Is it 9-0 or 5-4?  Pick one.

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

Wow, with all these legal experts floating around Hannity, Rush, this author and "Scott" why do we even need a court system.  Just ask the repubs who have all the answers:

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

This is like saying the Steelers won the super bowl 10 to 7, but because they didnt like the play the other team scored on, it was really 10 to 0

And hey right wing Im sure by being bitter, sarcastic, acting like you know everything even when making your selves look childish (as in this case) and against fairness for minorities is the fast track back to dominance!  Good Luck!!

Honestly, I know it is  easy to twist judicial opinions around for your own rhetorical needs (since most people have no comprehension of the nuances involved with judicial opinions) but this is ridiculous. Both the majority and minority opinions essentially acknowledged that the precendent before this case was unclear at best and the lower court chose a path that corresponded to existing precedent... it is the Supreme Courts job to clarify that, not the lower appeals court.

If, as you say, sending the case back to the lower court by these 4 effectively means the lower court was wrong, shouldn't these 4 be doing their job as judges and JUDGE that "wrongness" by voting with the other 5?  If the 4 dissenters are not going to pass judgement even though their opinion effectively reveals their judgement, aren't they just weasles in black robes shirking their duties?  Isn't this dereliction of duty cause for "dis-robing" any SC judge?

"This is like saying the Steelers won the super bowl 10 to 7, but because they didnt like the play the other team scored on, it was really 10 to 0"

Actually, it's more like saying that the score was 10 to 7, but one decision by a referee was universally acknowledged by the NFL to be a bad decision.

It's normal for courts to make decisions on many of the smaller issues within the case as well as on the case itself.  This is what the Supreme Court did.  They said the appeals court was wrong (well, 5 of them said it, the other 4 said that the appeals court was right), but they also said - unanimously - that Sotomayor's specific opinion on this issue was wrong.

I do believe the appeals court consists of more than one judge, so it is telling that while the court itself made a decision that, although incorrect, was defensible, Sotomayor's SPECIFIC opinion was completely at odds with the supreme court.

Hey, the court ruled 5 to 4, but if you can make your headline appear lopsided by saying 9 - 0, then all your rightwing friends will be happy.  Look for this headline on today's Fox.

I wonder what other SCOTUS rulings we can change to 9 - 0 with a just little interpretative reading.

"Hi I'm angry leftist troll.  I don't say anything meaningful.  I just say things like repubs and rush and fox news, grrr.  Then I sign off with a biting rhetorical question.  Har har har."

Here, I'll give you a little teaser to get you started on this little thing we like to call... "thinking."  The point of the article is that every justice on the Supreme Court disagreed with the basis for the 2nd Circuit decision.  Do you agree or disagree?  If you disagree, on what basis would you seek to reconcile the various Supreme Court opinions with the 2nd Circuit's decision? 

Try not to hurt yourself.  If you start feeling dizzy or disoriented because of this new engagement with rational discourse, don't force it.  Take a deep breath.  Count to ten.  And just start at the beginning.  Remember: practice, practice, practice.

Seems to me that the verdict speaks well of a legal review.  Sort of like the new Energy Bill with 300 pages added at 0300 to avoid anyone reading it.   Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac get more of the taxpayers money for affordable housing under this new energy bill.  When will the Supreme Court take up fraud committed by the government against the people?

While the rest of you wrangle over syntax, isn't the bottom line that the actions by Sotomayor's decusion were overturned? And furthermore, were they not overturned due to the belief that actions taken by her court demonstrated bias and an unwillingness to get to the truth? SCOTUS is somewhat limited in their ability to make public statements, but I read this as an indictment of Sotomayor and a shot across the bow regarding her perceived ability to maintain a higher level of detachment when making court decisions. I wonder if anyone on the Congressional committee is paying attention. This is much larger than the media, the administration or Sotomayor herself, want to admit.

Here's my take on the ruling:

This decision is nothing but red meat for a bunch of right wing ideologues.  This despite the fact that this was clearly a case of justices legislating from the bench.  Activist judges, if you will.  But IOKIYAR.

Sotomayor will still be confirmed, by a wide margin, despite all the whining and dissembling going on in the right wing nutosphere.  Deal with it. 

This is so much nonsense.  As a Circuit Court Judge, Sotomayor did not have the authority to make a sweeping ruling of the nature that SCOTUS can.  She simply is not allowed to throw away precedent in the way SCOTUS can.

This 9-0 headline is so much nonsense.

This is great news!  Thanks, Stu, for training us all how to argue like Rush Limbaugh and sound almost credible in the process.

The election of Barack Obama was unanimous!  While 40 something percent of the electorate expressed their support for Obama by casting a ballot for McCain, clearly they were sending a message to their preferred candidate Obama that if he failed to perform as expected, they might vote for the Republican in 2012.

9-0?  I thought it was 5-4?

It was a 5-4 ruling, not a 9-0 ruling. And it wasn't "her" ruling. She was one of three judges who made it, and the whole Second Circuit affirmed the ruling. You  wingnuts can't discuss a single thing without lying about it. No wonder the American electorate has rejected you for the last two elections in a row. See you in '10 and '12.

Why is this hard to understand?  Five justices agreed with the plaintiffs while four agreed with the defendant, but all nine disagreed with Sotomayor, who held that the case was not important enough to bother with.  She did not just agree with the defendant; she said that the case was so open-and-shut that it did not even merit a trial or an opinion.  Judging by the impassioned opinions on both sides, it is fair to say that all nine justices rejected this judgment.  Of course, it is more likely that she knew exactly how important this case was, and sought to prevent it from coming to trial in order to avoid precisely the outcome that has now transpired.  This should be the focus of the discussion in the Judiciary Committee regarding her nomination.

You lefties ought to understand an issue before venturing an opinion on it.  Sarcasm and vitriol don't compensate for ignorance, they compound it.

Man, 2 much Limbaugh 4 you.  The vote was 5-4, 5 - 4!!!  Not 9-0

I write neither to support nor attack the original piece but to explain that there are practically an unlimited number of holdings for any given case.  For example, in this case:

- Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs

- Summary Judgment for the Defendants

- Vacated and Remanded for a determination of whether the city had a "strong-basis-in-evidence" for fearing a disparate impact claim

You could have opinions that concur in the judgment but for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protetcion clause instead of Title VII).  You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm.  You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. You could concur in part and dissent in part.  I could go on but surely you get the point.

There are actually cases with no majority opinion because the Justices couldn't get 5 to agree.  To view Supreme Court decisions as a "yes/no" vote is preposterous.  There's a reason the Ricci decision is 93 pages (including 4 different opinions) and it's not because they wrote "yes" or "no" really really big.

can someone explain why it is the sotomayor-endorsed opinion?  did she personally endorse it?  was she the only judge on the opinion?  i thought court of appeals decisions had at least 2 judges.

Formula: Listen to Rush Limbaugh, write what he says and call it a day. 

Clearly it was a 9,000,000 to Zero decision.

Why?  I don't know.  I just made that up because it sounds like it supports my argument.

It is my understanding that Sonia Sotomayor did not ever write the opinion on the Ricci Case. She was part of the 3 Judge Panel that rendered a unanimous decision. However, since she is replacing the Judge that agrees with her, it should be ok. Sorry ... using Right Wing logic here.

Stuart's point was already made early yesterday afternoon at ObamaPundit:

http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-rules-9-0-against-sotomayor/

"The one and only thing that should be understood about this case as it relates to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is that all nine members of the Supreme Court found that Sotomayor’s court was in error.  Press reports that the Court “ruled against Sotomayor 5-4 along partisan lines” fundamentally misrepresent the decision issued today."

                                                                             *     *     *

"[A]ll nine justices agreed that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of New Haven, a finding that Sotomayor had affirmed twice — once by summary order and once in an analysis-free, eight-sentence opinion.  Justice Ginsburg also found that Sotomayor’s court had used the wrong standard: 'The lower courts focused on [New Haven]’s ‘intent’ rather than on whether [New Haven] in fact had good cause to act.'”

God knows from where the Sotomayor defenders are drawing their conclusion that any of the justices agreed with the two decision issued by Sotomayor's panel.  While it can be argued the precedent was foggy when that panel issued its decision, those 3 justices (lead by Sotomayor) didn't even attempt to wrestle with the issues, instead issuing summary decisions (the first of which could not have even been appealed).  There is no defending that.

re: 5-4 versus 9-0

If 5 justices voted for Miss North Carolina, 4 voted for Miss California and Sotomayor voted for Perez Hilton, didn't all nine justices disagree with Sotomayor? 

That's the 9-0 reference.  All nine disagreed with Sotomayor.

"The Ninth Justice"?

I don't get it, aren't there already nine justices?

Shouldn't this blog be called "The Tenth Justice"?

Whatever, makes as much sense as saying this was a 9-0 ruling when factually it was 5-4.

 

Pretend as you may, but the court was unanimoous and they said "We had hoped 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; but in this case the Latin chick got it wrong"

 Lord Rush speaks, dissembling morons repeat.

Go to page 4 of this pdf, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf, the actual ruling you idiots:

"KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opin-ion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined."

Hmm, looks like 5-4 to me.  I guess you rightwing tools need to go teach the USSC Justices how to count.  "But, but, but, but, but...we have hairs to split to make ourselves look like morons!" you say.  Continue on.

um...Al...

That's because the Supreme Court was not tasked with, nor was it answering, the question: "was Sotomayor's decision correct?"

If it had been, the justices would have ruled 9-0 in the negative.

But, since the question they answered was -- "did the firefighers deserve summary judgment?" -- the ruling was 5-4. 

This whole thing was already covered over at ObamaPundit:

http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-rules-9-0-against-sotomayor/

Read that entry, and you'll understand.

Liberal debate techniques:  When all reasonable arguments fail resort to ad hominem attacks.

I am not a wingnut. I am not a Limbaugh drone. What I am is a person who reads and thinks critically, and I must say to the people who aren't even acknowledging the article itself or the many, many explanations of the "9-0" remark in the comment, what is your malfunction?

Within majority and dissenting opinions there can be commonground. In a concurring opinion, in which someone signs on to form the majority, but has a slightly different take, it still counts towards the majority vote, or vice-versa with the dissenters---it is a matrix of ideas and opinions that converge at certain reconciliable points and completely diverge in others.

If you can read, which these "republican'ts" drones seem not to be able to do, then you'd know that the author's original point was that while the 4 dissented and did not side with the plaintiffs, they did write that ALL lower courts failed to do what was right: have the city produce evidence supporting its claims that the test was racially-biased, and allow a jury/trial to decide whether it was or not. The lower courts did not question the city's motives or actions at all, and even the SCOTUS dissenter's had a PROBLEM with this.

The vote came down 5-4 for the plaintiffs, but within that arena that is a myriad of opinions, and before you make a big hubbub about the "9-0" quip, please read critically.

Al Swearengen  --  A dissent is not simply a vote for one side.

Suppose Sotomayor in a civil case found for the Defendant.  On appeal, all nine Supreme Court justices could, as a matter of law, reverse in favor of the Plaintiff with five justices awarding both actual and punitive damages and four awarding only actual damages.

It would be a 5-4 decision over the issue of punitive damages with none of the justices finding for the Defendant.  The 5-4 split is over the remedy and not the general liability.  That is how a 5 to 4 decision can be 9 to 0 against Sotomayor's decision.

I presume all liberals can't be as obtuse as you.

Dear Mr Taylor,

I read your post with much interest: It has re-confirmed SCOTUSBlog as the definitive resource in these matters. I thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours,

Michael

Elliot -- You're not quite correct.  Justice Ginsburg's dissent said that the lower courts got it wrong when they focused on the City's intent, rather than on whether there was good cause for the City to believe that it risked a disparate-impact lawsuit if it proceeded with the promotions based on the test results.

To be fair to Judge Sotomayor (and I don't think that Mr. Taylor or any of the other Republican supporters are interested in being fair to her), the lower courts' focus on "intent" was perfectly reasonable, given that the lawsuit alleged intentional discrimination.  In such lawsuits, intent is the predominant issue.  Ginsburg's dissent essentially suggested a new way to look at unusual cases like this, where the alleged intentional discrimination was justified by the City's argument that it was trying to avoid a disparate-impact lawsuit.  In those instances, Ginsburg (splitting hairs, I think) wrote that the focus should be on whether there was good cause for the City to fear such a lawsuit.  If so, then the City would be justified to throw out the tests and start anew.

In short, this whole BS that the Supreme Court unanimously "rejected" "Sotomayor's" analysis is really bad-faith propaganda, and doesn't do justice to the serious and complex issues involved.

FWIW, I think that Scalia's concurrence is the key opinion in the case, and he gets it completely correct as far as I'm concerned.

Stuart, You have exactly as much credibility now as you did when you were tossed off PBS's News Hour for being a partisan right wing hack. Or possibly even less, although I think zero is as low as one can go in credibility.

Clearly, any Supreme Court justice who finds him- or herself on the short end of an 8-1 decision (like Thomas did just the other day) should immediately resign from the court because the rest of the justices were unanimous in their disagreement with the minority opinion.

Desperate people seek desperate measures, but this argument is so stupid it boggles the mind.

Not a comment, but a question.  There has been lots of commentary on what this ruling might mean for the law going forward  But I haven't seen anything on what this ruliong means for the litigants.  Do Ricci and his colleagues get their promotions?  What happens to them?

 Browsing through the 93 page Supreme Court doc is one way to read for yourself the decision and details.  What is funny here is the reflexively political nature of looking at Supreme Court decisions.  The bitterness of those who wish for legal approval of discrimination is entertaining.

It's true that all the SC Justices did not agree with Judge Sotomayor's basis for ruling.  That's not altogether shocking for those with some legal understanding of the applicable law.  What is shocking is the one paragraph dismissive action by Judge Sotomayor.

Even the 4 dissenters choose to find other means to support the action against Ricci and other firefighters who filed the action.  They also recognize that the basis for this is not fully completed either.

MLK's dream of a man being judge by the content of his character, not his color has not yet been realized.  We have to twist that obvious truth into knots in order to placate the extreme politicization of our courts.

Where have we seen this broken record? Change indeed.  

Mr Taylor,

I think that you really need to go back and read Justice Ginsburg's dissent again (especially the two pages you cite).  Justice Giinsburg is not rejecting the lower court's reasoning.  She is objecting to the Majority SCOTUS opinion.  Her claim is that the Majority opinion is offering a new substantive principle.  Traditionally, when a new substantive principle is put into place, SCOTUS remands the case back to the lower court, to retry the case based on the new substantive principle.  The Majority in this case failed to do this, and instead made their own opinion on the factual question that had not been before the lower court (i.e. whether there was a  "substantial basis in evidence" that New Haven would have been liable to a disparate impact lawsuit). 

So Ginsburg is not rejecting Sotomayor's opinion (which, by the way, does not claim 'that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit' as you suggest) but rather the MAJORITY'S decision not to throw the case back to the lower court, so that further testimony could be called to determine whether there WAS a "substantial basis in evidence" that New Haven would have been liable to a disparate impact lawsuit.  (And as you point out, Ginburg thinks that the Majority got the factual issue wrong too--if you look back at the record, there IS a "substantial basis in evidence" that the test was not a matter of "business necessity" and so upholding it WOULD have made them liable to a Title VII laysuit.)  But I suppose you cannot really be bothered to read things carefully before you opine about them.

