Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court 'moving ball' on racial hiring, Obama says
AP (via Yahoo News) ^ | July 2, 2009 | JENNIFER LOVEN

Posted on 07/02/2009 10:11:21 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Thursday the Supreme Court was "moving the ball" on affirmative action in this week's decision favoring white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., but he added that the court had not ruled out the use of racial preferences in the future.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; bho44; noballs; obama; racist; ricci; sotomayor; thatsracist

1 posted on 07/02/2009 10:11:21 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

>> President Barack Obama said Thursday the Supreme Court was “moving the ball” on affirmative action

Damn straight! Returning it to where it belongs. The Supreme Instant Replay, upon further review, indicated that incompetent line judge Sotomayer improperly spotted the ball. By ten yards or so.


2 posted on 07/02/2009 10:17:49 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The SCOTUS made the right decision in its racial ruling regarding New Haven. Even Justice Ginzberg, to her credit, said Sotomayor was wrong in her ruling even though she did not join the majority opinion in the reversal. This shows just how dishonest and racist affirmative action really is. Merit, knowledge and ability should be the cornerstones of getting a job especially a responsible job such as a police officer or a fireman, not ones color.


3 posted on 07/02/2009 10:20:35 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

They were discriminated against because of their race. Period.
The law doesn’t ask ‘which’ race.


4 posted on 07/02/2009 10:28:17 AM PDT by envisio (Sexual Beer & BBQ Ribs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Boy, Mr. President, that Supreme Court sure has a lot of nerve! Maybe you should explain to them that they work for you. [/s]


5 posted on 07/02/2009 10:33:31 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (I don't believe anything anyone says about anything anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Just read the Iowahawk post above, and I can’t tell the difference. Barack Obortion and the sycophantic AP are impossible to parody.


6 posted on 07/02/2009 10:38:30 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Although the right decision, once again the USSC proves itself to be fatally flawed by politics. 5-4 decisions after 5-4 decisions.

You cannot have a 5-4 decision and tell anyone with a straight face (unless they are a lying liberal) that these decisions are not strictly based upon politics.

The US Constitution is not that difficult to understand and just about everything is explained by the Federalist Papers but given the garbage that has come out of the USSC in recent years I doubt that many have read either set of documents. If they have then they are simply violating their oath to uphold the Constitution and should be removed from the bench.

Just as the media has forfeited their mandate to be a watchdog for us against the government, the 9 clowns in robes are simply political hacks. Soon we will have a woman who believes in the superiority of Latinos but that is not racist.

I am sorry I lived long enough to see this country dismantled.

7 posted on 07/02/2009 10:38:54 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Actually there arfe not nine clowns on the SCOTUS. But a case could be made that at least three are and they are liberals.


8 posted on 07/02/2009 10:43:40 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Did he HAVE to use a sports reference? geeeez.


9 posted on 07/02/2009 10:46:46 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

doesn’t he mean moving the goalposts?


10 posted on 07/02/2009 11:06:26 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

LOL!

Indeed he had to.

What an idjut.


11 posted on 07/02/2009 11:11:48 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Can the decision be made retroactive to last Election Day?


12 posted on 07/02/2009 11:13:52 AM PDT by Mac from Cleveland (How to make a small fortune in the Obama era--first, start off with a big fortune....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Bingo. If you’re going to use sports euphemisms to explain constitutional issues, you should at least get it right.

“Moving the ball” is considered part of the game—you’re SUPPOSED to move the ball.

“Moving the goal posts” infers changing the rules during the game itself, a form of cheating.

As someome upthread said—he’s an idjut.


13 posted on 07/02/2009 11:22:17 AM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mac from Cleveland; All

Hilarious way for Obama to try to cover for Sotomayor....

LMAO!!


14 posted on 07/02/2009 11:55:14 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson