Recent Articles
- Classism: How We Talk about Earnings
- Do you want Foreign Nuclear Waste in TN?
- Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate expands to Tennessee and Kentucky
- Govs set for third annual Glenn Wilkes Classic
- Tanner: Senate Action Is Step Toward Fort Campbell, Montgomery Co. VA Investments
- Humdrum Season Paves the Way
- Gifts Teachers Really Want for the Holidays
- Radio Talk Show Hosts vs. Common Sense: The Lost Article “Left vs. Right”
- Clarksville Foxes holding sign-ups on November 21st
- 9th Branch Now Open for Fort Campbell Federal Credit Union
- APSU Volleyball: Champine named OVC “Player of the Year,” three receive All-OVC recognition
- Christmas on the Cumberland opens November 24th
- BusinessWeek singles out Clarksville TN as best city in Tennessee to raise kids
- Tanner meets with top NATO leaders
- Women’s Basketball: Herring’s 23 leads Lady Govs past Lipscomb
Official Sites
- City of Clarksville, TN
- Clarksville Department of Electricity
- Clarksville Gas and Water Department
- Clarksville Montgomery County School System
- Clarksville Police Department
- Clarksville, Montgomery County Economic Development Council
- Clarksville, TN Ordinances
- Fort Campbell, Ky
- Montgomery County, Tennessee
- Montgomery County, Tennessee Sheriff’s Office
- Parks after Dark
Empathy for justice
President Obama used the word “empathy” to describe Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Its one thing to be empathetic towards people to grasp an understanding of their struggles, but its quite another for a judge to be empathetic. That is not a judge’s job. Their job is to apply the law. It is not to legislate from the bench, as even Sotomayor has openly stated, and openly said she should not say that. It is also not a judge’s responsibility to see that “justice” is done. It is their job to interpret and apply the law. Sotomayor seems to believe otherwise.
Many do not really see the big deal in replacing one liberal with another, but the effects of such a nomination will continue to affect this country long after Obama is gone (just like his huge debt).
Her ruling against the New Haven firefighters was, for lack of a better word, despicable. Firefighters who deserved a promotion based on performance, skills, evaluation, and experience were snubbed because of racial quotas. They call this “reverse discrimination”, but whenever one is judged solely on the color of skin, no matter the color, for any reason, its just good old fashioned discrimination to me. How have we gotten to the point where racial quotas, charity, subsidies and preferential treatment have surpassed traditionally historical methods of advancement such as self-reliance, education, business experience and work skills? Yes, that is old fashioned and mundane, but it has never been more true. You cannot instantaneously ingrain equality into society no matter how badly you want it. Equality is something that has to be attained, not handed out like coupons. Suppose you lived in New Haven and were trapped in a burning building. Would you rather have competent emergency response crews responding, or one which meets the specifications of racial quotas? Would it matter what color the person was pulling you from the fire?
The advancement test consisted of a written and oral sections, carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality. All 20 who qualified for the promotions were white and the results were thrown out after no minorities qualified. How can this discrimination still exist today? People will obviously blow this off as a rare or minor incident, but it goes much deeper, for it is the mindset of people like Sotomayor which we should be afraid.
Much has been made over Sotomayor’s upbringing and struggle to get where she is. If that is the quota Obama is trying to fill, we already have a Justice who came from absolutely nothing in Clarence Thomas.
While overcoming adversity and struggling to get to the top are certainly admirable qualities, for any color of skin, do those traits necessarily mean you are the best for the job? If you were scheduled to have open heart surgery today would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find? What if the surgeon was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that an advantaged socioeconomic position could offer, would you still choose the one who had to struggle based on principle? Of course not! If it were you, you would not give two hoots on which surgeon had to struggle and which one had all the advantages, you would want the best surgeon available, even if he was purple.
While Obama has stressed the fact that Sotomayor is “empathetic” towards minorities, it leads me to second guess if Obama really understands the law, or if he is fighting for preferential treatment for certain groups based on their skin color. The words “equal justice under law” which is the motto over the Supreme Court building, is in grave danger of misleading those who enter, if such a person is allowed to preside. The color of skin should not matter, but apparently does if the results aren’t appeasing the minorities or certain groups.
Suppose that same logic was applied to the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball and each team not only had to comply with racial quota percentages, but the starting positions had to reflect it as well. Imagine the NBA and NFL if they were 80% white and traditional qualities such as speed, power, agility, dexterity, performance, physical prowess and ability, and talent no longer mattered, but starting positions were given out in a pre game meeting based on skin color. Imagine MLB without its Hispanic presence because each team would need to be a reflection of society’s color. Now, before everyone gets in a frenzy claiming I am making generalizations about race, you are missing my point.
