generally pretty stupid, since it mostly seems to simply mean someone making a choice the accuser doesn't like.
However, I think JRs objection to the quote as out of context is still pretty odd, since it seemed like the context confirms exactly what those barking about it are saying. I simply don't have any great problem with it - in fact, I am usually rather more scared of the will of the majority that legislation often represents.
I still find it funny that everyone is trying to spin this as not being about her gender and race though. Again, it isn't really a substantial objection, I guess. I am sure she will do fine, at least as well as any other lefty judge anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 08:11:06 PM
I still find it funny that everyone is trying to spin this as not being about her gender and race though. Again, it isn't really a substantial objection, I guess. I am sure she will do fine, at least as well as any other lefty judge anyway.
I don't think it's relevant - they did want a woman, I don't think the ethnicity actually mattered but that it makes it a particularly difficult nomination for the Republicans to oppose.
What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male. When I think the actual condition should be every time they're not white, male and appropriately qualified. And, though this goes far more the UK than US I imagine, I do wonder about the number of senior white men who got into their position due to the old boys network without raising questions about it because they're white men.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 07:40:26 PM
All this makes me happier with the choice... barring further evidence.
Do you agree with the firefighter v. New Haven decision?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male.
I thought I heard some grumblings about another "old white dude" when the last nominee was white and male.
Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2009, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male.
I thought I heard some grumblings about another "old white dude" when the last nominee was white and male.
I thought John Roberts was approved by approbation, driven down the mall while adoring crowds shouted 'Santo subito!' He was, after all, terribly qualified.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 08:11:06 PM
I still find it funny that everyone is trying to spin this as not being about her gender and race though. Again, it isn't really a substantial objection, I guess. I am sure she will do fine, at least as well as any other lefty judge anyway.
I don't think it's relevant - they did want a woman, I don't think the ethnicity actually mattered but that it makes it a particularly difficult nomination for the Republicans to oppose.
Republican opposition is irrelevant.
And I think it is completely relevant - it is and was their first necessary condition for consideration. If you ahve a penis, forget it - no amount of qualification or competence is adequate.
Quote
What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male.
No, it is raised (at least by me) everytime they claim to want to find the best person for the job, then submit a list that excludes the vast majority of the people who could be potentially qualified.
Hell, I would not have nearly as large an issue if they just had the balls to simply say "We think there should be more than 1 USSC justice who is a woman, so we are going to try to find the most qualified woman possible". That is what they are doing anyway, so they might as well be honest about it.
Quote
When I think the actual condition should be every time they're not white, male and appropriately qualified. And, though this goes far more the UK than US I imagine, I do wonder about the number of senior white men who got into their position due to the old boys network without raising questions about it because they're white men.
That is a rather crass accusation to make - it smacks of bigotry and has the handy characteristic of being impossible to prove or evidence.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:06:30 PM
And I think it is completely relevant - it is and was their first necessary condition for consideration. If you ahve a penis, forget it - no amount of qualification or competence is adequate.
I think gender's a perfectly reasonable thing to include in your selection. You have a number of qualified and competent people and then you wittle down your list based on a whole range of factors, one of which I think can be gender. I don't think it's any different than wanting a Treasury Secretary who didn't have a history with Goldman Sachs, or wanting a Supreme Court judge with a particular history and interest in a certain aspect of the law.
Similarly in this country I think it's fine to choose, from an array of qualified individuals, to favour someone, for example, who went to a state school rather than Eton.
QuoteHell, I would not have nearly as large an issue if they just had the balls to simply say "We think there should be more than 1 USSC justice who is a woman, so we are going to try to find the most qualified woman possible". That is what they are doing anyway, so they might as well be honest about it.
I agree, actually.
Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2009, 08:32:29 PM
Do you agree with the firefighter v. New Haven decision?
On the face of it, no. But since I don't know the specifics, I reserve judgement.
Do you, upon researching it, agree with it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 09:13:12 PM
I think gender's a perfectly reasonable thing to include in your selection. You have a number of qualified and competent people and then you wittle down your list based on a whole range of factors, one of which I think can be gender. I don't think it's any different than wanting a Treasury Secretary who didn't have a history with Goldman Sachs, or wanting a Supreme Court judge with a particular history and interest in a certain aspect of the law.
That's an nteresting observation, but begs the question of "at what point do you eliminate all men from consideration?" Were all possible male candidates, or "white" candidates, eliminated before, or after, you got to "qualified and competant?"
I am not saying anything about the candidates in question, just curious as to how much weight you would put in "female" or "non-white" (whatever the last may actually mean in real terms). This is all relative, of course.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 09:13:12 PM
...Similarly in this country I think it's fine to choose, from an array of qualified individuals, to favour someone, for example, who went to a state school rather than Eton.
That is the "positive" side of "Affirmative Action" and the one I accept and support.
Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2009, 08:39:03 PM
I thought I heard some grumblings about another "old white dude" when the last nominee was white and male.
There was some concern about Alito belonging to a Princeton alumni organization that pressured the school to put a maximum quota on female admissions in the 70s, if that is what you are referring to.
QuoteDo you agree with the firefighter v. New Haven decision?
As a policy outcome or as a legal decision under the existing precedential framework?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 09:13:12 PM
I think gender's a perfectly reasonable thing to include in your selection.
That's not the only dimension involved here though. There is a reason she was chosen over others with more academic firepower, like Wood or Kagan or Sullivan. There is a political move here where Obama is solidifying Hispanic support and effectively daring the GOP to go negative on her.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2009, 08:39:03 PM
QuoteDo you agree with the firefighter v. New Haven decision?
As a policy outcome or as a legal decision under the existing precedential framework?
I'm sure Sotomayor would agree that the policy outcome is what counts.
;)
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 09:20:27 PM
That's an nteresting observation, but begs the question of "at what point do you eliminate all men from consideration?" Were all possible male candidates, or "white" candidates, eliminated before, or after, you got to "qualified and competant?"
I think you should do it after you've a list of qualified and good candidates.
I think it should be that you get your list of people you thing could do the job well (and, it should be said that ideology always precedes that stage of things, we just accept that) and then you have other things you're looking for in a candidate. So if there's not many women who are qualified enough then I'd suggest waiting a while, let a few more mature on the lower benches and thern next time possibly add that to your list, similar with minority candidates.
If there's something the Court is clearly missing then you should put that quite high on the list. So if you've an area of law that doesn't have a real expert on the bench then it might be worth choosing someone who is renowned in that area of law. Similarly, I think, if you lack a woman or a minority on the bench then I think it should and can be part of your selection criteria.
Incidentally I think that the importance of ideoogy isn't actually on the major cases that everyone thinks about (abortion and so on) but is often felt in particular areas. The judges have different histories and expertises. If you have a liberal judge who is particularly strong in a particular area then very often, I believe, the court will listen to and often support them because he knows most, even if his interpretation's liberal/conservative. If they're the expert and the other judges, to some extent, defer to them then that's the area were a judge's ideology and judicial philosophy is really important. I think that's the important way that a judge's ideology can shape the court's interpretation of the law, not the headline 4-5 rulings.
QuoteI am not saying anything about the candidates in question, just curious as to how much weight you would put in "female" or "non-white" (whatever the last may actually mean in real terms). This is all relative, of course.
Yeah. I suppose I'd say I'm for a sort of soft affirmative action. I don't think it should be institutionalised and I don't think there should be a number of anything that must be women or minority. But, I do think that it's fair to include that in your selection procedures if you think that, actually, women or ethnic minorities are under-represented. As long as they're all qualified and competent then I don't have a problem with it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2009, 07:40:26 PM
On my drive home, I was listening to NPR's "All Things Considered" and they had interviews with a lot of people from many political stripes who had had dealings with Sotomayer, and the one thing they all agreed upon was that she was not ideological.
Come to think of it, although before she was mentioned in this context, I had in my mind the idea that she was left of center, the sole aspect of her judicial "rep" that I can recall ever hearing about is that she was not a great draw if you were representing a criminal defendant on appeal.
Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2009, 10:28:45 PM
I'm sure Sotomayor would agree that the policy outcome is what counts.
If your suspicion is correct, then it would appear you have something in common. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
That's not the only dimension involved here though. There is a reason she was chosen over others with more academic firepower, like Wood or Kagan or Sullivan. There is a political move here where Obama is solidifying Hispanic support and effectively daring the GOP to go negative on her.
Wasn't one of Wood or Kagan also a lesbian, which is another political consideration, which concluded that it's just not worth it. I agree about the political move over ethnicity but I think gender had primacy.
I think that getting a list of good women candidates and then saying, of Sottomayor, that she's good and difficult for the Republicans to oppose. Because I think you always want to get the candidate that your opponents can't really oppose. But I agree it's the more troubling aspect.
Edit: According to Marc Ambinder Sotomayor was at the top of Obama's list of potential nominees when he held a meeting about the Supreme Court in November, so he could actually really like her the most.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male. When I think the actual condition should be every time they're not white, male and appropriately qualified. And, though this goes far more the UK than US I imagine, I do wonder about the number of senior white men who got into their position due to the old boys network without raising questions about it because they're white men.
It's raised every time because it's always a plausible hypothesis. Appointing women and minorities is a vote getter.
And it's particularly plausible in the field of law. What's the typical time to build a SC candidate resume, 30 years? I'm pretty sure that 30 years ago the great bulk of law school graduates were white males.
Meh, I can't really get too interested about Supreme Court nominees, what with Clarence Thomas raising the bar so high.
One lefty for another one. Most Republicans are actually quite happy with the choice. They expected Obama to appoint a left-wing candidate, but by playing identity politics instead of appointing an intellectual heavyweight he will not shift the court to the left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
The full "Latino women are better than white men" speech.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 27, 2009, 01:11:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
The full "Latino women are better than white men" speech.
You know, that is a pretty decent speech, and other than the one line that for some bizarro reason she has in there, I have no great objection to any of it.
The speech works just fine without it, and with it, one can dismiss the entire thing and focus on that line, and call her a fruitcake.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 27, 2009, 07:06:22 AM
One lefty for another one. Most Republicans are actually quite happy with the choice. They expected Obama to appoint a left-wing candidate, but by playing identity politics instead of appointing an intellectual heavyweight he will not shift the court to the left.
Damn. The GOP really is losing it. It took this long for your talking points to arrive?
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 08:07:19 PM
QuoteOverall, the White House's biggest task is simply demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate, not a choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
That is going to be tough, seeing as she was the choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
...and, presumably, her generally non-ideological approach. Her gender and ethnicity might be secondary, but helpful.
I have no problem with latino people raised or born in the States.
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures and don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
I have no problem with latino people raised or born in the States.
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures and don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
:XD:
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
They come from intolerant cultures and don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Americans don't really realize or care about that either.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:34:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 08:07:19 PM
QuoteOverall, the White House's biggest task is simply demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate, not a choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
That is going to be tough, seeing as she was the choice based on her gender and ethnicity.
...and, presumably, her generally non-ideological approach. Her gender and ethnicity might be secondary, but helpful.
You cannot call her gender "secondary" when the list made up of potential nominees was 100% female, and there was no possibility of a man getting the position. That is not secondary, that is primary. More like her ideology (or lack thereof) was helpful, rather than the other way around.
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
<snip> don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
Your move.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
I doubt that the peoples of 7th century Arabia were unaware that pork could be cooked safely.
Come to think of it, the same goes for 11th century BC Canaanites.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2009, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
I doubt that the peoples of 7th century Arabia were unaware that pork could be cooked safely.
Come to think of it, the same goes for 11th century BC Canaanites.
It was a joke, but again, there's a reason that the prohibition made it into the code.
I suspect that at some point in time, it was known to be dangerous, and it was easier to advise not eating it at all.
Again, st some point, this went from folk wisdom to a religious injuntion. This interests me greatly, actually.
The guy who wrote it in was neighbour to a swine farm, easy way to get rid of the smell. Well, not easy as such, but effective. :P
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2009, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
I doubt that the peoples of 7th century Arabia were unaware that pork could be cooked safely.
Come to think of it, the same goes for 11th century BC Canaanites.
It was a joke, but again, there's a reason that the prohibition made it into the code.
I suspect that at some point in time, it was known to be dangerous, and it was easier to advise not eating it at all.
Again, st some point, this went from folk wisdom to a religious injuntion. This interests me greatly, actually.
Similar to rules how women should always travel/be in company of husband or brother or father, because in olden times it wasn't safe for them to be on their own.
Well,
The New Republic certainly doesn't seem very enthused about her:
QuoteThe Case Against Sotomayor
Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter.
Jeffrey Rosen, The New Republic Published: Monday, May 04, 2009
This is the first in a series of reports by TNR legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen about the strengths and weaknesses of the leading candidates on Barack Obama's Supreme Court shortlist.
A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor's biography is so compelling that many view her as the presumptive front-runner for Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. She grew up in the South Bronx, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. Her father, a manual laborer who never attended high school, died a year after she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight. She was raised by her mother, a nurse, and went to Princeton and then Yale Law School. She worked as a New York assistant district attorney and commercial litigator before Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended her as a district court nominee to the first President Bush. She would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, if you don't count Benjamin Cardozo. (She went to Catholic schools and would also be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court if she is, in fact, Catholic, which isn't clear from her official biography.) And she has powerful supporters: Last month, the two senators from New York wrote to President Obama in a burst of demographic enthusiasm, urging him to appoint Sotomayor or Ken Salazar.
Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. "She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk. "She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are."
Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family--working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.
But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.
Jeffrey Rosen is the legal affairs editor at The New Republic.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 02:13:06 PM
Again, st some point, this went from folk wisdom to a religious injuntion. This interests me greatly, actually.
Wasn't it when God said so?
Here are some of her cases that were overturned:
QuoteOn those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor's rulings, she hasn't fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases.
In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. (2000), Sotomayor ruled that the Court's 1971 ruling in Bivens, which implied a private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constititutional rights, should be extended to create an implied damages action against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons. On review (Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko (2001)), the Court reversed Sotomayor by a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion labeled the plaintiff's claim "fundamentally different from anything recognized in Bivens or subsequent cases." In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia acknowledged that "a broad interpretation of [Bivens'] rationale would doubtless produce [the] application" made by the dissenters (and Sotomayor). But, as he put it, "Bivens is a relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action—decreeing them to be 'implied' by the mere existence of a statutory or constitutional prohibition." The Court has abandoned that power in the statutory field, and "[t]here is even greater reason to abandon it in the constitutional field, since an 'implication' imagined in the Constitution can presumably not even be repudiated by Congress."
Just last term, in Knight v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, reached the same end result as Sotomayor on a tax question, but faulted her for adopting a reading of the relevant statute that "flies in the face of the statutory language." In Merrill Lynch v. Dabit (2006), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, unanimously (8-0) reversed Sotomayor's ruling that certain state-law securities claims were not preempted by federal law. Stevens pointed out that the Court had rejected Sotomayor's interpretation in cases from 1971 forward. In New York Times v. Tasini (2001), the Court, by a 7-2 vote, rejected the reading of copyright law that Sotomayor had adopted (as the district judge in the case).
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, the Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, affirmed a ruling by Sotomayor on a question of federal jurisdiction. (On a quick read, I can't readily discern whether the majority's grounds are the same as Sotomayor's, but will assume for purposes of my cumulative vote tally that they are.)
I'll also note that the Court has granted review of Sotomayor's decision in Riverkeeper v. EPA ruling that certain provisions of the Clean Water Act do not authorize the EPA to engage in cost-benefit analysis in crafting its rules. The Supreme Court will decide that case—recaptioned Entergy Corp. v. EPA—this coming term.(USSC overturned this case after the article was written)
Her EPA case doesn't seem crazy, at least to me. The EPA is forbidden from doing cost benefit analysis on plenty of occasions, notably in the Clean Air Act. So it might not be a question of being a leftist.
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures
Oh, that's rich.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2009, 06:01:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures
Oh, that's rich.