-Steve

Steve, don't ask Stuart Taylor to go back and read Ginsburg's dissent. That implies that Taylor actually cares about accurately understanding and fairly reporting and analyzing the issues. He does not care; he is a far right-wing ideologue of the sort who willfully misrepresents everything he touches.

Since you are worried about the realization of Dr. King’s beautiful dream, I just have to say that I doubt that his dream implied an endorsement of color-blind schemes for judging people that honor and preserve persistent disadvantages that are the legacy of such historical abominations as slavery and nativism. When you finally stop beating someone you are not entitled to assume that they are then healthy.

“After all, it was hardly to be expected that the five more conservative justices -- who held that the city had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by refusing to promote the firefighters with the highest scores on a job-related promotional exam because none were black -- would endorse an Obama nominee's ruling to the contrary.”

If, indeed, it really can hardly be expected that they would endorse the judgment of someone who Barak Obama has nominated, what is the use of arguing such highfalutin concepts as original intent or legal precedent or even the merits of the case? This is just plain, old, bare-knuckle politics and a foregone conclusion.

You could have opinions that concur in the judgment but for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protetcion clause instead of Title VII). You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm. You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. You could concur in part and dissent in part. I could go on but surely you get the point. Brand New Lingerie

Hmm God knows from where the Sotomayor defenders are drawing their conclusion that any of the justices agreed with the two decision issued by Sotomayor's panel. While it can be argued the precedent was foggy when that panel issued its decision, those 3 justices(lead by Sotomayor) didn't even attempt to wrestle with the issues, instead issuing summary decisions.There is no defending that . Dubai Golf Courses

had a nice response but this thing ate it. But the gist was I thought she'd face more opposition than she has. things have went smoothly. True protein discount code

 It is my understanding that Sonia Sotomayor did not ever write the opinion on the Ricci Case. She was part of the 3 Judge Panel that rendered a unanimous decision. Alkoholafvænning Sjælland However, since she is replacing the Judge that agrees with her, it should be ok. The vote was 5-4,  Not 9-0

I read it with very much interest and it is true that If the law were as Judge Sotomayor ruled, no employer could ever safely proceed with promotions based on any test on which minorities fared badly. Well nice information,  you share Juegos de Bob Esponja
 

had a nice response but this thing ate it. Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related. Thanks a lot for sharing. Will be referring a lot of friends about this.

Kaspersky coupons

Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.Keep blogging

Las Vegas Upholstery Cleaning

This entire case has been a circus. Why did they not carefully considered the evidence of "pretext" and racial politics?

Corporate Awards

very well said ,,I hardly accept that It’s called the Ninth Justice because it is apparently (from the subheading “News and Analysis to Fill the Supreme Court”) dedicated to covering SCOTUS nominees. I don’t know if this column gets moth-balled between nominations or whatever, but clearly there is a rational basis for calling it the 9th Justice. i appeciate you .  free icon editor and frederik

Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me. I am apreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great article. Good luck to the author! all the best! 

 Replica Louis Vuitton

 Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.

 This is a very comprehensive list. Interesting post and thanks for sharing.

 Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me.

I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work and
please tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read
more on the subject? Thank you on behalf of the ..jeux de dora

I found this is an informative and interesting post so i think so it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing ability has inspired me. Really the article is spreading its wings rapidly...
Kristi
pass4sure 156-215.70
IT DEVELOPER
USA

I need to let people know there is money that can be saved by using an half.com coupon

Thanks this post really opened my eyes. it is not only eye opening rather very beneficial for the people those who want to do something good in his life .