My point is not that blacks are better athletes than whites or that Hispanics are better baseball players than whites and blacks, my point is in the flawed concept of racial quotas carried out under the disguise of fairness. How many people would refuse to attend professional sporting events if their favorite player was benched or worse yet, had to be released to make room for a player with a different skin color? There would be public outcry and rage beyond comprehension if the NFL or NBA implemented such a policy. Now imagine if a district court of appeals upheld the league’s decision when the athletes who were more qualified, filed suit. There would be rioting in the streets.
Its unfortunate that society doesn’t really care about the New Haven fire department when something like that actually happens, but if we do not recognize and discard that way of thinking, we are heading down a wrong path of unequal justice that will eventually come back to bite us all.
As if this weren’t enough reason to raise questions about her qualifications, she was then quoted as saying, “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.” Better conclusion for who? Hasn’t lived what “life”? I know quotes can be taken out of context, but I find it hard to imagine a world where this would logically apply.
Why would being a Latino or a woman make any difference at all in terms of reaching a better conclusion? Does simply the “richness of her experiences” make her better qualified than a white male who never had to struggle to graduate from Harvard or Yale with honors? I cannot begin to explain how dangerous a doctrine this comment was, and I am sure those on the left will come up with an array of excuses to justify the remark and take attention away from the issue. Just remember what these same people would be saying if Justice Roberts, a white male, had said the same thing and expressed that a white male would reach a better conclusion than a Latino female. He would be crucified.
After all is said and done, she will probably be confirmed as I am quite sure Obama’s staff is grilling her and coaching her on how to answer the questions the Republicans will throw at her in the conformation hearings. I only hope the Senate is gearing up for a thorough line of questioning, in which the mindset behind these remarks are exposed or explained. We must do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen again, it’s too important to our children and grandchildren who are already going to be saddled with paying off our debt.
A judge’s job is not to apply empathy for minorities, but to apply the law so that equality can be attained through individual achievement without barricades from the law. It seems people are more concerned about acceptance between minorities or the “politically correct” views than justice, even if those views do tremendous damage and hinder those it supposedly helps. There seems to be no “empathy” for justice.
About Scott Beasley 
I was born in Charleston, SC. I moved to Tennessee in 1977 and into Clarksville in 1989. I am currently employed by a shipping company and recently got married. I am conservative in most of my political views and I oppose government waste with a passion. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. As far as my stance on the issues, I am against abortion, against the death penalty, I believe we did the right thing by invading Iraq(but we've made many mistakes since that decision), I believe we are over-taxed by an inefficient government at all levels, and I'm against gay marriage(though I have no problem with homosexuality, I believe it should be called a civil union and they should have all the rights as married couples.) I abhor racism and believe Martin Luther King to be the greatest asset to civil rights this country has ever seen. I believe a person should be viewed by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I'm a Christian and believe the biggest problem in society today is abortion. I recently graduated from APSU and will now continue my education towards a degree in Political Science.
Web Site: http://www.myspace.com/beazgod
Email:
beazgod@msn.com
June 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
But that is exactly the job of a judge, to ensure that everyone who appears before him or her receives justice.
As such at times it is the responsibility of a judge to look beyond the words of the law to find true justice for the parties involved. What you describe is oppressive law.
This is what most people conceive as justice.
Justice cannot exist without fundamental fairness.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
Sorry Bill, I must disagree with you. While justice is attained through the law, we have a 3 branch system of delivering justice. Its the legislatives job to make the laws. This is often because someone, somewhere feels as if they are not being treated fairly. The executives job is to enfore these laws once the legislature has created them. As a seperate, supposedly unrelated branch, it is the judicial branch’s responsibility to interpret and apply the law. While reading “beyond the words” is sometimes necessary to interpret meaning as you said, it is not done to “seek justice”. It is done to seek the intent of the lawmakers, not to look upon a plaintiff or defendant and render judgement based upon skin color. While I agree with you most people conceive what you describe as justice, I really feel as if many judges don’t get a fair shake from the people, as they are constantly being judged as too liberal or too conservative. They have to operate within the confines of the law. When the laws do not allow for enough, arbitrary or excessive punishment, people tend to get dismissive of the entire system based upon one incident. Instead of blaming the judges, they need to blame the lawmakers for creating or lack of creating certain laws. What we do NOT need is judges who legislate from the bench. I can’t explain how dangerous this is, and it is why I’m opposed to Sotomayor’s nomination. (Along with the New Haven ruling and discriminatory comments.)