Ain't though? That shit is funny.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 27, 2009, 04:25:01 PM
Well, The New Republic certainly doesn't seem very enthused about her:
Rosen's critique seems fair enough, though a bit heavy on the anecdotes from persons not named.
QuoteHere are some of her cases that were overturned:
None of these seem particularly outrageous. Dabit was a straight literal reading of the statute ("purchase or sale of securities") -- the Court just decided to interpret it to extend to holder claims. That is the Court's prerogative, and I think it made the right call, but it is understandable why a lower court would just apply the statute literally as written.
I didn't look at Knight or Empire Health (which were not overturns). All the other decisions are not only defensible, I personally think Sotomayor got them right.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
<snip> don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
Your move.
Fireblade's Law: As a Languish discussion grows longer, the probability of a thread hijack involving pork approaches 1.
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
<snip> don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
Your move.
Fireblade's Second Law: As a Languish discussion grows longer, the probability of a thread hijack involving pork approaches 1.
What's Fireblade's First Law?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2009, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
<snip> don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
Your move.
Fireblade's Second Law: As a Languish discussion grows longer, the probability of a thread hijack involving pork approaches 1.
What's Fireblade's First Law?
I made it up on old languish and I forgot what it was. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:58:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2009, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 27, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
<snip> don't understand that pork is not food for some people.
Some people don't understand that pork, once cooked properly, can be food.
Some people, whose ancestors didn't grasp this, proceeded to make divine law of prohibition, vice proper cooking.
Your move.
Fireblade's Second Law: As a Languish discussion grows longer, the probability of a thread hijack involving pork approaches 1.
What's Fireblade's First Law?
I made it up on old languish and I forgot what it was. :Embarrass:
Lost technology! :o
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:58:38 PM
I made it up on old languish and I forgot what it was. :Embarrass:
I remember it: Pot is OSSUM.
Quote from: Caliga on May 27, 2009, 07:49:31 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on May 27, 2009, 06:58:38 PM
I made it up on old languish and I forgot what it was. :Embarrass:
I remember it: Pot is OSSUM.
Are you sure it wasn't some recipe for Possum?
It might be... dude IS from Arkansas. :Canuck:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2009, 06:05:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2009, 06:01:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 27, 2009, 01:38:46 PM
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures
Oh, that's rich.
Ain't though? That shit is funny.
Not surprising, though. It takes one to know one.
:lmfao:
Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates are concerned about her stance on Roe V. Wade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 12:58:52 AM
:lmfao:
Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates are concerned about her stance on Roe V. Wade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Obama's a secret pro-lifer and he's going to stack the court with liberal yet anti-Roe judges. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 01:21:46 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 12:58:52 AM
:lmfao:
Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates are concerned about her stance on Roe V. Wade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Obama's a secret pro-lifer and he's going to stack the court with liberal yet anti-Roe judges. :tinfoil:
A man can dream can't he!
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 27, 2009, 04:25:01 PM
Well, The New Republic certainly doesn't seem very enthused about her:
Rosen wrote a second article that moderated that first one after he was attacked for basing so much of it on anonymous gossip (which apparently isn't news in the US :blink:).
And here is the dark prince himself, writing in the WSJ:
Quote'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism
What damage did Democrats suffer when they attacked Miguel Estrada?
By KARL ROVE
Both President Barack Obama and Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.
Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had "empathy" and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.
"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.
Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.
Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.
The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.
Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.
Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.
Both Mr. Obama and the Republicans are also are denied things in this nomination. Republicans are denied an easy target. Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story, attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids.
The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.
Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.
The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.
Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.
While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 01:21:46 AM
Obama's a secret pro-lifer and he's going to stack the court with liberal yet anti-Roe judges. :tinfoil:
You laugh, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't care about her stance on
Roe v. Wade.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Well, according to your definition then Sotomayor in all probability isn't either...
Quote
Puerto Rico Ethnic Groups
80.5% White (Spanish, French, Italian, other),
8.0% Black (Yoruba, Igbo),
0.4% Taíno,
0.2% Asian,
10.9% Mixed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
In all the Caribbean population descends from European settlers and African slaves; actually in many islands true Indians from Asia are far less rare than native "Indians".
QuoteThe Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.
It also won the 3-0 panel decision an affirmance from the entire en banc court, Karl.
But then again, law and legality is not your specialty, is it?
QuoteWhile the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.
I am pretty sure the case against judicial activism has been made extensively for decades upon decades. I fail to see how anybody is going to change their opinion on the subject based on one confirmation.
Also while there has been a lot of focus on the two speeches, I have yet to see someone point to any of her actual opinions as egregious examples of inappropriate "activism". Given that she has authored hundreds of opinions over the years, one would think that it should be a very simple thing to do.
The court is about to become majority Catholic. :pope:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 28, 2009, 10:52:46 AM
Also while there has been a lot of focus on the two speeches, I have yet to see someone point to any of her actual opinions as egregious examples of inappropriate "activism". Given that she has authored hundreds of opinions over the years, one would think that it should be a very simple thing to do.
We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:02:11 AM
We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.
Uh, no it does not.
The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others. The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.
:mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 11:07:37 AM
Uh, no it does not.
The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others. The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.
:mellow:
You notice I said 'for most'. I meant in political discussion not in legal theory.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Sephardic? Were his ancestors secret Jews who stayed in Spain until the 19th century?
It's sort of like me saying I'm French because my ancestors were Hugenots who fled to Scotland...
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 11:07:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:02:11 AM
We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.
Uh, no it does not.
The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others. The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.
:mellow:
Activism could refer to (in the US context):
Application of strict formalism in interpretation
Deference to past precedent; stare decisis
Deference to legislature; caution in striking down statutes
Deference to states in federal system
Deference to executive/admin interpretations
Caution in adopting innovative or far-reaching judicial remedies, or enlarging common law doctrines or rights of action
Emphasis on use of standing doctrines or principles of judicial parisomony to avoid reaching unecessary issues
Strict emphasis (in federal judiciary) on limited nature of powers delegated to the federal government
etc.
Problem is that in any given case, some of these principles are likely to come into conflict. Strict formalism often comes into conflict with fidelity to legislative intent or administrative interpretations for example, and deference to the legislature is often at odds with a strict approach to limited federal powers. Stare decisis often conflicts with other rationales. And so forth. So that for any given decision, it may be possible to accuse both sides of the issue of being activist.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 11:07:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:02:11 AM
We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.
The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others. The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.
While you may have a theoretical point, I note that the members of the less activist schools tend to take the position that the original intent of the Founders (or whatever) somehow unambiguously compels their desired result about 100% of the time, and to strike down laws with significant regularity.
Compare U.S. v. Lopez (finding the gun-free school zone act to be beyond the power of the US Congress to enact based on its attentuation from interstate commerce, and striking it down) with Raich v. Ashcroft (finding a ban on purely intrastate marijuana to be sufficiently related to interstate commerce, and upholding it).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 10:56:00 AM
The court is about to become majority Catholic. :pope:
It already was. This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic. It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 10:56:00 AM
The court is about to become majority Catholic. :pope:
It already was. This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic. It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.
It all belongs to Mother Rome, baby...
Now, and a bit more seriously, one could say that perhaps, just perhaps, the search for so-called "pro life" candidates that should be difficult to reject has been a factor in that Roman Catholic hegemony... anyway, it's a fact that all five of them were nominated by Republican presidents. (2 by Reagan, 1 by Bush Sr., 2 by Bush jr.)
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 10:56:00 AM
The court is about to become majority Catholic. :pope:
It already was. This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic. It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.
Good. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 10:56:00 AM
The court is about to become majority Catholic. :pope:
It already was. This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic. It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.
Good. :)
:mad:
Quote from: Alatriste on May 28, 2009, 02:07:02 PM
It all belongs to Mother Rome, baby...
I've always found the quiet Catholic takeover really striking (and interesting). The US Supreme Court and just 6 years ago, or so, the British leader of the Lib Dems was a lapsed Catholic, the Tory a practising Catholic and the Prime Minister an in pectore Catholic. Given that even in the 1940s sane people like Bevin saw a Popish plot in moves for European integration it's a remarkable turnaround.
The American People are not 2/3 Catholic. I demand a court than looks like America! :mad:
:P
Imagine how much people would freak out if Obama made it clear that in order to create diversity, he was not considering any Catholics for the Court.
In fact, we need an atheist! Obama should make it clear that you have to be an atheist to be considered. We can all support that right - it is ok to select only atheists, as long as they are perfectly well qualified....right?
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2009, 02:37:15 PM
Imagine how much people would freak out if Obama made it clear that in order to create diversity, he was not considering any Catholics for the Court.
In fact, we need an atheist! Obama should make it clear that you have to be an atheist to be considered. We can all support that right - it is ok to select only atheists, as long as they are perfectly well qualified....right?
Well, frankly, why not? If we're going to play these silly-ass games with numbers and diversity, we need to do this as well.
No reason why not, other than that it is stupid, counter-productive, and impossible to actually achieve.
I am amazed that people actually support this kind of inanity.
Could we get a list of which minority viewpoints are important enough to demand diversity over? Is it only sex and race, what about sexual preference? Religion? Social standing?
What about experience with the law? Wouldn't a USSC justice who has been in jail for selling crack provide an unique and valuable insight? We should find the best ex-crack dealer lawyer we can, and get them on the bench.
But of course that isn't how it works - the Shelfs and such of the world only really want *approved* diversity.
I was thinking the other day how unfair it is that women get half of athletic scholarships while Asians get nothing.
I bet Jews would sign off on changing that law too.
You need to follow the Canadian model and have strict rules for regional diversity. :contract:
Who represents the mountain west in the USSC? The midwest? It seems clear to me that the northeast is vastly over-represented.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2009, 02:57:33 PM
I was thinking the other day how unfair it is that women get half of athletic scholarships while Asians get nothing.
I bet Jews would sign off on changing that law too.
Funnily enough, I've wondered for years how something so unfair as athletic "scholarships" were conjured up at all.
It doesn't even pass the sematic coherence test.
:P
Now I'm wondering - using solely the Wiki link of the court's current makeup, and using solely the justice's place of birth (since I don't want to spend more than 2 minutes on this), I get:
Roberts: New York
Stevens: Illinois
Scalia: New Jersey
Kennedy: California
Souter: Massachussets
Ginsburg: New York
Thomas: Georgia
Breyer: California
Alito: New Jersey
And I was right. 5 Justices from the Northeast, with only 1 from the midwest, 1 from the south, and 2 from the West. Terrible balance, just terrible. :shakeshead:
I know for a fact that Breyer spent most of his adult life in the Northeast. Before joining the court, he was an appellate judge in the First Circuit (based in Boston).
QuoteSotomayor and Condescending Identity Politics
By Froma Harrop
Identity politics are not good for the country or for the groups they purport to advance. This is not to undercut Sonia Sotomayor, who, as the news reports all start out, is the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court and, if confirmed, would be the third female justice. From what we know about her so far, she seems qualified for the job.
But turning such appointments into political payback for an ethnic group or gender makes an unseemly spectacle. It undermines real achievements and infantilizes the candidate.
The important part of Sotomayor's time at Princeton wasn't her struggle as a Bronx-raised, working-class Puerto Rican among the Ivy League flowers. After all, Sotomayor did attend a good private Catholic high school. (And had she been born of poor Chinese immigrants, little fuss would have been made of her academic success.) The essence of Sotomayor's Princeton experience was that she graduated summa cum laude and went on to Yale Law School, where she was an editor on the law journal.
In recounting Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey," though, President Obama treats her as a daughter, not a colleague. His mention of her girlhood passion for Nancy Drew mysteries draws sweet laughter from the audience. And he repeatedly refers to Celina Sotomayor as "Sonia's mom."
Could you imagine a formal nomination speech that talked of John Roberts' mother as "John's mom"? And would anyone note that the chief justice enjoyed "Winnie the Pooh" as a boy, which he probably did?
When President Bush named his two male Supreme Court nominees, he invariably called them "Judge Roberts" and "Judge Alito." Sotomayor is every bit as much a judge, but Obama calls her "Sonia."
As in: "Well, Sonia, what you've shown in your life is that it doesn't matter where you come from, what you look like or what challenges life throws your way -- no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America." That hackneyed line would feel right in place at a high school graduation.
Obama no doubt reasons that he has picked someone whom the Republicans would not dare attack, given their recent poor electoral showing among Latinos. Embedded in this assumption is that Hispanics vote as a unit and on ethnic grounds.
Latinos are themselves a diverse group and don't all agree, even on immigration. Yet in writing of the politics of this nomination, Politico repeats the accepted wisdom that Republican stands on immigration "dramatically increased" the Democratic Party's share of the Hispanic vote last November.
Harsh, ethnically tinged comments during the immigration debate surely turned off some Latino voters. But what about the collapsing economy, which has disproportionately hurt Hispanic families? Democrats made significant gains among blue-collar Americans of all ethnic backgrounds.
It helps to remember that in the 2003 race for California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger won 30 percent of the Latino vote -- even though he was a Republican opposed to granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. A third candidate to Schwarzenegger's right took another 9 percent. Furthermore, the Democrat, Cruz Bustamante, was an open-borders advocate who would have been California's first modern Latino governor.
As for Puerto Ricans in New York, a New York Times-CBS News poll that same year found that only 19 percent wanted even legal immigration increased, while 36 percent said it should be reduced. Puerto Ricans are automatically American citizens.
And so identity politics can be misinformed as well as patronizing. This particular narrative turns the female nominee into everyone's little girl. And its treating of high achievement in only some groups with awe is offensive. Let's examine Sotomayor's record with a straight gaze, and leave identity politics at home. Won't happen, but let's try.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 28, 2009, 03:11:14 PM
Funnily enough, I've wondered for years how something so unfair as athletic "scholarships" were conjured up at all.
It doesn't even pass the sematic coherence test.
Well, scholarships for men's football and basketball make sense from an economic perspective. Dunno if that was always the case though.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Sephardic? Were his ancestors secret Jews who stayed in Spain until the 19th century?
It's sort of like me saying I'm French because my ancestors were Hugenots who fled to Scotland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 08:19:23 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Sephardic? Were his ancestors secret Jews who stayed in Spain until the 19th century?
It's sort of like me saying I'm French because my ancestors were Hugenots who fled to Scotland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
Well, he was right about his mediocrity. Sephardim = TEH LOSE
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 02:25:39 PM
The American People are not 2/3 Catholic. I demand a court than looks like America! :mad:
:P
They will be... :pope:
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2009, 08:34:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 08:19:23 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 28, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)
If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. :P
Sephardic? Were his ancestors secret Jews who stayed in Spain until the 19th century?
It's sort of like me saying I'm French because my ancestors were Hugenots who fled to Scotland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
Well, he was right about his mediocrity. Sephardim = TEH LOSE
You are a retard.
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 08:19:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
"Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews; their families immigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition.[1] Cardozo family tradition held that their ancestors were Marranos from Portugal,[1] although Cardozo's ancestry has not been firmly traced to Portugal.[2] "Cardoso", "Seixas" and "Mendes" are common Portuguese surnames."
Because if there's anything that says Hispanic, it's descent from an English family who arrived in America before the Revolution.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 09:26:08 PM
"Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews; their families immigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition.[1] Cardozo family tradition held that their ancestors were Marranos from Portugal,[1] although Cardozo's ancestry has not been firmly traced to Portugal.[2] "Cardoso", "Seixas" and "Mendes" are common Portuguese surnames."
Because if there's anything that says Hispanic, it's descent from an English family who arrived in America before the Revolution.
They're probably not any more English than Spanish though, it's not like there was much intermarriage between Jews and Christians at the time.
Freaky. Rush Limbaugh predicted back in 1997 that Sotomayor would make it to the Supreme Court, though apparently he had forgotten about it afterward.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/flashback-limbaugh-foresaw-sotomayor-nomination-in-97/
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 28, 2009, 03:11:14 PM
Funnily enough, I've wondered for years how something so unfair as athletic "scholarships" were conjured up at all.
It doesn't even pass the sematic coherence test.
It is an ancient western tradition that physical education is just as important as mental education. The Greeks and Romans were big on that I believe.
Supporters of athletics in academic institutions can point to loads of research showing that athletes perform better academically than those who do not participate to justify the continuation of its existence.
Some people point to the money athletics can generate but really the only thing that money ever does is support athletics, the rest of the school never benefits. Has anybody ever heard of a new Engineering building being built with Football money before?
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 09:39:53 AM
Freaky. Rush Limbaugh predicted back in 1997 that Sotomayor would make it to the Supreme Court, though apparently he had forgotten about it afterward.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/flashback-limbaugh-foresaw-sotomayor-nomination-in-97/
However, he failed to predict Donovan McNabb would win the NFC championship.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 11:07:17 PM
They're probably not any more English than Spanish though, it's not like there was much intermarriage between Jews and Christians at the time.
I dunno. At what point does ethnicity matter compared to culture? Does anybody think Cardozo's grandparents spoke Spanish, for instance?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 29, 2009, 09:50:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 11:07:17 PM
They're probably not any more English than Spanish though, it's not like there was much intermarriage between Jews and Christians at the time.
I dunno. At what point does ethnicity matter compared to culture? Does anybody think Cardozo's grandparents spoke Spanish, for instance?
If his family was from Portugal, not likely unless they learned it in school.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
However, he failed to predict Donovan McNabb would win the NFC championship.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 29, 2009, 09:50:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 11:07:17 PM
They're probably not any more English than Spanish though, it's not like there was much intermarriage between Jews and Christians at the time.
I dunno. At what point does ethnicity matter compared to culture? Does anybody think Cardozo's grandparents spoke Spanish, for instance?
If his family was from Portugal, not likely unless they learned it in school.
:blush:
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 09:46:10 AM
Some people point to the money athletics can generate but really the only thing that money ever does is support athletics, the rest of the school never benefits. Has anybody ever heard of a new Engineering building being built with Football money before?
I doubted your assertion and did some quick searches on google. I had always thought that sports programs were a revenue generator for universities but it appears that sports programs are actually subsidized by many universities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 10:26:29 AM
I doubted your assertion and did some quick searches on google. I had always thought that sports programs were a revenue generator for universities but it appears that sports programs are actually subsidized by many universities.
Rather it is subsidized by almost all Universities (which is sort of odd way of putting it as athletics is supposed to be a department on campus like say Chemistry is). Only a select few Athletic Departments make enough money to be self funding...and even then they rely on big time contributions from alumni than profits from tickets and gear sales and such.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 29, 2009, 09:50:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 28, 2009, 11:07:17 PM
They're probably not any more English than Spanish though, it's not like there was much intermarriage between Jews and Christians at the time.
I dunno. At what point does ethnicity matter compared to culture? Does anybody think Cardozo's grandparents spoke Spanish, for instance?
So what?
They probably spoke ladino and hebrew.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 09:26:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 08:19:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
"Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews; their families immigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition.[1] Cardozo family tradition held that their ancestors were Marranos from Portugal,[1] although Cardozo's ancestry has not been firmly traced to Portugal.[2] "Cardoso", "Seixas" and "Mendes" are common Portuguese surnames."
Because if there's anything that says Hispanic, it's descent from an English family who arrived in America before the Revolution.
Many latino people say that the sefaradim are hispanic.
That's totally retarded.
I mean, we do feel culturally very close to the spaniards and portugueses, but the latinos from Latin-america?
Those people are indians that speak spanish. Nothing else.
Even their culture is very diferent from Iberian cultures.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 10:33:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 10:26:29 AM
I doubted your assertion and did some quick searches on google. I had always thought that sports programs were a revenue generator for universities but it appears that sports programs are actually subsidized by many universities.
Rather it is subsidized by almost all Universities (which is sort of odd way of putting it as athletics is supposed to be a department on campus like say Chemistry is). Only a select few Athletic Departments make enough money to be self funding...and even then they rely on big time contributions from alumni than profits from tickets and gear sales and such.
Well, they rely on donations for large projects generally, not for operating funds.
Even the profitable schools (I think there were 19 in the last report) have profitable departments - what that really means is that football and basketball make enough to cover the other sports, which, with a few exceptions on a school by school basis, all lose money.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 10:33:20 AM
Rather it is subsidized by almost all Universities (which is sort of odd way of putting it as athletics is supposed to be a department on campus like say Chemistry is). Only a select few Athletic Departments make enough money to be self funding...and even then they rely on big time contributions from alumni than profits from tickets and gear sales and such.
Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable. Women's sports are to blame for the inflated cost of an athletic program & should be scaled back (Title IX be damned) to only the sports people actually want to participate in or watch.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 10:45:07 AM
Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable. Women's sports are to blame for the inflated cost of an athletic program & should be scaled back (Title IX be damned) to only the sports people actually want to participate in or watch.
Yeah good luck with that Title IX thing. The thing that fucks men's sports is he fact women do not play football. So men's programs have to go. The thing that really annoys me is in order to fill alot of the Varsity programs even the University of Texas has to recruit female athletes and give them scholarships who have never actually played the sport in question before. I mean we have a varsity woman's rowing team just to try to balance out the football scholarships and nobody does crew here in Texas much less women.
Meanwhile Baseball, a sport played by millions of boys all over the country, rarely has more than a tiny number of scholarships to pass out. Many division I programs only have a ridiculous three scholarships to give for Baseball. But I tend to focus on that one since College Baseball is my favorite sport.
On the other hand I seriously doubt that more than a small number of Division I schools are profiteable or self supporting. I bet maybe a tiny handful of Div II or III schools are.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 10:45:07 AM
Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable.
QuoteA new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that from 2004-06, only 17 out of 330 Division I athletic departments operated at a profit, with universities making up the difference, usually out of general operating revenues.
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2008/05/cost-of-college-sports.html
The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 10:48:22 AM
On the other hand I seriously doubt that more than a small number of Division I schools are profiteable or self supporting. I bet maybe a tiny handful of Div II or III schools are.
Are you talking about athletics or a specific sport?
Quote from: ulmont on May 29, 2009, 10:57:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 10:45:07 AM
Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable.
QuoteA new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that from 2004-06, only 17 out of 330 Division I athletic departments operated at a profit, with universities making up the difference, usually out of general operating revenues.
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2008/05/cost-of-college-sports.html
The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.
Again, I'm talking about individual football or basketball programs, not athletic departments.
Quote from: ulmont on May 29, 2009, 10:57:35 AM
The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.
Yes but that is the entire athletic department. What Spicey is saying is that the Football and Basketball programs alone are profiteable or pay for themselves, without considering the losses associated with the rest of the department.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 10:58:06 AM
Are you talking about athletics or a specific sport?
I am talking about football and Basketball. I know my Alma Mater didn't make anything since attending the games was free.
I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.
The odd thing about this is that the compliant that athletic departments do not make money tends to come from the same people who complain that college athletics is all about money!
If 20 out of 300 are profitable, how many are basically break even? Is being profitable even a goal for most of those? I would guess breaking even or coming close is really all they are looking for, and many are going to be fine with the atletic department costing some money, within reason.
Lets look at something like mens track.
Probalby not a profitable sport at any school in the country.
Is that a problem? *Must* it make money to be worthwhile?
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.
I brought up this point to challenge the notion that there were economic advantages for a school giving out football and basketball scholarships. Even for the very top and richest programs do not benefit their school that much, beyond funding the rest of the athletic department.
Rather schools percieve athletics as an important career and path of "study" (so to speak) as legitimate as any other. So that is why they fund them not out of some desire to get rich.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.
I brought up this point to challenge the notion that there were economic advantages for a school giving out football and basketball scholarships. Even for the very top and richest programs do not benefit their school that much.
Actually, that is not true. The top tier programs benefit their schools immensely in fact. They bring in money, they bring attention, they create brand loyalty, they make the school a desirable product well beyond the strict financial return.
And the top tier programs make a shitload of money.
Quote
Rather schools percieve athletics as an important career and path of "study" (so to speak) as legitimate as any other. So that is why they fund them not out of some desire to get rich.
No they don't. They fund them because it is part of the university culture in America, part of the marketing system, and even if they don't make money, their revenue offsets costs.
I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:10:58 AM
I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.
No but there are plenty of careers in athletics that do not involve becoming a professional athlete. Certainly as many as studying Ancient Mycenaean pottery.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 11:15:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:10:58 AM
I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.
No but there are plenty of careers in athletics that do not involve becoming a professional athlete. Certainly as many as studying Ancient Mycenaean pottery.
But you don't need an athletic department to teach those things.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 11:00:15 AM
I am talking about football and Basketball. I know my Alma Mater didn't make anything since attending the games was free.
What was your alma mater?
Anyway, I figure if WVU's football program can be self-funded, most decent Division I programs should be able to do that as well.
small clarification: WVU's entire athletics program is actually self-funded.
I would guess that most, if not all, of the BCS schools manage to make money or at least break even on football and basketball.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:17:30 AM
But you don't need an athletic department to teach those things.
I question that is true. All those student trainers working with the sports teams are getting valuable experience for the future and so forth for other similar positions.
QuoteNo they don't. They fund them because it is part of the university culture in America, part of the marketing system, and even if they don't make money, their revenue offsets costs.
At a division II, III or NAIA school? Even at Division I schools way back in the 19th century when all these athletic departments were originally developed and that was why they came to be: for phyiscal education. They may have certain side benefits today but that was the original rational for giving athletic scholarships and having varsity teams.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 12:20:32 PM
I would guess that most, if not all, of the BCS schools manage to make money or at least break even on football and basketball.
I know Texas Tech was operatiing a huge loss in Football for awhile at least to try to catch up to Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma.
Obviously big spending on college sports is necessary: look at the top rankings of academic institutions and you will see that they closely match the top rankings of football and basketball.
As for canceling men's sports because of title ix, why is it so expensive for a college to have a sport? Thousands of high schools have track teams, swimming teams, tennis teams, soccer teams, etc. that cost almost nothing. If schools don't insist on hiring coaches for obscene salaries and having venues that aren't modern day cathedrals, we might avoid the horror of a world without men's college wrestling.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 01:45:43 PM
As for canceling men's sports because of title ix, why is it so expensive for a college to have a sport? Thousands of high schools have track teams, swimming teams, tennis teams, soccer teams, etc. that cost almost nothing. If schools don't insist on hiring coaches for obscene salaries and having venues that aren't modern day cathedrals, we might avoid the horror of a world without men's college wrestling.
It is because of travel and scholarships mostly. The facilities obviously already existed before the program was cut.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 01:45:43 PM
Obviously big spending on college sports is necessary: look at the top rankings of academic institutions and you will see that they closely match the top rankings of football and basketball.
As for canceling men's sports because of title ix, why is it so expensive for a college to have a sport? Thousands of high schools have track teams, swimming teams, tennis teams, soccer teams, etc. that cost almost nothing. If schools don't insist on hiring coaches for obscene salaries and having venues that aren't modern day cathedrals, we might avoid the horror of a world without men's college wrestling.
Actually, the teams that hire coaches for obscene slaries do so because they want to continue to be profitable.
This was a minor issue at Arizona recently - people were bitching about how much Sean Miller was going to be paid at a time when the university was cutting everywhere (supposedly). But that misses the entire point. Miller is being hired to be the head coach at a school that makes a LOT of money off of the basketball program - if you are not willing to pay top dollar, you can save a million or two a year in salary, at the cost of a $15 million/year program.
A classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 01:45:43 PM
Obviously big spending on college sports is necessary: look at the top rankings of academic institutions and you will see that they closely match the top rankings of football and basketball.
That is just a silly argument - are you claiming that any program that does not contribute to making some school somewhere in the "top ranking of academic institutions" is not necessary?
Being in the top ranking of academic instutions is possible, by definition, for only a few schools - should everyone else just close their doors since they cannot be a top ranked academic school? Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 01:45:43 PM
As for canceling men's sports because of title ix, why is it so expensive for a college to have a sport? Thousands of high schools have track teams, swimming teams, tennis teams, soccer teams, etc. that cost almost nothing. If schools don't insist on hiring coaches for obscene salaries and having venues that aren't modern day cathedrals, we might avoid the horror of a world without men's college wrestling.
It is because of travel and scholarships mostly. The facilities obviously already existed before the program was cut.
So why not keep the programs without scholarships?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:04:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 01:45:43 PM
As for canceling men's sports because of title ix, why is it so expensive for a college to have a sport? Thousands of high schools have track teams, swimming teams, tennis teams, soccer teams, etc. that cost almost nothing. If schools don't insist on hiring coaches for obscene salaries and having venues that aren't modern day cathedrals, we might avoid the horror of a world without men's college wrestling.
It is because of travel and scholarships mostly. The facilities obviously already existed before the program was cut.
So why not keep the programs without scholarships?
They do, it is called Division II and Division III.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:04:02 PM
So why not keep the programs without scholarships?
Good question and I have no idea.
Edit: Well certain leagues and classifications might have scholarship requirements. I know Iowa State couldn't have just dumped all their scholarships and continued to compete in the Big XII so they just dumped their program (no now the Big XII is the Big X in baseball, Colorado dropped their program also). I think you have to have at least 3 scholarships for Division I status.
Speaking of Baseball the NCAA tournament starts today and I have tickets for the first two rounds. Wahoo! Lots of scholarships will be on display this afternoon.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 02:07:30 PM
They do, it is called Division II and Division III.
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
I do not even know if that is an option.
It seems that you either compete in your division of the NCAA or you have club teams.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
I do not even know if that is an option.
It seems that you either compete in your division of the NCAA or you have club teams.
Can you change divisions? Could Arizona switch to Division II to save money?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 02:07:30 PM
They do, it is called Division II and Division III.
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
The departments do not have to lose money, and Arizona has a profitable athletic department overall - football and basketball pay for all the other sports.
And actually, the brand of Arizona is most certainly enhanced by the baseball team, the womens softball team, swimming, golf, and a variety of other sports.
I am not sure what the issue is here. Universities do lots of things that cost money that do not directly contribute to academics. Why are sports getting special attention?
And of course non-revenue generating sports are being cut all over the country. I guess that is fine, except that it just over-emphasizes the role of money in college athletics - if it really is so much about money that we aren't interested in any sports that don't make a profit, then who can complain about that focus?
There really isn't anything broken here - what are you trying to fix? Different schools consider athletics to be more or less important, and fund them appropriately. If you think mens rowing is not worth spending money on, don't go to a school that has mens rowing....I guess.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
You're overlooking the possibility, already mentioned by Speesh, that alumni giving is linked to sports.
I have a veeery vague recollection of someone telling me that Georgetown alumni donantions jumped 100% after they signed Patrick Ewing.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 02:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 02:07:30 PM
They do, it is called Division II and Division III.
So then why do the departments have to lose money? If Arizona basketball is a cash cow, then by all means make the cash and pay the coach to do so. But then don't spend so much on other sports that it starts taking away from academics. I doubt that the brand of Arizona is enhanced by the rowing team. Compete at a lower division if it is too expensive to give scholarships.
The departments do not have to lose money, and Arizona has a profitable athletic department overall - football and basketball pay for all the other sports.
And actually, the brand of Arizona is most certainly enhanced by the baseball team, the womens softball team, swimming, golf, and a variety of other sports.
I am not sure what the issue is here. Universities do lots of things that cost money that do not directly contribute to academics. Why are sports getting special attention?
And of course non-revenue generating sports are being cut all over the country. I guess that is fine, except that it just over-emphasizes the role of money in college athletics - if it really is so much about money that we aren't interested in any sports that don't make a profit, then who can complain about that focus?
There really isn't anything broken here - what are you trying to fix? Different schools consider athletics to be more or less important, and fund them appropriately. If you think mens rowing is not worth spending money on, don't go to a school that has mens rowing....I guess.
If the point of the athletics department is to make money, then it should be maximizing the revenue it returns to academics. If it is to teach athletics, then we should be fostering other college programs and not cutting them. It seems to me we aren't doing either: we aren't returning money to academics, and we are cutting unprofitable sports.
I guess my main complaint is really just cultural annoyance--it seems 90% of the time I hear of some schools it is because of their sports teams, manned by people who may never graduate.
Yi has a good point about fostering donations though.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
Can you change divisions? Could Arizona switch to Division II to save money?
Except that wouldn't save them money. In fact it would lose them lots of money.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
I guess my main complaint is really just cultural annoyance--it seems 90% of the time I hear of some schools it is because of their sports teams, manned by people who may never graduate.
It is amazing how jock stereotypes continue despite all the tons of actual evidence that suggests athletes graduate at higher rates than their non-athlete counterparts.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
I guess my main complaint is really just cultural annoyance--it seems 90% of the time I hear of some schools it is because of their sports teams, manned by people who may never graduate.
Indeed, but your annoyance, while valid for you, makes no damn sense when applied to everyone else.
Its not like universities in America are some monolithic top down organization that takes direction from someone. There are a lot fo them, and MANY have no sports program of any kind.
If you find the idea of college sports annoying, then so what? Don't go to a school that has athletics - or if you do, ignore them. There are enough schools out there that you can pick and choose one that suits your level of tolerance for anything.
So why the need to change anything? Universities do what they think their customers want. You are basically arguing that everyone should change because you don't like how something works, rather than you just exercising the option to have nothing to do with what you don't like.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Yi has a good point about fostering donations though.
Oh yeah, and apparel sales.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 02:36:24 PM
If you find the idea of college sports annoying, then so what? Don't go to a school that has athletics - or if you do, ignore them. There are enough schools out there that you can pick and choose one that suits your level of tolerance for anything.
It's not like there's a box we can check on state tax returns if we don't want our taxes to fund college athletics.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
Meh, I don't. To do so is basically impossible for most schools, and the attempt would push them to over-specialize.
I think there is nothing at all wrong with aspiring, for example, to provide a excellent education to more people, rather than a stupendous education to the elite.
For every Stanford there has to be a dozen Arizonas, and a hundred SUNY-Brockports.
Yes, some should recognize that mediocrity is their lot in life.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 02:56:16 PM
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
The academic ratings are often built on things like original research and grant money that have nothing to do with educating students. The best place to get an education rarely is reflected by the ratings.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
Why?
This debate came up at my alma-mater, and the university President said it was NOT that university's ambition to be #1 in the ranking. It was stated that in order to be #1 it would mean being far more exclusive than they wanted to be, with much higher entrance requirements and much smaller class sizes. That university, a large public institution, instead stated their ambition was to give a high quality education to as many resident of the province as reasonably possible.
Quote from: garbon on May 29, 2009, 03:02:52 PM
Yes, some should recognize that mediocrity is their lot in life.
Some? The very definition of mediocrity requires that most recognize that fact.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2009, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
Why?
This debate came up at my alma-mater, and the university President said it was NOT that university's ambition to be #1 in the ranking. It was stated that in order to be #1 it would mean being far more exclusive than they wanted to be, with much higher entrance requirements and much smaller class sizes. That university, a large public institution, instead stated their ambition was to give a high quality education to as many resident of the province as reasonably possible.
And we all saw how that turned out! :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 03:05:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2009, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Should that be the goal for every single school in America, to make it into the top academic rankings?
I think that should be the goal, yes. At least an aspiration.
Why?
This debate came up at my alma-mater, and the university President said it was NOT that university's ambition to be #1 in the ranking. It was stated that in order to be #1 it would mean being far more exclusive than they wanted to be, with much higher entrance requirements and much smaller class sizes. That university, a large public institution, instead stated their ambition was to give a high quality education to as many resident of the province as reasonably possible.
And we all saw how that turned out! :P
Clearly it has turned out very well judging by Buddha and I. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 03:05:28 PM
And we all saw how that turned out! :P
Producing a noble public servant who brings truth and justice and keeps the north strong and free?
A public institution can have a commitment to educating a broad swath of people and yet still aspire to provide the best quality academics as possible. There are plenty of public universities out there that admit lots of residents and yet still have departments and programs with a strong commitment to academic excellence. (And there are others that do not have as strong a commitment.) Perhaps they will never be able to reach #1 in the canned rankings or even #20, but they can still aspire to reach as high as possible in terms of academic excellence. Seems to me if an institution lacks that aspiration, it is basically saying that the people it serves don't deserve any better than a half-assed effort.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 03:10:13 PM
A public institution can have a commitment to educating a broad swath of people and yet still aspire to provide the best quality academics as possible. There are plenty of public universities out there that admit lots of residents and yet still have departments and programs with a strong commitment to academic excellence. (And there are others that do not have as strong a commitment.) Perhaps they will never be able to reach #1 in the canned rankings or even #20, but they can still aspire to reach as high as possible in terms of academic excellence. Seems to me if an institution lacks that aspiration, it is basically saying that the people it serves don't deserve any better than a half-assed effort.
Then I suspect we are just quibbling over words. I agree with what I think you're saying - that every institution should arpise to be very good at what it does. It was really just the word "best" that I disagreed with.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
I guess my main complaint is really just cultural annoyance--it seems 90% of the time I hear of some schools it is because of their sports teams, manned by people who may never graduate.
Why does it bother you that some college athletes are so good they can begin earning millions of dollars by leaving university early and not graduating. That is one kind of success isnt it? Also, speaking as a father, one of the factors that influences where I send me kids to elementary and middle school is the quality of the sports programs at the school. It will continue to be a factor when they get to high school. I am not sure why it should not continue to be a factor on into university assuming they have the ability to play a sport at that level.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 03:10:13 PM
A public institution can have a commitment to educating a broad swath of people and yet still aspire to provide the best quality academics as possible. There are plenty of public universities out there that admit lots of residents and yet still have departments and programs with a strong commitment to academic excellence. (And there are others that do not have as strong a commitment.) Perhaps they will never be able to reach #1 in the canned rankings or even #20, but they can still aspire to reach as high as possible in terms of academic excellence. Seems to me if an institution lacks that aspiration, it is basically saying that the people it serves don't deserve any better than a half-assed effort.
Ok yes I think every institution should aspire to provide the best education possible while keeping in mind the goals of the institution.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 03:05:13 PM
Some? The very definition of mediocrity requires that most recognize that fact.
I suppose I should have said most but I'm not elitist like you. :blurgh:
Quote from: garbon on May 29, 2009, 03:22:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 03:05:13 PM
Some? The very definition of mediocrity requires that most recognize that fact.
I suppose I should have said most but I'm not elitist like you. :blurgh:
Garbon, not an elitist? :yeahright:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
I guess my main complaint is really just cultural annoyance--it seems 90% of the time I hear of some schools it is because of their sports teams, manned by people who may never graduate.
Why does it bother you that some college athletes are so good they can begin earning millions of dollars by leaving university early and not graduating. That is one kind of success isnt it?
The incredibly small minority that leave early for lucrative professional contracts: I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is admission standards being lowered so that people who could never otherwise get a second look are admitted and then once admitted view academics as a hurdle to stay qualified to compete. And then those people becoming the student body's face to the general public.
It makes sense to care about athletics in elementary and high school; after all most children participate. I'm not sure why that would transfer to college.
I think we're skirting the real issue here; is Sonia Sotomayor going to get a basketball scholarship or not?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 03:52:47 PM
The incredibly small minority that leave early for lucrative professional contracts: I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is admission standards being lowered so that people who could never otherwise get a second look are admitted and then once admitted view academics as a hurdle to stay qualified to compete. And then those people becoming the student body's face to the general public.
It makes sense to care about athletics in elementary and high school; after all most children participate. I'm not sure why that would transfer to college.
Again speaking from personal experience I was one of those who went to university mainly to play ball but once there I found my academic niche and thrived both academically and in sports. I have a feeling that you put less value on searching out the best athletic experience simply because you were not part of the group that could. I probably would not have excelled nor sought out the kind of university experience you had or pursued but that does not make your experience any less valuable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 04:00:41 PM
Again speaking from personal experience I was one of those who went to university mainly to play ball but once there I found my academic niche and thrived both academically and in sports. I have a feeling that you put less value on searching out the best athletic experience simply because you were not part of the group that could. I probably would not have excelled nor sought out the kind of university experience you had or pursued but that does not make your experience any less valuable.
You are right--I was not able to be a college athlete, just like most people are not. If your children are able, then by all means take that into account when choosing a college.
I do however question admitting less academically qualified individuals who do not have a strong desire to pursue academics on the chance they will "find their academic niche." And in any event, I doubt your precollege prep was nearly as bad as many athletes that are entering college.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
I do however question admitting less academically qualified individuals who do not have a strong desire to pursue academics on the chance they will "find their academic niche." And in any event, I doubt your precollege prep was nearly as bad as many athletes that are entering college.
Why do you question it. There are many paths leading to a university education. Everyone is not like you. Why assume that the path you took is superior?
And by the way you would be wrong about my pre-college prep. I also attended high school with the primary purpose of playing ball. If not for that I would probably have dropped out and started working in one of the mills like many of my friends at the time.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
I do however question admitting less academically qualified individuals who do not have a strong desire to pursue academics on the chance they will "find their academic niche." And in any event, I doubt your precollege prep was nearly as bad as many athletes that are entering college.
But athletics is a department in the University, why shouldn't they be able to bring in students who are qualified for their programs. If there was an artist or musician who was a genius but was not academically strong I still think they should go to a top art school so why wouldn't that also apply to an athlete?
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
I do however question admitting less academically qualified individuals who do not have a strong desire to pursue academics on the chance they will "find their academic niche." And in any event, I doubt your precollege prep was nearly as bad as many athletes that are entering college.
But athletics is a department in the University, why shouldn't they be able to bring in students who are qualified for their programs. If there was an artist or musician who was a genius but was not academically strong I still think they should go to a top art school so why wouldn't that also apply to an athlete?
Good example. I understand that Indiana University has, or at least had, an excellent musical department that attracted the very best student musicians in North America. I suppose AR would look dimly on that as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
Why do you question it. There are many paths leading to a university education. Everyone is not like you. Why assume that the path you took is superior?
And by the way you would be wrong about my pre-college prep. I also attended high school with the primary purpose of playing ball. If not for that I would probably have dropped out and started working in one of the mills like many of my friends at the time.
I don't assume that the path I took was superior. But I don't believe admitting people to strong academic institutions that have an 800 on the SAT (or even less) and struggled to get through high school is a good policy--I think it makes a joke of the institutions and detracts from the degree programs. Maybe you were that poorly prepared coming out of high school--I strongly doubt that simply because you have decent writing and reasoning skills and it is unlikely you learned those after 18 while coping with a college curriculum. But even if you were, you are one of a small minority.
Valmy: I really do doubt that schools like Duke are actively recruiting and admitting musicians who have a 2.5 high school GPA and 850 SAT score. I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
Why do you question it. There are many paths leading to a university education. Everyone is not like you. Why assume that the path you took is superior?
And by the way you would be wrong about my pre-college prep. I also attended high school with the primary purpose of playing ball. If not for that I would probably have dropped out and started working in one of the mills like many of my friends at the time.
I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
How often do you hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 04:49:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
Why do you question it. There are many paths leading to a university education. Everyone is not like you. Why assume that the path you took is superior?
And by the way you would be wrong about my pre-college prep. I also attended high school with the primary purpose of playing ball. If not for that I would probably have dropped out and started working in one of the mills like many of my friends at the time.
I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
How often do you hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra?
Not often--too much airtime listening to college athletes I guess.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
Why do you question it. There are many paths leading to a university education. Everyone is not like you. Why assume that the path you took is superior?
And by the way you would be wrong about my pre-college prep. I also attended high school with the primary purpose of playing ball. If not for that I would probably have dropped out and started working in one of the mills like many of my friends at the time.
I don't assume that the path I took was superior. But I don't believe admitting people to strong academic institutions that have an 800 on the SAT (or even less) and struggled to get through high school is a good policy--I think it makes a joke of the institutions and detracts from the degree programs. Maybe you were that poorly prepared coming out of high school--I strongly doubt that simply because you have decent writing and reasoning skills and it is unlikely you learned those after 18 while coping with a college curriculum. But even if you were, you are one of a small minority.
Valmy: I really do doubt that schools like Duke are actively recruiting and admitting musicians who have a 2.5 high school GPA and 850 SAT score. I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
You certainly assume that people with higher GPAs and SATs are superior to people who are not. I would not like to live in the kind of world you would want where the only thing that is valued is high grades. Some of the dumbest most incompetent people I have had to work with over the years obtained very high grades. I would much prefer well rounded individuals who have a variety of life experiences, including sports, not somebody who just devoted all their time and energy to obtaining top marks. There is enough bias toward marks in the entrance requirements of universities as it is. Why do you begrudge the university experience to those who enter through other doors?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
I don't assume that the path I took was superior. But I don't believe admitting people to strong academic institutions that have an 800 on the SAT (or even less) and struggled to get through high school is a good policy--I think it makes a joke of the institutions and detracts from the degree programs. Maybe you were that poorly prepared coming out of high school--I strongly doubt that simply because you have decent writing and reasoning skills and it is unlikely you learned those after 18 while coping with a college curriculum. But even if you were, you are one of a small minority.
Valmy: I really do doubt that schools like Duke are actively recruiting and admitting musicians who have a 2.5 high school GPA and 850 SAT score. I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
You obviously dont have many chances to speak to student althletes most of whom excel at academics as well as their sport. I assume the same is true for musicians. Why is it that universities should not allow people to excel in more then one discipline?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 05:06:27 PM
You certainly assume that people with higher GPAs and SATs are superior to people who are not. I would not like to live in the kind of world you would want where the only thing that is valued is high grades. Some of the dumbest most incompetent people I have had to work with over the years obtained very high grades. I would much prefer well rounded individuals who have a variety of life experiences, including sports, not somebody who just devoted all their time and energy to obtaining top marks. There is enough bias toward marks in the entrance requirements of universities as it is. Why do you begrudge the university experience to those who enter through other doors?
:D That is absolutely not what I am saying at all, but good try. I'm saying that people who are functionally illiterate should not be admitted to top tier state colleges. I'm not bringing up SAT scores to show that these people are below average, but to show that they are lack basic reading and writing skills.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 05:16:27 PM
:D That is absolutely not what I am saying at all, but good try. I'm saying that people who are functionally illiterate should not be admitted to top tier state colleges. I'm not bringing up SAT scores to show that these people are below average, but to show that they are lack basic reading and writing skills.
Ok, we can agree that a student athlete should at least have the ability to be a student.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 03:46:37 PM
Garbon, not an elitist? :yeahright:
Of course not. I come from very humble stock.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 29, 2009, 09:50:58 AM
I dunno. At what point does ethnicity matter compared to culture? Does anybody think Cardozo's grandparents spoke Spanish, for instance?
No. But then, few Americans did.
I'm not sure how their ancestors living in England for a couple hundred years a couple hundred years earlier makes them English more than the ancestors having resided in Spain for possibly millennia and leaving 400 years earlier made them Spanish. Cardozo's family was ethnically Sephardic and culturally American. Not English per se.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 29, 2009, 03:10:13 PM
A public institution can have a commitment to educating a broad swath of people and yet still aspire to provide the best quality academics as possible. There are plenty of public universities out there that admit lots of residents and yet still have departments and programs with a strong commitment to academic excellence. (And there are others that do not have as strong a commitment.) Perhaps they will never be able to reach #1 in the canned rankings or even #20, but they can still aspire to reach as high as possible in terms of academic excellence. Seems to me if an institution lacks that aspiration, it is basically saying that the people it serves don't deserve any better than a half-assed effort.
