"When an adverse action is taken affecting one covered by [civil rights] laws, there is a tendency on the part of the person affected to spontaneously react that discrimination caused the action. All of us have difficulty accepting the fact that we sometimes create our own problems."
Never was a truer statement uttered. Look at Rodney King.
So you are saying that its okay to have 6 white cops beat the shit out of a black man because he's a black man and a drunk. Am I getting that correctly?
Two years before Rodney King, I saw cops chasing a hispanic.....when they caught him, they are started beating him unmercifully with batons as well as kicking him as he lay on the ground.....blood was gushing every where. I was shocked. I went up to them and one of the cops saw me and stepped up to me and told me to leave. I asked what was going on........he said it was police business and repeated his directive to leave. I started to object and his baton began to move up. It was the first time I had been afraid of the police and I am ashamed to admit that I backed down and left albeit slowly, turning around as I left. I later found out the guy was illegal and that's why he was running.
So....because he was illegal......does that justify them beating the shit out of him? Is that what you believe?
In Seeley v. City of Hattiesburg, a case involving a Black firefighter who was terminated, and also sought damages under the protection of civil rights laws, Pickering wrote: "The fact that a Black employee is terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination...This case has all the hallmarks of a case that is filed simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority."
What, on earth, is wrong with this statement?
You miss the point......Pickering decisions should have been based on the facts that came out during the trial and not his personal opinions. Comments like to be "terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination" and that "this case has all the hallsmarks fo a case that is filed simply because of an adverse employment decision............ to a protected minority" are opinions more reflective of his biases than fact. A judge does not have the luxury of taking sides because that feels right to him; his decisions have to be the epitome of objectivity and based on only the facts.
Its my opinion that makes Pickering a weak candidate for a federal judgeship. I am concerned that you don't see that.
Hell, who in their right mind could disagree with it? It doesn't help the cause of black people when firing one automatically results in the employer losing in a discrimination suit.
You ought to be embarrassed to raise such a weak argument in support of naming this man a "racist". You, who talk about needing to know "what happened in the case", would take a couple of out of context quotes (that appear, in both instances, to be inarguably factual) and assert they comprise some kind of support for the idea of calling this man a racist.
You know what....its enough. I have said repeatedly to you that I am not calling him a racist, the evidence isn't damning enough; however, there is enough evidence to suggest that his position on this issue is unclear and that's enough when it comes to rejecting a nominee for a judicial position. But if you guys think he was 'borked' as you put it, then go for it.
He has been borked. Bush is trying to right the wrong that was done by the Democrats.
BS.........he is doing it to appease the far right conservatives who are adament about getting this asshole in position. The conservatives agenda is so transparent, its sickening. That's why Bush's popularity is finally plummeting......the more the American public sees, the more they dislike.
Here's to the conservative revolution running into a road block in 2004. Its our only chance of saving this country from ruin and destruction.
ted |