June 1st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I think the problem is you see the constitution as a dead document one that can never change, that the way it was written means what it was meant then and nothing can ever change that.
However the founding fathers realized that a constitution fixed in stone would be unable adapt and change with the growth of the society it protected. The Constitution was written to be broad and flexible to accommodate for change in society over time.
This is a quote from Edmund Randolph’s statement in the preamble of the Committee of Detail at the Constitutional Convention. He is one of the Writers of the constitution. You can’t get much more direct on the question if the Constitution was written to be a living or a dead document that that.
Then we have Thomas Jefferson’s wisdom which I feel directly applies to your position.
The quotes in this comment are from the English version of the Wikipedia but verified via other sources.
The reason all this matters is because it’s the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and laws. So they have to adapt and adjust the meanings, as the meaning changes to society as a whole.
Some people have taken to calling this judicial activism in an attempt to brand judges with a perjorative, but instead it is simply a result of the process of judges being judicial.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Oh no, the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and that’s why we have Amendments. Again, I’m not specifically talking about “changing” laws, which was Jefferson’s point in the excerpt you cited. We have a system for changing, amending, or even making new laws and that does NOT involve the Judicial branch. While it is important to remember Judicial bodies have to have room for interpretation of the laws, their job is to APPLY the laws we have, not to legislate from the bench. If we have laws, such as the 14th amendment which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Since the 20 firefighters were denied advancement solely because of their skin color, I certainly feel, and obviously so do they, that they are not being granted equal protection under the law. I’m positive the Supreme court will reverse her ruling. What I see is discrimination based upon skin color and I also see we’ve had laws in place for many years which prohibits such acts. If you want local governments to be able to hand out positions based upon race, gender, etc, then you need to talk to your legislator and have them propose laws which coincide with that agenda, but once it gets to our Judicial system, any such law should be ruled as unconstitutional. How well do you think a constitutional amendment allowing racial quotas would go over? Please Bill, we are way past that as a society. I understand your position, you want to see minorities get a fair shake, and I do as well, but handing out positions because of race, gender, etc, is not only dangerous, but its unconstitutionally wrong. I read Kathleen Parker’s commentary in the LC today and it made me wonder how people can actually support such positions so blindly. The only “oppression” would be laws which judge people based upon appearance, rather than the merit and substance of their argument and the content of their character. Imagine if the 20 firefighters had been Hispanic or any other minority, and they were passed up for promotion because there were no “whites” in upper management. Its the same thing Bill, discrimination is discrimination.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
They are not amending the law nor changing the constitution. Therefore the amendment process does not apply.
They are saying that based on the clear text of the law this is the official determination on what it means. If they go too far the judgment will be struck down on appeal. If they don’t go far enough a future court case will expand the understanding of the law in question until it reaches perfect clarity.
A good example of this is with Software patents. Originally they were banned because they were abstract concepts. A court ruling said that they were indeed allowed because the software was ran on a machine. The negative affects lead to more challenges and eventually another court ruling said that the first court was wrong and they clarified the requirement that the involvement a physical transformation is required in order for the software item to be patentable.
Now the Supreme court is going to take a look at business process patents. How they will go on this is anyone’s guess. I think that again if the patent is abstract the law should not allow them.
Congress frequently passes laws without giving enough thought to the implication of their Legislation. That is why it’s the job of the courts to step in and say this is what the law said and this is how we apply it.
Until this time I have not offered my views on racial quotas. I think that there are places and times when they are likely still applicable. I think the determination factor should be was the system setup in a way to intentionally exclude racial minorities from participation. If so then yes quotas would be a way of resolving this injustice.