I have taught at a very public uni and a much more selective uni. The clientele is so different that you simply cannot have the same expectations, even if you are the same professor; your total effort might be the same but it goes toward very different goals and such goals are, as BB said, very rarely recognized in all the various rankings. University administrations usually know that. Add to that the very different budgets for resources (library being a chief one), much larger classes, etc., etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2009, 05:18:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 05:16:27 PM
:D That is absolutely not what I am saying at all, but good try. I'm saying that people who are functionally illiterate should not be admitted to top tier state colleges. I'm not bringing up SAT scores to show that these people are below average, but to show that they are lack basic reading and writing skills.
Ok, we can agree that a student athlete should at least have the ability to be a student.
How widespread the extent of what I'm saying is, I don't know. I did look up georgetown, as that is the most recognized institution mentioned so far (despite the prowess of Arizona's baseball team). This article points out the Georgetown basketball team had average scores of 821, while the student body was 1275 (on a scale from 400 to 1600). Projecting the wikipedia rates, the basketball players averaged around the 17th percentile while the student body was around the 82nd.
The article does say that most players graduate, but if you guide players through a bunch of classes with group work and essay topics, is just getting a degree that hard? I can't imagine these kids contribute much to the academic classroom discussions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/gtown/longterm/1999/thompson/archives/thomp081797.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Y en espanol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGwtJQDkjCE&NR=1
What's with all the youtube spam lately? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 07:38:54 PM
The article does say that most players graduate, but if you guide players through a bunch of classes with group work and essay topics, is just getting a degree that hard? I can't imagine these kids contribute much to the academic classroom discussions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/gtown/longterm/1999/thompson/archives/thomp081797.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Most kids don't contribute much to classroom discussions. At the undergraduate level, in almost every class I attended me and one or two other kids dominated the discussion and the rest seldom opened their mouth.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 05:16:27 PM
I'm saying that people who are functionally illiterate should not be admitted to top tier state colleges.
You leave Vince Young out of this! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 10:29:43 PM
Most kids don't contribute much to classroom discussions. At the undergraduate level, in almost every class I attended me and one or two other kids dominated the discussion and the rest seldom opened their mouth.
CC, as I was saying, average to below average students, like those making up Tim's college, don't meaningfully contribute in the classroom.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 10:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 10:29:43 PM
Most kids don't contribute much to classroom discussions. At the undergraduate level, in almost every class I attended me and one or two other kids dominated the discussion and the rest seldom opened their mouth.
CC, as I was saying, average to below average students, like those making up Tim's college, don't meaningfully contribute in the classroom.
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
Valmy: I really do doubt that schools like Duke are actively recruiting and admitting musicians who have a 2.5 high school GPA and 850 SAT score. I've yet to hear an interview with a member of a symphony orchestra that gave me the impression they were as stupid as some of the people we have admitted as athletes at our colleges.
People get into colleges all sorts of ways. I guarantee you, nay I double dog dare you, that if you are an incredibly talented musician or actor or so forth you can get into the Fine Arts department at a University with grades and test scores that would get you rejected at other departments.
I am getting a little frustrated here. You seem to be obsessed with this ridiculous and frankly untrue stereotype that athletes perform poorly when in fact they perform better than the average non-athlete student.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 10:59:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 10:29:43 PM
Most kids don't contribute much to classroom discussions. At the undergraduate level, in almost every class I attended me and one or two other kids dominated the discussion and the rest seldom opened their mouth.
CC, as I was saying, average to below average students, like those making up Tim's college, don't meaningfully contribute in the classroom.
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
:P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
Clearly all those kids were stupid jocks.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 05:16:27 PMI'm saying that people who are functionally illiterate should not be admitted to top tier state colleges.
Which state colleges should admit the functionally illiterate ?
Quote from: citizen k on May 29, 2009, 11:08:13 PM
Which state colleges should admit functional illiterates ?
The ones in Mississippi.
Quote from: citizen kWhich state colleges should admit the functionally illiterate ?
UTSA needs to stop doing that.
Also, Valmy, did you ever see this article?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-11-01/feature.php
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 11:05:22 PM
People get into colleges all sorts of ways. I guarantee you, nay I double dog dare you, that if you are an incredibly talented musician or actor or so forth you can get into the Fine Arts department at a University with grades and test scores that would get you rejected at other departments.
I am getting a little frustrated here. You seem to be obsessed with this ridiculous and frankly untrue stereotype that athletes perform poorly when in fact they perform better than the average non-athlete student.
I am very well aware, and fully support, not just looking at grades and test scores to admit people to college. Any school that wants to let in a marginal applicant that otherwise wouldn't be accepted because they are an exceptional musician, actor, or running back is fine with me (though I'm not excited about the running back idea and don't see it contributing as much to academic life).
If the stereotype is ridiculous and untrue, how do you address the numbers for Georgetown? Yes I know that a lot of athletes graduate--I'm not sure that correlates to better performance. It probably has something to do with them being guided into easier classes that use subjective grading, effectively forced into attendance, and having tutors make sure they cross their ts along the way.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:17:29 PM
If the stereotype is ridiculous and untrue, how do you address the numbers for Georgetown? Yes I know that a lot of athletes graduate--I'm not sure that correlates to better performance. It probably has something to do with them being guided into easier classes that use subjective grading, effectively forced into attendance, and having tutors make sure they cross their ts along the way.
You're looking at the Basketball team that has like a dozen guys. What about the average for every student athlete at Georgetown? There must be hundreds.
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:22:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:17:29 PM
If the stereotype is ridiculous and untrue, how do you address the numbers for Georgetown? Yes I know that a lot of athletes graduate--I'm not sure that correlates to better performance. It probably has something to do with them being guided into easier classes that use subjective grading, effectively forced into attendance, and having tutors make sure they cross their ts along the way.
You're looking at the Basketball team that has like a dozen guys. What about the average for every student athlete at Georgetown? There must be hundreds.
If you want to look for that, go for it, but it is more the high profile sports that would be the worst offenders.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Theater, film, and music are academic disciplines. People that have practical experience and excel in those fields can bring something extra to the campus and classroom. A running back's performance will be enjoyed voyeuristically, like a stripper's.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Theater, film, and music are academic disciplines. People that have practical experience and excel in those fields can bring something extra to the campus and classroom. A running back's performance will be enjoyed voyeuristically, like a stripper's.
How is watching a running back run somehow different from listening to a musician make music, other than your irrational insecurity over athletes?
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:34:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Theater, film, and music are academic disciplines. People that have practical experience and excel in those fields can bring something extra to the campus and classroom. A running back's performance will be enjoyed voyeuristically, like a stripper's.
How is watching a running back run somehow different from listening to a musician make music, other than your irrational insecurity over athletes?
As I was trying to say in my post, the point of preferential admission for a musician shouldn't be motivated by the concerts that could be hosted. Most schools have music majors--don't you think having a real musician in the class would add something more to those classes than just someone who got a high SAT score?
Alas, you can still not major in football, or stripping. But at least you can watch. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:34:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Theater, film, and music are academic disciplines. People that have practical experience and excel in those fields can bring something extra to the campus and classroom. A running back's performance will be enjoyed voyeuristically, like a stripper's.
How is watching a running back run somehow different from listening to a musician make music, other than your irrational insecurity over athletes?
As I was trying to say in my post, the point of preferential admission for a musician shouldn't be motivated by the concerts that could be hosted. Most schools have music majors--don't you think having a real musician in the class would add something more to those classes than just someone who got a high SAT score?
No, not really. And who says some musician in college is a "real" musician anyway? Aren't ALL the students "real" musicians? They are their for their potential right?
I don't see what this huge advantage is to having an exceptional musician is that makes them somehow superior to an exceptional athlete.
I think you are just trying to come up with a pseudo rational justification for your dislike of athletes.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 29, 2009, 11:34:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Theater, film, and music are academic disciplines. People that have practical experience and excel in those fields can bring something extra to the campus and classroom. A running back's performance will be enjoyed voyeuristically, like a stripper's.
How is watching a running back run somehow different from listening to a musician make music, other than your irrational insecurity over athletes?
As I was trying to say in my post, the point of preferential admission for a musician shouldn't be motivated by the concerts that could be hosted. Most schools have music majors--don't you think having a real musician in the class would add something more to those classes than just someone who got a high SAT score?
Alas, you can still not major in football, or stripping. But at least you can watch. :)
Most public universities these days have open admissions AFAIK. If you have a high school diploma and some means to pay your tuition and fees, you'll be admitted, no matter how bad your HS grades and test scores. If they're going to admit students who barely graduated HS and got 850 on their SAT's who are working their way through college or whose parents have the money to send them, I don't see why there is a problem with admitting students with the same lack of academic acheivement on an athletic scholarship as well.
Now, you may not like open admissions, and that's a different issue. But that argument was lost about 40 years ago.
Public universities are the only type. Georgetown is a good example. :yes:
Is she a front for her relative Javier? Is this all a Commie plot involving law, high jump and a black president?
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2009, 01:33:51 AM
Most public universities these days have open admissions AFAIK.
Most, if you include community colleges.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
No, not really. And who says some musician in college is a "real" musician anyway? Aren't ALL the students "real" musicians? They are their for their potential right?
I don't see what this huge advantage is to having an exceptional musician is that makes them somehow superior to an exceptional athlete.
I think you are just trying to come up with a pseudo rational justification for your dislike of athletes.
I'm fine with preferential admissions to athletes, so long as the standards aren't lowered too much. I also think that the music department is capable of providing input on the capabilities of the students it thinks deserves preferential admission.
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2009, 01:33:51 AM
Most public universities these days have open admissions AFAIK. If you have a high school diploma and some means to pay your tuition and fees, you'll be admitted, no matter how bad your HS grades and test scores. If they're going to admit students who barely graduated HS and got 850 on their SAT's who are working their way through college or whose parents have the money to send them, I don't see why there is a problem with admitting students with the same lack of academic acheivement on an athletic scholarship as well.
Now, you may not like open admissions, and that's a different issue. But that argument was lost about 40 years ago.
I'm not sure how an open admission university is possible or desirable, but I'd agree with you in those cases and concede the point. Are there any top tier athletic programs at open admission universities?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2009, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2009, 01:33:51 AM
Most public universities these days have open admissions AFAIK. If you have a high school diploma and some means to pay your tuition and fees, you'll be admitted, no matter how bad your HS grades and test scores. If they're going to admit students who barely graduated HS and got 850 on their SAT's who are working their way through college or whose parents have the money to send them, I don't see why there is a problem with admitting students with the same lack of academic acheivement on an athletic scholarship as well.
Now, you may not like open admissions, and that's a different issue. But that argument was lost about 40 years ago.
I'm not sure how an open admission university is possible or desirable, but I'd agree with you in those cases and concede the point. Are there any top tier athletic programs at open admission universities?
According to wikipedia (for what that's worth) it's only been implemented at CUNY and has been a massive failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_admissions
Quote from: alfred russel on May 29, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2009, 09:39:53 AM
Freaky. Rush Limbaugh predicted back in 1997 that Sotomayor would make it to the Supreme Court, though apparently he had forgotten about it afterward.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/flashback-limbaugh-foresaw-sotomayor-nomination-in-97/
However, he failed to predict Donovan McNabb would win the NFC championship.
It's a good thing he chose political blowhard as his career, rather than sports betting.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
I believe the key word is 'academic', Timmy. Whether or not the running-back contributes to quality of life is nether here
nor there if you are talking about the academic climate.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 30, 2009, 10:51:11 AM
I believe the key word is 'academic', Timmy. Whether or not the running-back contributes to quality of life is nether here
nor there if you are talking about the academic climate.
Depends on your definition of 'academic', though, doesn't it? 'Academic' doesn't always strictly refer to classes. 'Academic life' could mean the entire university experience.
Gotta side with Tim on this one.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 10:29:43 PMMost kids don't contribute much to classroom discussions. At the undergraduate level, in almost every class I attended me and one or two other kids dominated the discussion and the rest seldom opened their mouth.
It was the same at my uni. Though the tutors always more or less forced everyone to contribute a bit every session. One would also ask people who were dominating to shut up, he said that he viewed part of his job was to control the discussion in such a way that a few people don't take-over and everyone else be silent.
If you were dominating the discussions, I can't imagine how fucked up your classes must have been.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
Doesn't it depend on class size? In a huge class, you'd really have to be a know-it-all to participate. However, in my experience, when the class size gets very small, with like 10 people, then everyone participates.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2009, 09:11:51 AM
According to wikipedia (for what that's worth) it's only been implemented at CUNY and has been a massive failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_admissions
That was a massive shame, BTW. In my university several distinguished professors got their undergraduate education in CUNY, and by their accounts it was a very solid system. When I was getting into colleges, CUNY was for those too dumb to get a job at McDonalds.
I like hiding in the corner and playing with my blackberry.
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2009, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
Doesn't it depend on class size? In a huge class, you'd really have to be a know-it-all to participate. However, in my experience, when the class size gets very small, with like 10 people, then everyone participates.
Very large classes tended to be straight lectures in my experience.
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2009, 02:04:58 PM
That was a massive shame, BTW. In my university several distinguished professors got their undergraduate education in CUNY, and by their accounts it was a very solid system. When I was getting into colleges, CUNY was for those too dumb to get a job at McDonalds.
Higher ed in this country is a total sham, dude.
Quote from: Caliga on June 02, 2009, 06:59:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2009, 02:04:58 PM
That was a massive shame, BTW. In my university several distinguished professors got their undergraduate education in CUNY, and by their accounts it was a very solid system. When I was getting into colleges, CUNY was for those too dumb to get a job at McDonalds.
Higher ed in this country is a total sham, dude.
Oh, please, let's not go overboard. US is an undisputed leader in higher education, and it's not even close. That doesn't that there aren't some truly tragic stories, like the rape and pillage of CUNY.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
For statements like this alone, I hope you get cancer relapse. Please die already.
Quote from: Martinus on June 02, 2009, 08:48:13 AM
For statements like this alone, I hope you get cancer relapse. Please die already.
I attend probably five out of the six theatre performances the UT Fine Arts departments puts one very year and I have to say, at least on this campus, he is absolutely right. I don't get why that is a bad thing, Texans just love football so very very much in a way that they never will love theatre or art (though I do not care for much student done art...most of it is self-indulgent crap).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Yes and by the same logic Paris Hilton is making a far greater contribution to world culture than all the world's symphony orchestras put together.
Ortega y Gasset was right: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."
Less Marti's, more Running backs that need tutors for PE classes.
Also, Notre Dame Football sucks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2009, 09:04:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:25:00 PM
Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.
Yes and by the same logic Paris Hilton is making a far greater contribution to world culture than all the world's symphony orchestras put together.
Ortega y Gasset was right: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."
Paris Hilton is an example of culture?
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
I am ok with that though - if you think Paris Hilton is all that and bag of chips, I won't tell you otherwise. Personally, I would rather watch a good football game, but I understand that YMMV.
Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying. Re-read the post he was responding to. By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.
AF, I have to agree with you that bringing athletes in to simply improve the sports program defeats the purpose of a University. Particularly if running the sports program draws off funding from other parts of the University. Where you and I differ, I think, is that I still see benefit in giving those athletes at least some education which they would not have obtained without their ability in sports. There is a balance to be struck there. I guess your main point is that the balance has been struck too far in favour of sports as performance rather then as a tool to further education.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 10:07:46 AM
There is a balance to be struck there. I guess your main point is that the balance has been struck too far in favour of sports as performance rather then as a tool to further education.
Yeah and I think all the statistics bear that out to be false. Being good at sports clearly does open up doors to educational opportunities that athletes, more often than not, take advantage of.
The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.
I dunno how true this is, but assuming that it is true, it is a problem - because it is demonstrating some rather shady behaviour that universities are supposed to be solidly against: why should your average student uphold the values of not cheating and fair play, when the university itself patently doesn't?