Thanks for the nice post. I have already bookmarked it.It was really a good read. I also think quality is vitally important! But saying that, your articles are always a fab read., Keep up the good work. acceptance letter

 I was surfing net and fortunately came across this site and found very interesting stuff here. Its really fun to read. I enjoyed a lot. Thanks for sharing this wonderful information.<a href="http://www.chanelest.com/" title="Chanel bags">Chanel bags</a> <a href="http://www.uggbootses.com/" title="UGGs Outlet">UGGs Outlet</a>

Well, the info your share here is great and informative to me as I am very new to the subject. But I love reading and getting some more knowledge on it  DENAS

ou could have opinions that concur in the judgment but for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protetcion clause instead of Title VII). You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm. You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. You could concur in part and dissent in part. I could go on but surely you get the point. Find <a href="www.realestatelongviewtx.com">
Real Estate Longview Texas</a>
 

Furthermore, You could have opinions that concur in the judgment but for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protection clause instead of Title VII). You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm. You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. You could concur in part and dissent in part. I could go on but surely you get the point. Find Real Estate Longview

The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful
information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of
writing the post.i will be happy to see you writing on gratis links. Now you make it easy for me to understand and
implement the concept. Thank you for the post. really a great efforts

for a totally different reason (for example, SJ for the Plaintiffs based on the equal protection clause instead of Title VII). You could hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no harm. You could hold that the lower court's ruling was moot because the facts had changed. Must University

Very good insightful post, This is the reason why the national journal is bookmarked and visited everyday. I also wanted to share with other fellow members some half.com coupon codes 2011.

 Honestly, I know it is  easy to twist judicial opinions around for your own rhetorical needs (since most people have no comprehension of the nuances involved with judicial opinions) but this is ridiculous. gravid uge for uge It's normal for courts to make decisions on many of the smaller issues within the case as well as on the case itself.  This is what the Supreme Court did. 

I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work and
please tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read
more on the subject? Thank you in Advance Dora

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the kitchenaid case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Thanks for sharing, can't wait for next article on this subject!

www.trafficdr.com

it is very easy, give everyone the same test, whoever has the best score gets a promotion or raise. generator reviews

No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post

sometimes life is so unfair. If you rich, you can do anything and pay anything.  There's really an injustice..

 Wow, with all these legal experts floating around Hannity, Rush, this author and "Scott" why do we even need a court system.  Just ask the repubs who have all the answers:

The decision of 5 to 4 was on granting summary judgement to the plantiffs.

However, the 4 dissenting justices would have remanded the case back to the lower court (basically saying that they were wrong.)  Thus the 9 to 0 "decision" on Judge Sotomayor's ruling.

Trying reading, "left to right, top to bottom, groups words together to form sentences."

This is like saying the Steelers won the super bowl 10 to 7, but because they didnt like the play the other team scored on, it was really 10 to 0.

retro furniture | retro sofa

I had learn a lot from your article, thanks a lot!
SEOBacklinks

Very good insightful post, This is the reason why the national journal is bookmarked and visited everyday.

I am not a wingnut. I am not a Limbaugh drone. What I am is a person who reads and thinks critically, and I must say to the people who aren't even acknowledging the article itself or the many, many explanations of the "9-0" remark in the comment, what is your malfunction?

Within majority and dissenting opinions there can be commonground. In a concurring opinion, in which someone signs on to form the majority, but has a slightly different take, it still counts towards the majority vote, or vice-versa with the dissenters---it is a matrix of ideas and opinions that converge at certain reconciliable points and completely diverge in others. from http://travelinsuranceforseniors.org

the majority vote, or vice-versa with the dissenters---it is a matrix of ideas and opinions that converge at certain reconciliable points and completely diverge in others. from

Hermes Picotin

 Thanks for sharing, can't wait for next article on this subject!

Esponjas

Really like your blog content the way you put up the things…I’ve read the topic with great interest and definitely will stick your blog routinely for other great posts.