Was that the case with the situation you referenced? I have no idea. So I will reserve my judgment on the merits of that particular case.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I’m referring to the New Haven Firefighter case in Conn. You can google it and find many refrences. As for the legislating from the bench which I believe is going on with Sotomayor, and she’s even admitted it by the way, there’s no place for it. What you described summarizes when laws are unclear or the meaning of them is intentionally left open to interpretation. However, we CLEARLY have a case which violates the 14th Amendment. You don’t have to be a judge or lawyer to figure that out. Its a Judges duty to review all applicable laws when rendering judgement. There’s no way you can convince me that she “overlooked” the Constitution when it comes to citens being granted equal protection under the laws. Racial quotas ARE discrimination. There’s no maybe about it. The only “places and times” they’re applicable is if you’re teaching a seminar of what not to do. Quotas are in no way a method to “resolve an injustice”. If an “injustice” has occurred, then we have laws to deal with them, UNjustly handing out positions on skin color is just as arbitrary as handing them out for eye color. When it comes to law, justice is, and should be colorblind. Obviously there was a day when people were kept from participating because of their race, and if it occurs today, its against the law(Unless its in Sotomayor’s court). Obviously people will disagree with the views and interpretation of the 14th amendment, but that’s still no justification for racial preferences. Does racism and discrimination still exist today? OF COURSE! We outlawed murder as well and it still occurs, but when a judge blatantly ignores the law in this fashion its shameful. What’s worse is she believes BECAUSE of her race, she’s a better judge. I still hate to think where this is going. The only way to TRUE equality is to quit making race an issue. I CRINGE everytime I’m filling out as form and it asks for “race”. Why does it matter? Why is there even a box for it? In the last census I checked the box “Native American”, since I’m LITERALLY a Native American because I was born here. I’m thinking of making up my own race for the next one in 2010. Perhaps I’ll list my race as a Southern Wombat. Is it unfortunate IF there aren’t as many minorities in “executive positions”? Absolutely!! Is the answer racial quotas? NO!!! The answer is addressing the myriad of circumstances causing this occurrence. If there’s a lower percentage of qualfied minorities than qualified “majorities”, then that takes time to correct. If there is discrimination, it needs to be exposed and eliminated immediately. Unfortunately there are as many reasons for people hiring people to “executive positions” as there are people. Sometimes proving discrimination or racism isn’t as easy as seeing in handed down in a district court, and neither is correcting many of the problems which keep people from advancing regardless of race. That being said, the answer isn’t hand outs, its hard work. Apparently even then it doesn’t matter if you live in New Haven, Connecticut.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I know which one you are referring to. Judge Sotomayer did not preside on this case during trial, nor was she alone in hearing the appeal.
She was one of three judges who agreed they should accept the lower courts well documented and reasoned decision in this case.
The majority of the judges on the court of appeals voted to declined to hear the case en banc (the full panel of judges), Sotomayer was just one of the seven judges voting in favor of denying the en banc re-hearing…
http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf
This is what a lawyer had to say…
When you read about this case, it appears that based on the reasoning expressed in the decision was indeed sound…
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et_al.
Basically the city was between a rock and a hard place and decided to do what they thought they were required to do in that situation. The courts have ruled that the city only did what was required, and did not second guess them in this instance. The U.S. Supreme court decision is still pending and we shall all see what the highest court in the land has to say on the matter before too long..
Mind you my comments on the firefighters case is based on 45 minutes of research…
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
Yes Bill, I’ve read all that as well. So what part of that decision is “sound”? As I said, it is a courts job to research and see if actions violate other laws, namely the Constitution. None of the other judges have been nominated to the Supreme Court so basically, they’re that districts problem. Basically, if you read the entire transcript of the court document, you’d see Title VII is simply a racial quota. The TRUE question is May an employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was constructed and intentionally designed to ensure race neutrality, if the results yeilded too many of one race and not another? Obviously Sotomayor thinks it should be able too. Now, the real question which she refused to answer in her concurring opinion, is what if most or all of the 20 who qualified were minorities? What if they needed more whites in management to reach quotas? Obviously, she’d HAVE to rule in favor of the quotas now. Its just as shameful to deny a qualified applicant because they’re a minority as it is to disqualify someone because they’re white. No matter how its sugar-coated, its still discrimination and doesn’t afford equal protection under the law, based SOLELY on race. The city made sure the company designing the test, did so to INSURE racial neutrality, they “crated” their own rock and hard place, then tried to slither out from between it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
Bill, you stated it sounded like the city “did only what it was required”. They actually did more than that. In an effort to be even more politically correct, they had an outside firm administer the qualifying exam to specifically make sure there was no racial bias. So, if the exam administered was done so without prejudice, then there should be no problem with the results. Just because you don’t get the results you want, is no reason to “take your ball and go home. The sad part is we are only hearing about this because of the skin color of the applicants. If they wanted true equality, they should vote to remove the box marked “race” from the applications.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Here’s an opinion from a brilliant man, http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell061609.php3 ,.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Well, they reversed it, but only 5-4. I can’t fathom what those 4 were thinking.