That being said, i'm all in favour of athletics being a part of the university, along with the arts and all aspects of culture - one cannot neglect the body in favour of the mind, both go together.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.
Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level). So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
For like 99.9% of scholarship athletes this is not a factor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 10:07:46 AM
Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying. Re-read the post he was responding to. By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.
I was being sarcastic, and illustrating that his objection was simply based on his personal definition of what constitutes "worthy" culture.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:30:43 AM
Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level). So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.
I think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following. Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first. No waivers, no lowered standards.
Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do.
Everybody wins, and without "cheating."
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.
What about schools that are willing to bend the rules to "bribe" promising scholars to attend, by eliminating the financial requirements for them to attend?
QuoteI dunno how true this is, but assuming that it is true, it is a problem - because it is demonstrating some rather shady behaviour that universities are supposed to be solidly against: why should your average student uphold the values of not cheating and fair play, when the university itself patently doesn't?
Because everyone knows that it isn't "shady", it is perfectly normal. I've never seen any evidence that suggests that students at major athletic universities tend to cheat more often because the schools have differing standards for athletes.
The way it works is like this, generally:
The university defines some minimum standards for admittance.
If you are not an athlete, you won't get in with those minimum standards, since admission is competitive.
Everyone needs something more than the minimum to compete. Some people are potentially great musicians, and even with not great grades/ACT/SAT, they get in anyway. Some people are kids of alumni. Some are athletes. All this varies by every school, of course.
So yeah, I don't see it is "shady" that there are things that figure into the "comptetive" entrance admissions beyond strict scores, as long as they meet the minimum. Even beyond that, at major schools with major athletic programs, nobody even maintains the illusion that the star athletes are really similar to typical students. Many of them are (after all, even at a school like Arizona or even USC, only a small fraction of the football players will ever earn a cent playing football) though, and hopefully will be smart enough to use their opportunity wisely.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2009, 10:35:02 AM
True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.
Why not? They are learning their craft. Plus they get an education they can fall back on if they choose to take advantage of it in a very favorable atmosphere (with tutors and the like).
I suppose they could be like a graduate student who is learning but also performing services for the University and thus gets compensated accordingly.
QuoteI think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following. Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first. No waivers, no lowered standards.
Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do.
Everybody wins, and without "cheating."
Well I think tons of people get accepted to schools for reasons other than their raw test scores and grades.
In any case it is not even true. A great way to get into Harvard is be a football player and have above average grades, grades that are good but not good enough to get you into Harvard without being a football player.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2009, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:30:43 AM
Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level). So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.
I think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following. Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first. No waivers, no lowered standards.
Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do.
Everybody wins, and without "cheating."
The NCAA actually stipulates just that though - athletes must meet the school basic minium standards for admission.
The problem is that those minimum standards, technically, are often MUCH lower than the actual scores you need to get into a competitive school. So you can meet the standard, but still not be anywhere close to the average student in capability as far as academics.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.
Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level). So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
For like 99.9% of scholarship athletes this is not a factor.
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.
Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level). So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
For like 99.9% of scholarship athletes this is not a factor.
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Because they are in fact students, and in fact need to meet progress requirements and such for graduation.
It isn't a "charade" at all, except in those places that end up getting investigated by the NCAA or lsoe scholarships because they don't meet the requirements that it NOT be a charade.
Most student-athletes are exactly that - student athletes. A very, very small percentage are using college as a path to a professional career. Probably less than 1%, overall, and likely a lot less.
Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=15962&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
QuoteThis article studies the impact of athletic scandals in higher education by examining changes in key variables including overall enrolment, number of freshman applications, overall charitable contributions, alumni charitable athletic contributions and corporate charitable athletic contributions. This exploratory study involved a case analysis of 15 universities covering an 8-year period that had been placed on NCAA probation for infractions involving their men's basketball and football programmes during the 1998–2005 academic calendar years. Preliminary results indicate that athletic scandal does negatively impact overall charitable giving and overall enrolment and that the impact is long-term in nature. However, contrary to our expectations, we found that scandal had a positive impact on alumni athletic contributions, corporate athletic contributions and total freshman applications. A set of managerial implications for colleges and university administrators as well as future research is discussed.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:52:53 AM
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Because they are students. It is not a charade. They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...). In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football. I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.
They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 10:56:17 AM
Most student-athletes are exactly that - student athletes. A very, very small percentage are using college as a path to a professional career. Probably less than 1%, overall, and likely a lot less.
This
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:58:56 AM
Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.
Yes because that was exactly what Berkut and I were saying: cheating is good.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:58:56 AM
Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.
Yeah, I am pretty sure that is just what we are suggesting.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:59:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:52:53 AM
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Because they are students. It is not a charade. They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...). In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football. I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.
They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.
The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.
This isn't my opinion alone.
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Life-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691096198
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:09:17 AM
The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.
That book only talks about reformation. It actually says pointblank that there are lots of positive advantages of College Athletics and that the problems need to be minimized.
That seems to reinforce but Berkut and I are saying rather than going against it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:02:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:58:56 AM
Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.
Yes because that was exactly what Berkut and I were saying: cheating is good.
That is certainly how your response to my post read.
You said:
QuoteSo everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.
So paying the illiterate to play football and calling them a "student" is okay?
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:59:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:52:53 AM
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Because they are students. It is not a charade. They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...). In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football. I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.
They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.
Admitting a group of athletes who are way below the standards the school would even consider an application from anyone else, linking them with academic counselors that can guide them into classes/professors that are more subjective in nature and not difficult to pass, assigning them tutors and minders to make sure they do the minimum necessary to stay eligible, and then condering success when more than half graduate?
How about considering the Wonderlic scores that show despite them succeeding in all those classes at some of our better colleges, many of them still test lower than the average security guard.
Stanford, one of the top academic schools in the country, has 35 athletic programs and over 800 student athletes.
Out of those 800, how many will ever earn a nickel playing a sport professionally? I bet less than one or two dozen, on average. A couple basketball players, a couple football players, maybe a couple baseball players. Out of those, maybe 1 or 2 will actually have a career that makes them any amount of money that could be considered an actual living.
That vast majority of them are going to get their degrees and go on to other jobs and careers. They are just as much students as people who get in with a CV that has a variety of different criteria to determine their entry beyond strictly their grades, like musicians, artists, alumni, etc., etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2009, 09:04:25 AM
Yes and by the same logic Paris Hilton is making a far greater contribution to world culture than all the world's symphony orchestras put together.
Ortega y Gasset was right: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."
:yes: The masses are asses. :angry: That's why I don't believe in Democracy. :)
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 11:14:54 AM
Stanford, one of the top academic schools in the country, has 35 athletic programs and over 800 student athletes.
Out of those 800, how many will ever earn a nickel playing a sport professionally? I bet less than one or two dozen, on average. A couple basketball players, a couple football players, maybe a couple baseball players. Out of those, maybe 1 or 2 will actually have a career that makes them any amount of money that could be considered an actual living.
That vast majority of them are going to get their degrees and go on to other jobs and careers. They are just as much students as people who get in with a CV that has a variety of different criteria to determine their entry beyond strictly their grades, like musicians, artists, alumni, etc., etc.
You people should look into Howard Gardner's theory of MI before pooh-poohing athletes. :smarty:
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:09:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:59:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 10:52:53 AM
Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?
I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.
Because they are students. It is not a charade. They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...). In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football. I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.
They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.
The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.
This isn't my opinion alone.
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Life-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691096198
Judging from the summary, that book does not argue anything at all what you are suggesting - that there is widespread cheating and some kind of systemic and serious problem with athletics degrading the mission of schools overall even outside the realm of the athletes.
And it is a rather obvious false appeal to authority to boot.
How the hell did you get it is ok to cheat from that?
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:11:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:09:17 AM
The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.
That book only talks about reformation. It actually says pointblank that there are lots of positive advantages of College Athletics and that the problems need to be minimized.
Where have I said that college athletics were bad? I thought I said the exact opposite.
I am arguing that there are problems with the way it is run, not that it is bad per se.
I would prefer to see college athletics as a truly
amateur thing - complete with all the values of fair play that implies - university students in athletic programs to be sure, but not pro athletes hired as "students".
I dislike the "winning at all costs" aspect that is tainting (to an extent) university athletics. This may not affect the vast majority of university athletes to be sure. But it is disingenuous to insist it isn't a concern at all, or that to the extent it is a concern it is for the good of the university.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:13:32 AM
How about considering the Wonderlic scores that show despite them succeeding in all those classes at some of our better colleges, many of them still test lower than the average security guard.
Many of whom? What source? What are you claiming here - that of all the people in involved in college athletics, "many" of them test lower than a security guard, even after graduation?
If that is your claim, I would love to see your source.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:18:12 AM
How the hell did you get it is ok to cheat from that?
I say that cheating in admissions and the like in favour of admitting star athletes is a bad thing.
You say everyone benefits.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:13:32 AM
How about considering the Wonderlic scores that show despite them succeeding in all those classes at some of our better colleges, many of them still test lower than the average security guard.
Many of whom? What source? What are you claiming here - that of all the people in involved in college athletics, "many" of them test lower than a security guard, even after graduation?
If that is your claim, I would love to see your source.
The definitive source of wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test
Average football player: 20
Average Security Guard: 17
Positions with an average score equal to or below security guard: Wide Receiver, Fullback, halfback.
I don't have any idea how well sourced that article is.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:18:55 AM
I dislike the "winning at all costs" aspect that is tainting (to an extent) university athletics. This may not affect the vast majority of university athletes to be sure. But it is disingenuous to insist it isn't a concern at all, or that to the extent it is a concern it is for the good of the university.
But this mentality is pervasive in academic departments all across the nation who compete for grant money at all costs rather than concentrate on educating students.
You come to the same conclusion: if you want individual academic attention you go to a smaller school.
However that is neither here nor there. We are clearly arguing about different things.
I say College Athletics are good and in the .01% of the cases, in big time football and basketball programs, to the extent they are corrupt they are still overall a positive thing even if they could use some reformation.
Quote from: Caliga on June 02, 2009, 11:16:30 AM
You people should look into Howard Gardner's theory of MI before pooh-poohing athletes. :smarty:
As well as Daniel Goleman theories of Emotional Intelligence:
QuoteEmotional Intelligence (EQ) is the foundation of leadership. Academic training and technical knowledge contribute less than 7% to our personal and professional success. At the highest organizational levels, technical skills or academic credentials no longer offer the distinct advantage. Skills such as resourcefulness, ingenuity and creativity are the sustainable advantage in today's marketplace. How we manage our perceptions, stay resilient with disappointment and manage ambiguity of change and relationships is how we build character. Coaching individuals and facilitating high performing teams using EQ, allows us to increase our emotional intelligence and recall our innate skill for leadership at work, and in life.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:24:51 AM
The definitive source of wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test
Average football player: 20
Average Security Guard: 17
Positions with an average score equal to or below security guard: Wide Receiver, Fullback, halfback.
I don't have any idea how well sourced that article is.
Um...dude...those are people who have careers in the National Football League. That is hardly a definitive sample of student athletes or even College Football players.
Edit: Heh check it out Offensive Tackles score as well as the average journalist.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 11:17:26 AM
Judging from the summary, that book does not argue anything at all what you are suggesting - that there is widespread cheating and some kind of systemic and serious problem with athletics degrading the mission of schools overall even outside the realm of the athletes.
And it is a rather obvious false appeal to authority to boot.
Shrug. I know that nothing will persuade you. Here's another article, a bit more in depth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3860/is_200405/ai_n9391704/
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:31:03 AM
Shrug. I know that nothing will persuade you. Here's another article, a bit more in depth.
Interesting factoids this is some new information I have not seen before.
I shall try to read it and come back later.
Edit: darnit it is just a book review not an actual article.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:28:32 AM
Um...dude...those are people who have careers in the National Football League. That is hardly a definitive sample of student athletes or even College Football players.
Edit: Heh check it out Offensive Tackles score as well as the average journalist.
If we are talking about drastic lowering of standards, my guess is that only frequently occurs in football and basketball at most schools.
As for it not being a representative sample of college football player intelligence, on the one hand you are correct that it is just a subset of those that go to the NFL. But would you really argue that there is a bias among college football players that the dumber ones go to the NFL?
As for offensive linemen and other more cerebral positions scoring highly--that shouldn't be a suprise. Being somewhat smart is a skill you can use in the game. What is disturbing is the more athletic positions show no evidence of recently receiving a college education.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:40:13 AM
As for it not being a representative sample of college football player intelligence, on the one hand you are correct that it is just a subset of those that go to the NFL. But would you really argue that there is a bias among college football players that the dumber ones go to the NFL?
Yes because those guys who have a shot at the NFL, and go to schools where that is a realistic possibility, simply have different priorities than the ones that do not. I have a hard time imagining a football player at the average Division I FCS, Division II, or Division III school not knowing that his time playing football was over the moment his eligibility runs out.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:42:08 AM
Yes because those guys who have a shot at the NFL, and go to schools where that is a realistic possibility, simply have different priorities than the ones that do not. I have a hard time imagining a football player at the average Division I FCS, Division II, or Division III school not knowing that his time playing football was over the moment his eligibility runs out.
Why does that matter? Doesn't it indicate that at least for those players with NFL potential, the whole student thing is a charade to get them on the field?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:47:36 AM
Why does that matter? Doesn't it indicate that at least for those players with NFL potential, the whole student thing is a charade to get them on the field?
Perhaps. Even if that was true in the case of players with NFL level talent that would simply be in their best interests: if you had a chance at a career to make you a millionaire wouldn't you spend most of your time in College studying that area? Further we do not even have wonderlic test scores of the average student to compare for godsake what sort of conclusions can we come to? Finally, and again, this is such a tiny tiny minority I dont see it as conclusive enough to say that all College Athletics are a bad thing.
Malthus' book though is more interesting. I might actually consider reading it as it seems to be bringing forth numbers that counter what I have heard before.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:13:32 AM
How about considering the Wonderlic scores that show despite them succeeding in all those classes at some of our better colleges, many of them still test lower than the average security guard.
Many of whom? What source? What are you claiming here - that of all the people in involved in college athletics, "many" of them test lower than a security guard, even after graduation?
If that is your claim, I would love to see your source.
The definitive source of wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test
Average football player: 20
Average Security Guard: 17
Positions with an average score equal to or below security guard: Wide Receiver, Fullback, halfback.
I don't have any idea how well sourced that article is.
That is looking only at athletes who make it to the NFL - what is that, maybe .001% of all college athletes?
See, this is the basic problem with your position (and Malthus) you are looking at one ridiculous extreme, and then apply that in general to a group that is a thousand times larger tahn your cherry picked examples, and concluding that the problem is systemic.
Your source fails to show what you are claiming. If you want to claim that the average NFL athlete is not exceptionally bright, so what?
Oh and of course I present my own very tiny study sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Rolle
Graduating pre-med in 2.5 years while being an All-American safety is pretty sick.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:05:24 PM
See, this is the basic problem with your position (and Malthus) you are looking at one ridiculous extreme, and then apply that in general to a group that is a thousand times larger tahn your cherry picked examples, and concluding that the problem is systemic.
Well Malthus did link to that book that seems to indicate that athletes at small Northeastern schools, including Ivys, are underperforming and that is surprising if true.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 11:17:26 AM
Judging from the summary, that book does not argue anything at all what you are suggesting - that there is widespread cheating and some kind of systemic and serious problem with athletics degrading the mission of schools overall even outside the realm of the athletes.
And it is a rather obvious false appeal to authority to boot.
Shrug. I know that nothing will persuade you. Here's another article, a bit more in depth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3860/is_200405/ai_n9391704/
More logical fallacy - the fact that your argument does not persuade and is not persuasive is not evidence that "nothing" will persuade me.
