Chuckles

LMAO. This place is a cesspool of similar sentiments, only there are certain "words" forbidden. I came back after a long time off to see - after watching dozens of conservatives laud TK as a major figure and someone who actually did work in a bipartisan manner - if there were as many idiots shooting off their ignorant tripe as I might imagine. I was not disappointed! Btw, this board is fostering, rather than discouraging, the type of crap I posted (and, actually come to think of it, apologies to Eddy for giving him to much credit ). On any self-respecting board that would have gotten me banned for life. But no... you fools play on and to each others' baser instincts. Thought I'd see how far I could push it to prove a point - even if only to myself. Once again, I was not disappointed. Carry on, folks. Nothing more to see here.

---

You are a class A moron. If you look at 90% of the bills that have TK's name on them, you will not that they also bear the name of many, many from the GOP side. Rarely did he get any of his uber-liberal legislation passed, and I challenge your weak-assed, dust-farting mind to come up with a few examples where he pushed his own "socialist" bills through. You may be right or wrong about various bills pushed through by "libs" (meaning, I take it, anyone who might think you are an *******)... but know of what you speak before you start casting aspersions on one man - late of this world - as being responsible for the actions of an entire party. His history of working across the aisle and his record of accomplishments that have very much helped millions of people stand in stark contradiction to your ridiculous, moronic rant.

That's absolutely correct; SCOTUS's majority opinion had absolutely nothing to do with precedent or previously decided law. It was the very definition of an "empathy" judgement that did nothing towards actually determining the merits of the case. If they had wanted to do that, they would have remanded it back to the trial court to actually determine if the test was biased or not. Idiot. There was no explanation as to whether is was or wasn't flawed. The trial judge screwed it up. But Sotomayor's panel had to decide if the judge acted within the law... not whether or not he reached a bad conclusion based on the merits. And, based on hundreds - if not thousands - of similar cases where the admission/hiring/promotion/whatever qualification exams/tests/interviews were suspended due to even apparent "disparate impact" that served as precedent, the panel made absolutely the correct call. SCOTUS chose to apply a different standard that by its own existence would render the panel's findings impossible to quarrel with... as that standard did not exist until today' ruling. Are you alleging discrimination in the panel's decision? You'd be mighty hard-pressed to substantiate that.