Mighael donahuue

This is so cool. I am such a huge fan of their work. I really am impressed with how much you have worked to make this website so enjoyable.

carlei murciali

well i think u should find a better locksmith. i think in denver there are some great ones. i heared of lockmith denver that they are really good.

Definitely concur with what you stated. Your explanation was certainly the simplest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irked when folks discuss issues which they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail right on the head and explained out everything without complication. Chapter 7 bankruptcy Maybe, people can take a signal. Will likely be back again to get more. Thanks

 

I think cinema, movies, and magic have always been closely associated. The very earliest people who made film were magicians.

Halloween Costume

Karma. No one can escape from it. SO in the end everyone will get his/hers justice

http://www.lecithinbenefits.org

I know it is  easy to twist judicial opinions around for your own rhetorical needs but this is ridiculous. minecraft server hosting

The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful Juegos de Ben 10

 Thanks for sharing this infomation with all of us.  I completely agree that is easy to manipulate and twist the judicial opinions in the present scenario but it is extremely bad and needs immediate attention.

http://www.asthmarelieve.com

Hi! Really good article! I am just a ordinary visitor to your site (very much like addict :P) on your website even though I had a issue. plndr rep code

 Great Article...I am new to the site and really impressed with your writing....I am going to every piece of Info that you have shared here...I too write at my blog check it out !! Travel Insurance for Seniors

Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.Keep blogging. vipre coupon

can someone explain why it is the sotomayor-endorsed opinion?  did she personally endorse it?  was she the only judge on the opinion?  i thought court of appeals decisions had at least 2 judges. top 100 country songs

 

Used Tires  Water that flows over the fall at Niagara ultimately ends up in Lake Ontario - from there, water drains by way of the St. Lawrence River in to the Atlantic Ocean. Above the Horseshoe Falls, Minolta tower rises 325 feet and the Skylon tower rises 775 feet above the fall.

so people, Straurt Taylor is one of my best writers.. Again he rocked and gives the useful info to us...For future i make reference this article to my collegues who wish a serious legal data...Recommend to my senior visitiors also..Travel insurance for Seniors Citizens

had a nice response but this thing ate it. Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related. Thanks a lot for sharing. Will be referring a lot of friends about this. kaspersky coupons

a very good blog ,but it was predicted that the justices will prevent it and thats what they did.it was a very bad decisionby them  from free 0800 numbers

That's an interesting post about that. It would be nice, like Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, to not be judged by skin color.

travel insurance for seniors

 That's an interesting post about that. It would be nice, like Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, to not be judged by skin color.

Tropical Aquariums Adelaide

Those are enough to disqualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court.
I disagree. It didn't stop Clarence Thomas, or Antonin Scalia, or for that matter, ANY justice. Every person, in any field, can be labeled with -ist and have someone rail against that...

free cell phone spy software

That's an interesting post about that. It would be nice, like Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, to not be judged by skin color. office mac promo code

a very good blog ,but it was predicted that the justices will bob video

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

spy text messages

The broader questions lying behind the New Haven case are whether this nation will ever get beyond racial preferences and quotas such as those encouraged by both the Sotomayor and the Ginsburg positions, and whether it will ever realize Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skins, but by the content of their characters Travel Insurance For Seniors

Water that flows over the fall at Niagara ultimately ends up in Lake Ontario vestir juegos

 That's an interesting post about that. It would be nice, like Dr. Martin vestir

Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before. juegos de bob esponja

 eally like your blog content the way you put up the things…I’ve read the topic with great interest and definitely will stick your blog routinely for other great posts

The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful. www.juegosteca.com/ 

No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post Portal Quality Content

That's an interesting post. Theme of blog is excellent. I read it with very much interest and it is true that If the law were as Judge Sotomayor ruled, no employer could ever safely proceed with promotions based on any test on which minorities fared badly. Travel Insurance For Seniors.