I would argue the reverse - your insistence that we extrapolate extremes into generalities while I argue that the general case is not really much an issue suggests that it is YOU who will not be convinced, regardless of the evidence.
Why you feel a need to take the argument to a personal level to begin with is rather telling, I think.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:40:13 AM
If we are talking about drastic lowering of standards, my guess is that only frequently occurs in football and basketball at most schools.
As for it not being a representative sample of college football player intelligence, on the one hand you are correct that it is just a subset of those that go to the NFL. But would you really argue that there is a bias among college football players that the dumber ones go to the NFL?
No, but it is certainly the case that if you have NFL potential, then you are going to be able to find a college that will take you, so it is not at all surprising that if you only look at those athletes that make it to the NFL, they will have an overall average score lower than the body of athletes in general.
I have made no arguments but I'm pretty sure nothing will make you change your mind Berky.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:42:08 AM
Yes because those guys who have a shot at the NFL, and go to schools where that is a realistic possibility, simply have different priorities than the ones that do not. I have a hard time imagining a football player at the average Division I FCS, Division II, or Division III school not knowing that his time playing football was over the moment his eligibility runs out.
Why does that matter? Doesn't it indicate that at least for those players with NFL potential, the whole student thing is a charade to get them on the field?
No, it shows that in the total set of NFL football players, they are on average not as bright as non-NFL football players. That could occur if only a small percentage of them are not actually as bright. That is how averages work.
And no, it does NOT suggest that the entire student thing is a charade, unless you can prove that even among the NFL players, there is an appreciable portion that never actually go to class and do student like things - in which case call the NCAA, because they investigate that kind of thing.
To the extent that this is a problem, there are already solutions and rules in place. Schools do in fact get into trouble, and there is a governing body to deal with this.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 02, 2009, 12:11:30 PM
I have made no arguments but I'm pretty sure nothing will make you change your mind Berky.
Why do I care that you are incapable of thinking objectively though?
Cause you are giving & caring person :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 12:07:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:05:24 PM
See, this is the basic problem with your position (and Malthus) you are looking at one ridiculous extreme, and then apply that in general to a group that is a thousand times larger tahn your cherry picked examples, and concluding that the problem is systemic.
Well Malthus did link to that book that seems to indicate that athletes at small Northeastern schools, including Ivys, are underperforming and that is surprising if true.
Really? Why would you find that surprising?
Exceprt:
QuoteJust as Bowen and Levin's analysis of the problems in college sports begins with the admission of athletes into higher education, they launch their reform proposals by adamantly opposing special admissions, special financial aid, and special academic treatment for athletes. Their basic tenet is simple: "Players shall be truly representative of the student body." Bowen and Levin offer steps for ending the athletic subculture and integrating athletes into the student body, and also for allowing regular students to participate in college sports. If doing so results in lessintense and less-well-played intercollegiate contests, so be it, they write. Their "first principle" is that the "program in intercollegiate athletics is to be kept in harmony with the essential educational purposes of the institution." Every college and university in America trumpets a version of this principle; Bowen and Levin say that the time has arrived to stop paying lip service to this credo and to start implementing it. Education must come first.
They are looking at this from a pretty extreme position - not necessarily a wrong position, by any means, but something radically different from what we have now.
They are basically saying that there should not be "big time" college athletics at all. I can certainly understand that position, and find it much more intellectually defensible than the idea that there can and should be, but that somehow we should magically make it be all about students first.
You ahve to pick one or the other - you cannot have CBS paying the NCAA billions of dollars for showing the NCAA BBall tourney, and yet still insist that college athletics be all about academics first. It simply won't ever happen when in fact college athletics is generating billions of dollars a year in revenues, and represents a huge economic activity engine.
What I don't understand is the claim that there needs to be some systemic change, or that this change can come from the NCAA. The NCAA exists to exploit and control the very system that would need to be destroyed in order to make the fundamental changes they are talking about. But I do not even understand why anyone would insist on that - there is a trivial solution for everyone involved that works perfectly fine
right now.
If you do not want YOUR school (if you are an administrator) to suffer these evils, then don't have bigtime college athletics. Walla, problem solved. If you don't like schools where tehre exists this culture of athletes, then choose another school for you or your kids - there are lots out there that do not recruit athletes. Or go to one that does, but don't involve yourself in it - is anyone really arguing that some student at Stanford is harmed by the fact that they have a successful big time athletic program? I find that a little hard to believe, but even if you do not, then simply choose another school that more fits with your particular criteria for value.
Obviously, the more particular your criteria, the more restricted your choices will become, but that is true for all criteria you find important.
The big time college sports thing is pretty uniquely American, right? Some in Canada as well, IIRC, but most of the world does not subscribe to the American system of college athletics - at least I don't think that is the case.
Which is, IMO, fine - there is nothing about big time college sports that is necessary to collegiate life, and I can certainly understand individual decisions made (as in teh case of the University of Chicago) to simply pass on the entire thing as an unnecessary distraction from the primary missions of higher education.
What I don't think you can do though, is have your cake and eat it as well. You cannot be engaged in the business of college athletics at the level it is in the US amond the D1 schools, while insisting that in fact for the athletes, it isn't about athletics. You cannot ahve big time college football, but run it like an intramural club. Maybe it would be nice if you could, but you cannot.
So you do your best - which is what we have now. To some degree (and it is a very small degree, numerically) there is this fiction of the "college-athlete". Someone who is there to play a sport, and he isn't really going to get an education. That is unfortunate, but I don't see anyway to do more than minimize it. So the NCAA passes all kinds of rules to do just that. They do not work perfectly, but short of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't think you are going to do much better, at least systemically.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 11:59:22 AM
Finally, and again, this is such a tiny tiny minority I dont see it as conclusive enough to say that all College Athletics are a bad thing.
But then, who is saying that?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:40:20 PM
But then, who is saying that?
So you think College Athletics are fine then? Ok then we have nothing to discuss further.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:05:24 PM
That is looking only at athletes who make it to the NFL - what is that, maybe .001% of all college athletes?
See, this is the basic problem with your position (and Malthus) you are looking at one ridiculous extreme, and then apply that in general to a group that is a thousand times larger tahn your cherry picked examples, and concluding that the problem is systemic.
Your source fails to show what you are claiming. If you want to claim that the average NFL athlete is not exceptionally bright, so what?
I'm not talking about college athletics in general, I'm speaking primarily to high profile sports at high profile schools. Football players that go to the NFL are a small, but not insignificant, portion of that group. They also seem to be the only group that is tested after their education concludes in a way that allows us to assess their aptitude, rather than the school's abilities to bend rules to keep up eligibility.
My point is, assuming the link has accurate information, skill position NFL players, don't show any more aptitude than security guards. Considering that many of those were apparently making decent enough grades to stay eligible, doesn't that cause you to question the educational value of the "student" portion of their role? What would you think if the majority of students graduating from your degree program were similarly astute? Wouldnt' that tarnish your degree?
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:10:54 PM
No, but it is certainly the case that if you have NFL potential, then you are going to be able to find a college that will take you, so it is not at all surprising that if you only look at those athletes that make it to the NFL, they will have an overall average score lower than the body of athletes in general.
And there is the problem.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 10:07:46 AM
Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying. Re-read the post he was responding to. By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.
I was being sarcastic, and illustrating that his objection was simply based on his personal definition of what constitutes "worthy" culture.
Ah sorry. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:40:20 PM
But then, who is saying that?
So you think College Athletics are fine then? Ok then we have nothing to discuss further.
I do. So long as the students are real students, going through real admissions standards (and no, I won't lose sleep over a consideration of athletic ability in admissions).
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:55:01 PM
I do. So long as the students are real students, going through real admissions standards (and no, I won't lose sleep over a consideration of athletic ability in admissions).
I thought there were such standards for admission.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:05:24 PM
That is looking only at athletes who make it to the NFL - what is that, maybe .001% of all college athletes?
See, this is the basic problem with your position (and Malthus) you are looking at one ridiculous extreme, and then apply that in general to a group that is a thousand times larger tahn your cherry picked examples, and concluding that the problem is systemic.
Your source fails to show what you are claiming. If you want to claim that the average NFL athlete is not exceptionally bright, so what?
I'm not talking about college athletics in general, I'm speaking primarily to high profile sports at high profile schools. Football players that go to the NFL are a small, but not insignificant, portion of that group. They also seem to be the only group that is tested after their education concludes in a way that allows us to assess their aptitude, rather than the school's abilities to bend rules to keep up eligibility.
My point is, assuming the link has accurate information, skill position NFL players, don't show any more aptitude than security guards. Considering that many of those were apparently making decent enough grades to stay eligible, doesn't that cause you to question the educational value of the "student" portion of their role? What would you think if the majority of students graduating from your degree program were similarly astute? Wouldnt' that tarnish your degree?
If the lowest scoring people who graduate from my school test rather low, that tells me that my school at the low end isn't that rigorous. So what? There are lots of schools out there, and some of them are gigantic - I do not doubt that Arizona (my school) graduates plenty of people who are not all that bright. They ahve degrees in non-technical areas, and are not all that bright.
Does it "tarnish" my degree? Not really. I didn't go to school though to get a bright and shiny degree, so that might be more important to others than it is to me. If in fact I cared about such things, I might have gone to some other school that could supply me with a degree not so irrevocably damaged by the fact that the starting tailback scored low on the Wunderlic test.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:51:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:10:54 PM
No, but it is certainly the case that if you have NFL potential, then you are going to be able to find a college that will take you, so it is not at all surprising that if you only look at those athletes that make it to the NFL, they will have an overall average score lower than the body of athletes in general.
And there is the problem.
It isn't a problem though.
I bet you can find all kinds of college graduates who score low on the Wonderlic test. Is that a "problem"?
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 12:07:40 PM
More logical fallacy - the fact that your argument does not persuade and is not persuasive is not evidence that "nothing" will persuade me.
I would argue the reverse - your insistence that we extrapolate extremes into generalities while I argue that the general case is not really much an issue suggests that it is YOU who will not be convinced, regardless of the evidence.
Why you feel a need to take the argument to a personal level to begin with is rather telling, I think.
Meh, you aren't very easily moved off a point once you've adopted it, that's hardly a secret.
It's neither here nor there, I just put out some information that those actually interested in the debate might find useful. I'm not all that fussed about whatever you are alleging about my arguments here.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2009, 10:59:53 AM
Because they are students. It is not a charade. They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...). In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football. I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.
Only aboput half of the "money sport" athletes, in fact, graduate from the University, and those that do overwhelmingly graduate in degree programs designed for money-sport athletes. The last number I saw for Texas, for instance, had football playters graduating (in six years) at about half the rate of male students in general.
The idea that football players are "student-athletes"
is a charade at the major programs.
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 01:15:28 PM
Meh, you aren't very easily moved off a point once you've adopted it, that's hardly a secret.
I am relatively easily moved, you just have to actually make arguments beyond ad hom to do so. However, I don't typically take a position I have not at least somewhat considered, so it is true that it isn't easy to convince me I am wrong, since I am not always a neutral observer when I actually engage in an argument.
I would argue the exact same thing is true of you, or anyone else who engages in these kinds of debates on Languish. You can convince me I am wrong, but making snide comments and personal attacks implying that your difficulty in doing so is due to my stubbornness rather than the inadequacy of your argument doesn't help.
Quote
It's neither here nor there,
Ad homs are almost never here or there. That is their nature.
Quote
I just put out some information that those actually interested in the debate might find useful.
Indeed it was useful, and interesting, at least the second article was. It didn't do much to further your claim though.
Quote
I'm not all that fussed about whatever you are alleging about my arguments here.
Of course you aren't.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 10:07:46 AM
Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying. Re-read the post he was responding to. By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.
I was being sarcastic, and illustrating that his objection was simply based on his personal definition of what constitutes "worthy" culture.
And you just demonstrated by point by taking a subjectivist, majority rules view of what constitutes worthy culture.
Berkut, Valmy, and CC: I have been repeating myself for pages, and you have been repeating yourselves for the same number of pages. We are at an impasse, and you have outlasted me. I offer you my congratulations. :bowler:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:13:32 PM
Berkut, Valmy, and CC: I have been repeating myself for pages, and you have been repeating yourselves for the same number of pages. We are at an impasse, and you have outlasted me. I offer you my congratulations. :bowler:
:lol:
I actually wonder what you mean by admission standards in light of your comment that you dont mind sports skill to be factored into that. I had thought that there were minimum admission standards for athletes to be admitted into university. Granted they might not be as high as you would wish but am I wrong that they do exist. It is an honest question. I know they exist in Canada - minimum GPA requirements were brought in when I was playing but I am not sure about the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:13:32 PM
Berkut, Valmy, and CC: I have been repeating myself for pages, and you have been repeating yourselves for the same number of pages. We are at an impasse, and you have outlasted me. I offer you my congratulations. :bowler:
:lol:
I actually wonder what you mean by admission standards in light of your comment that you dont mind sports skill to be factored into that. I had thought that there were minimum admission standards for athletes to be admitted into university. Granted they might not be as high as you would wish but am I wrong that they do exist. It is an honest question. I know they exist in Canada - minimum GPA requirements were brought in when I was playing but I am not sure about the US.
I believe they do exist, but my point of view is they are too low.
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2009, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2009, 11:05:16 PM
I've been to both a state University and an elite liberal arts college and there wasn't any difference in the classroom dynamic. A vocal minority controlled the discussion and must people didn't offer their opinion unprompted.
Doesn't it depend on class size? In a huge class, you'd really have to be a know-it-all to participate. However, in my experience, when the class size gets very small, with like 10 people, then everyone participates.
I'm talking midsized 300-400 level classes with 20 students.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 12:49:26 PM
My point is, assuming the link has accurate information, skill position NFL players, don't show any more aptitude than security guards. Considering that many of those were apparently making decent enough grades to stay eligible, doesn't that cause you to question the educational value of the "student" portion of their role? What would you think if the majority of students graduating from your degree program were similarly astute? Wouldnt' that tarnish your degree?
The undergraduate degree has become so devalued that I wouldn't be that surprised if that was true.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2009, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 10:07:46 AM
Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying. Re-read the post he was responding to. By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.
I was being sarcastic, and illustrating that his objection was simply based on his personal definition of what constitutes "worthy" culture.
And you just demonstrated by point by taking a subjectivist, majority rules view of what constitutes worthy culture.
Not at all - I make no judgements one way or another about what other people consider worthy culture, or bother spending my time feeling superior based on what I consider to be "w
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:13:32 PM
Berkut, Valmy, and CC: I have been repeating myself for pages, and you have been repeating yourselves for the same number of pages. We are at an impasse, and you have outlasted me. I offer you my congratulations. :bowler:
:lol:
I actually wonder what you mean by admission standards in light of your comment that you dont mind sports skill to be factored into that. I had thought that there were minimum admission standards for athletes to be admitted into university. Granted they might not be as high as you would wish but am I wrong that they do exist. It is an honest question. I know they exist in Canada - minimum GPA requirements were brought in when I was playing but I am not sure about the US.
I believe they do exist, but my point of view is they are too low.
But this is the point - too low
where?
Every university pretty much has difference standards, do blanket statements like "they are too low" make no sense - too low at Harvard? Too low at Georgia? Too low at Wichita State? Too low at Brown?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 05:20:36 PM
I actually wonder what you mean by admission standards in light of your comment that you dont mind sports skill to be factored into that. I had thought that there were minimum admission standards for athletes to be admitted into university. Granted they might not be as high as you would wish but am I wrong that they do exist. It is an honest question. I know they exist in Canada - minimum GPA requirements were brought in when I was playing but I am not sure about the US.
See this article: http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) to see some discussion on the point. A lot of conferences and teams allow non-academically-qualified athletes to play. And the minimums are set by the NCAA, not the school. Schools can impose additional qualifications, but I don't know how many do.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2009, 09:20:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2009, 05:20:36 PM
I actually wonder what you mean by admission standards in light of your comment that you dont mind sports skill to be factored into that. I had thought that there were minimum admission standards for athletes to be admitted into university. Granted they might not be as high as you would wish but am I wrong that they do exist. It is an honest question. I know they exist in Canada - minimum GPA requirements were brought in when I was playing but I am not sure about the US.
See this article: http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) to see some discussion on the point. A lot of conferences and teams allow non-academically-qualified athletes to play. And the minimums are set by the NCAA, not the school. Schools can impose additional qualifications, but I don't know how many do.
Among Division 1A football programs, only Stanford, Vanderbilt, the service acadamies, and maybe a few others. Notre Dame used to, but they don't anymore IIRC.
My understanding is that there is a lot of variability amongst schools as to how tolerant they are of academic non and partial qualifiers. Certainly if you follow recruiting, your hear a lot about some recruit being recruited at one school, but ending up at another because the first school could not or would not get him accepted academically.
There has been some talk in the past about creating a more "honest" system, at least for college football. The reality is that the one size fits all is something of a pipe dream. The differences between how a BCS school runs their program as far as finances and such and a mid-major conference are tremendous.
I do not really support the idea that there should be systemic changes made, because to the extent there is a problem, it is a limited problem, and systemic changes would of course effect even those schools where there is not an issue. Perhaps there really should be a "super-conference" of about 40 or maybe 50 largest football schools that would operate outside the NCAA, and under the bounds of their own rules tailored to the reality of big time college football.
The only problem is that I suspect that rather than approach it from the stance of how do we address the unique problems of big time college football, it would be used to simply remove the existing restrictions, and make it even more of a joke. I guess I do value the "charade" to the extent that it at least forces the appearance of actual college athletics, rather than it just being a development league for the NFL, which IMO would lose much of its charm.
Quote from: dps on June 03, 2009, 04:24:47 AM
Among Division 1A football programs, only Stanford, Vanderbilt, the service acadamies, and maybe a few others. Notre Dame used to, but they don't anymore IIRC.
Do you have a link for this assertion? I know that Michigan, for instance, has never accepted a partial qualifier and has seen many recruits sign elsewhere after they failed to qualify at Michigan. I would also be astonished if Notre Dame used NCAA minimums as their own minimums.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2009, 09:20:27 PM
See this article: http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?p=5191&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) to see some discussion on the point. A lot of conferences and teams allow non-academically-qualified athletes to play. And the minimums are set by the NCAA, not the school. Schools can impose additional qualifications, but I don't know how many do.
Thanks for the link. I find AR's arguments regarding the lack of standards for athletes more pursuasive now.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2009, 01:16:22 PM
Only aboput half of the "money sport" athletes, in fact, graduate from the University, and those that do overwhelmingly graduate in degree programs designed for money-sport athletes. The last number I saw for Texas, for instance, had football playters graduating (in six years) at about half the rate of male students in general.
The idea that football players are "student-athletes" is a charade at the major programs.
Texas gets hammered by both sides.
On one end Texas' male athletes generally dont graduate at very high rates. On the other Texas is generally hated for forcing on higher (relative term here) admission standards for athletes on the other Big 12 schools: http://www.allsands.com/sports/bigsport_wie_gn.htm
I feel somewhat glad the departments at least make a show of not passing some dude simply because he plays football. They seem to really have to work on graduating.
QuoteUnder the new Big 12 rules, only two male and two female partial qualifiers are allowed to enroll each year, with no more than one athlete in each sport. And nonqualifiers aren't accepted at all. They must go to junior college.
For NU and other former Big Eight schools, the Big 12 eligibility standards were a big change.
The Big Eight didn't limit the number of partial qualifiers a school could have and allowed nonqualifiers to enroll at institutions. Nonqualifiers had to sit out the first year - paying their own tuition - and then were eligible to play the second year provided they passed 24 credit hours over two semesters.
Originally, Big 12 schools agreed to adopt the old Big Eight rules for initial eligibility, former NU Football Coach Tom Osborne said. Then some Big 12 schools, led by the University of Texas, pushed for stricter rules. These standards are the one in place now.
The Big 12 now uses NCAA Clearinghouse standards to admit athletes. An athlete can establish eligibility with a GPA in 13 core classes as low as 2.0, provided the student also presents an SAT score (re-centered) of 1010 or an ACT sum score of 86. At the other end of the index, a minimum 820 SAT or 68 ACT sum score establishes the floor for students with GPAs of 2.500 or higher.
What upset Osborne at the time was the limits on partial and nonqualifiers. Some conferences like the Big Ten, don't have any.
"Where this rule can hurt you is if a player is considering Nebraska and Ohio State or some other school in the Big Ten," Osborne said. "The initial signing day is in February."
The Big Ten, which had always proclaimed itself as an elite academic conference, does not limit the number of partial and nonqualifiers. Theoretically, an athlete could have scored a 60 sum score on the ACT (an average of 15) and had a 1.5 GPA and still enrolled in a school like Michigan. They wouldn't play, but they could eventually.
But the Big Ten does have stricter rules once students enroll in institutions, said Jennifer Heppel, director of legislative and eligibility services for the conference.
The NCAA rules states an athlete must complete 24 hours toward his or her major each year. The Big Ten rules require 51 completed credit hours after the second year and 78 after the third year.
"We put more emphasis on their college work than high school grades," Heppel said.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2009, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: dps on June 03, 2009, 04:24:47 AM
Among Division 1A football programs, only Stanford, Vanderbilt, the service acadamies, and maybe a few others. Notre Dame used to, but they don't anymore IIRC.
Do you have a link for this assertion? I know that Michigan, for instance, has never accepted a partial qualifier and has seen many recruits sign elsewhere after they failed to qualify at Michigan. I would also be astonished if Notre Dame used NCAA minimums as their own minimums.
No, I was just talking out my ass.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2009, 11:16:50 AM
QuoteTheoretically, an athlete could have scored a 60 sum score on the ACT (an average of 15) and had a 1.5 GPA and still enrolled in a school like Michigan. They wouldn't play, but they could eventually.
It is kinda humorous that this author picked that example, since it made the point dead wrong. No partial or non-qualifier can enroll at Michigan. I know that this would be true for Michigan State and Ohio State, because Michigan scholorship acceptees who subsequently failed to qualify have gone to both of those schools. I don't know what the policy is at other Big Ten schools, but I would be surprised if Penn State or Northwestern allowed partial qualifiers.
Looks like it wasn't a one time misstatement after all, she's said the same thing at least 7 times.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1903981,00.html
QuoteRepublican critics of Sotomayor are planning to use the Ricci decision as Exhibit A in what they hope will be confirmation hearings focused on her views about race. Exhibit B is a speech she delivered in 2001 that included the following 32 words: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Since President Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to the court on May 26, that remark has become the main source of conservative attacks. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told his followers on Twitter that Sotomayor was a "Latina woman racist" who should withdraw. (He later apologized.) Sotomayor expressed regret about her word choice to Senator Dianne Feinstein. But after the Senate Judiciary Committee released Sotomayor's complete list of speeches, it emerged that she had delivered many versions of the same stump speech — seven by one count — between 1994 and 2003. In all of them, she suggested that a judge who was a "wise woman" or a "wise Latina woman" would issue a better opinion than a male or a white male judge.
No, it looks like the Republicans are claiming she are.
Myself, I wonde rif this is the right attack plan, even if she did say this. Or has the GOP written off the Latino vote entirely?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 13, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
No, it looks like the Republicans are claiming she are.
You misread. The info comes from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
QuoteMyself, I wonde rif this is the right attack plan, even if she did say this. Or has the GOP written off the Latino vote entirely?
That's a rather patronizing attitude. Do all Latino voters think female Latina judges make better decisions?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 13, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
No, it looks like the Republicans are claiming she are.
Myself, I wonde rif this is the right attack plan, even if she did say this. Or has the GOP written off the Latino vote entirely?
I would think this would be something that Time could confirm or deny rather easily, those statements are either in the speeches the Judiciary Committee released or they aren't.
I'm a Latino and I think that if accurately reported, such sentiment so often repeated, is indicative that the woman's a racist.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 13, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
No, it looks like the Republicans are claiming she are.
Myself, I wonde rif this is the right attack plan, even if she did say this. Or has the GOP written off the Latino vote entirely?
Yeah, it will harm the GOP with latinos to the same degree that the filibustering of Miguel Estrada hurt the Democrats. :lmfao:
Quote from: Faeelin on June 13, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
No, it looks like the Republicans are claiming she are.
Myself, I wonde rif this is the right attack plan, even if she did say this. Or has the GOP written off the Latino vote entirely?
I have. McCain tried pandering to Latinos last year & failed miserably. They love Obama, plain & simple.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2009, 03:44:52 PM
I'm a Latino and I think that if accurately reported, such sentiment so often repeated, is indicative that the woman's a racist.
You're about as Latino as I am, Tim :D
Blood doesn't lie. -_-
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2009, 04:15:32 PM
Blood doesn't lie. -_-
It can't, because in your case it doesn't speak Spanish :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2009, 04:14:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2009, 03:44:52 PM
I'm a Latino and I think that if accurately reported, such sentiment so often repeated, is indicative that the woman's a racist.
You're about as Latino as I am, Tim :D
he is an Uncle Tom and you are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2009, 04:15:32 PM
Blood doesn't lie. -_-
You have turned your back on the Mother Church. You are the Chaim Rumkowski of Latinos.
Judiciary Committee just voted to send her nomination to the full Senate, where she will be confirmed unless in the interim she rapes someone or calls 911 to report a break-in and dares to articulate the perceived race of the burglars. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 11:33:32 AM
calls 911 to report a break-in and dares to articulate the perceived race of the burglars. :)
This is what happens to 2nd generation Puerto Rican women who have been nominated for the Supreme Court in America!
Will she: talk to Valmy's mama outside?
Confirmed! :thumbsup:
Congrats, Timmy and lusti. :cool:
I crossed paths with Sra. Sotomayor on the street in NY two weekends ago, one of my few celebrity sightings. She was browsing some jewelry being vended from tables on the street in SoHo. :lol: She didn't seem to have any formal security detail with her either.
Quote from: Caliga on August 06, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Confirmed! :thumbsup:
Congrats, Timmy and lusti. :cool:
Boo!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 06, 2009, 03:01:11 PM
I crossed paths with Sra. Sotomayor on the street in NY two weekends ago, one of my few celebrity sightings. She was browsing some jewelry being vended from tables on the street in SoHo. :lol: She didn't seem to have any formal security detail with her either.
You should have grabbed her boobs.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 06, 2009, 03:01:11 PM
I crossed paths with Sra. Sotomayor on the street in NY two weekends ago, one of my few celebrity sightings. She was browsing some jewelry being vended from tables on the street in SoHo. :lol: She didn't seem to have any formal security detail with her either.
I'm surprised there haven't been any attempts on the lives of Supreme Court Justices, it would have much more impact than killing the President.
Quote from: Caliga on August 06, 2009, 03:03:29 PM
You should have grabbed her boobs.
She was certainly walking slow enough...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2009, 03:04:04 PM
I'm surprised there haven't been any attempts on the lives of Supreme Court Justices, it would have much more impact than killing the President.
Now you tell me! :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on August 06, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Confirmed! :thumbsup:
Congrats, Timmy and lusti. :cool:
Do you know which Republicans besides Lindsey Graham voted for?
I would guess those two chicks from Maine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2009, 03:14:49 PM
Do you know which Republicans besides Lindsey Graham voted for?
Lamar Alexander (TN), Kit Bond (MO), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Judd Gregg (NH), Richard Lugar (IN), Mel Martinez (FL), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH).
Arigato.
So the squinty, Wise Latina made it in. No big surprise. But what is the deal with all this business about some "barrier" being removed for hispanics or hispanic women? Were they being specifically excluded all along? Wonder how many more "barriers" will be invented so we can talk about how great it is that they're being broken?
I caught the swearing in, and was struck by the fact that the Justice's oath includes language about ruling "without respect to persons...whether rich or poor."
Seems to me that it's more of a case of a Hispanic judge finally being high enough up the political food chain to warrant notice for this kind of appointment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 02:05:13 PM
I caught the swearing in, and was struck by the fact that the Justice's oath includes language about ruling "without respect to persons...whether rich or poor."
Why did that strike you?
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2009, 02:07:07 PM
Why did that strike you?
Obama's search for a judge with empathy.
Ah, I see.
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2009, 02:06:19 PM
Seems to me that it's more of a case of a Hispanic judge finally being high enough up the political food chain to warrant notice for this kind of appointment.
I would find that a little patronizing if I were hispanic, but otherwise that's fine-- there just seems to be a subtext that hispanics were actively being excluded somehow.
Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 02:10:32 PM
I would find that a little patronizing if I were hispanic, but otherwise that's fine-- there just seems to be a subtext that hispanics were actively being excluded somehow.
Why is that patronizing? The reality is that Hispanics (and blacks) WERE actively excluded from appointments and elections to be judges and beyond for a long time. In the last few decades, that changed. Now, one has managed to make it far enough up in the pecking order to be noticed and singled out, something that wouldn't have been possible 20-30 years ago.
In essence, to me, the barrier was broken when the first Hispanics were appointed/elected judges. Once that happened, it was just a matter of time before someone made it to the high court. Same with women and blacks.
I assume Jim Crow would cover blacks being actively excluded from appointments, but when have Hispanics ever been actively excluded from anything?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 02:58:50 PM
I assume Jim Crow would cover blacks being actively excluded from appointments, but when have Hispanics ever been actively excluded from anything?
Segregated schools, not allowed to serve on juries, the occasional lynching, pretty much the works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mexican_sentiment#1940s
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 02:58:50 PM
I assume Jim Crow would cover blacks being actively excluded from appointments, but when have Hispanics ever been actively excluded from anything?
would Meri let her daughter date Jaron?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 02:58:50 PM
I assume Jim Crow would cover blacks being actively excluded from appointments, but when have Hispanics ever been actively excluded from anything?
Ah the good old days in Texas
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ferris.edu%2FJIMCROW%2Fno.jpg&hash=da64b7dd57e1a8315fcad340e3d11bfd61c13f25)
Is that list in ascending or descending order of preference?
DO NOT tell me negros were preferable to my people?
We speak English.
Quote from: ulmont on August 09, 2009, 03:48:33 PM
Segregated schools, not allowed to serve on juries, the occasional lynching, pretty much the works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mexican_sentiment#1940s
They did get to play baseball if they were white enough, though.
Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 09:39:39 PM
They did get to play baseball if they were white enough, though.
Actually a trick used to try to get black players into professional baseball was to claim they were Cuban.
Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2009, 10:24:31 PM
Actually a trick used to try to get black players into professional baseball was to claim they were Cuban.
Until The Man got wise to it & started scrutinizing Cuban players. IIRC, conversely some Negro League players claimed they were Cuban in order to be admitted to white-only hotels :D
Quote from: Jaron on August 09, 2009, 06:26:54 PM
Is that list in ascending or descending order of preference?
DO NOT tell me negros were preferable to my people?
Ascending order of number of letters, for the visual effect.
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2009, 02:06:19 PM
Seems to me that it's more of a case of a Hispanic judge finally being high enough up the political food chain to warrant notice for this kind of appointment.
Cabranes was on the short list for years, but was a little too conservative to get a nomination from Clinton, and a little to liberal to get one from Bush.
Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2009, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 02:58:50 PM
I assume Jim Crow would cover blacks being actively excluded from appointments, but when have Hispanics ever been actively excluded from anything?
Ah the good old days in Texas
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ferris.edu%2FJIMCROW%2Fno.jpg&hash=da64b7dd57e1a8315fcad340e3d11bfd61c13f25)
Does the sign refer to who is allowed in the restaurant ... or what's on the menu? :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg15.imageshack.us%2Fimg15%2F8984%2F1316490049fa6180020c.jpg&hash=db5c7d817e7ea70f878ec5e547215d771edad304)