HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Race & Ethnicity » Race & Ethnicity (Group) » Appeals Votes Down 30 rac...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:14 PM

Appeals Votes Down 30 race discrimination cases in a row

On average about 17% of cases are overturned on appeal. It's disturbing to me to have appeals court judges mostly appointed by Bush turning down 30 cases in a row.

14 replies, 1688 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to preventivePhD (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:18 PM

1. You appear to assume they vote according to what you assume their appointer would want,

politically, and disregard their analysis of the law in the cases they review. I disagree, and think this demeans the role of U.S. appeals court judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:08 PM

2. just curious

How many cases in a row or what percentage of cases from a larger sample would they have to turn down in order to arouse your suspicion?

Why do you disagree? Why do you think it demeans their role?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:50 PM

3. I'm an attorney,

and I see judges making decisions based on the merits of cases, the law and the facts, most of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:29 PM

4. So there really no limit where you would become suspicious

because your going by your anecdotal experiences. That seems odd given that they teach you not to do that in law school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:39 PM

5. How do you know what law schools teach?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:37 PM

6. Since you didn't answer my question I'm not answering yours

By the way, it's a logical fallacy to argue your credentials give you the correct opinion. They teach informal logic in law schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:01 PM

7. Your premise was flawed on 2 counts:

1. No question. I use my judgment, on a case by case basis, to determine whether a decision is 'good,' and I don't assume that a judge or a court makes decision based on other than facts and law;

2. 'They' teach 'logic' in all schools, no course in 'logic' in law school, and my credentials enable me to develop MY opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:13 PM

8. I guess you forgot logic was on the LSAT

so you how did you learn informal logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:25 PM

9. It's been quite a while since I took the LSAT.

I grew up with literate and logical parents, a lawyer father, lawyer uncles and cousin and good public schools, all of which expected and provided lively discussions on many subjects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:19 PM

10. You must be a genuis to take not have studied for LSAT logic exam

Congrats! You must have an AV rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:25 PM

11. As I said, been a LONG time, don't recall special LSAT logic exam,

may be a new aspect of the exam. Retired now, worked for Fed. government 20 years; firms I worked with later MAY have AV ratings, but not me personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:37 PM

12. I rarely agree with Republicans but I agree with Senator Grassley Analysis of Appeal court juges

Greassley has argued that the Appeals have demeaned themselves and any prefunctory analysis of their appeals court opinions would show that. He's called for a moratorium on Appeals court judges being able to overrule opinions in certain areas due to overwhelming evidence of extraordinary bias. Many experts have referred to recent opinions as insane.


Checking through the 30 or so opinions can you cite even 1 that supports your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to preventivePhD (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:15 PM

13. #1 is a procedural mess of a case,

with Plaintiff (Plaintiff's counsel) appearing to make a bit of a mess in prosecuting the case. Courts gave her plenty of rope, and did not show prejudice on behalf of Defendant, imo. That's as far as I choose to go.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1577138.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:57 AM

14. The judges claim that ever single case they get is a procedural mess due to plaintiff's so

they claim that they are not dismissing the case on the merits but on the fact that the plaintiff didn't follow the rules properly. In the case, she literally didn't check the correct boxes. Next they move to goalposts so high that no one can ever pass the bar. They rejected the case before a jury heard on procedural groups. They claim that her attorney in his initial motion didn't argue (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. Obviously, 4 is not true because she was fired. 5 the employer obviously knew that firing for race discrimination is illegal. There argument is that she was threatened with firing due to her race but that was insufficient to meet a race discrimination. In particular, they said

"On appeal, she has not challenged the district court's finding that she presented no evidence that her alleged harassment was based upon her race. As a result, she has waived any such argument. " ... "Thus, even if the threats of termination rose to a level sufficient to affect a “term, condition, or privilege” of Blakley's employment, Blakley still could not establish her prima facie claim of a hostile work environment based on her race."

That's the judges interpretation but they admit she argued she was "terminated her because of her race and in retaliation for her opposition to unlawful employment practices" So if the unlawful employment practices related to her race she has a care. Rather, the judges dismissed the case because they argue they weren't given sufficient info which is always a liars argument. The district judge could have dismissed the case due to lack of info without prejudice and allowed the case to proceed. It's this willingness to dismiss only plaintiff and not defense arguments on tiny technical grounds in case after case that has most experts concerned there is bias and certainly no justice. I'm not an expert but that is the argument and this is a classic example of that argument.

Experts argue that conservatives are using technical ground to dismiss plaintiff cases in only certain areas of law (e.g., civil rights cases) that have substantial merit. There is no evidence one way or the other that race discrimination occurred in their report. They dismissed the issue on technical grounds as they due in every case. Rather, there argument is in case after case that plaintiff lawyers are too stupid to properly follow the rules or require that plaintiffs are absurdly smart in the technical aspects while filing their case.

Most experts also agree that when these cases are not dismissed before going to trial, they are settled out of the court. That is, they're settled because the defense as lost. Thus, the legal system is no longer being tried by juries, it's being tried by judges and the judges are biased or more of these cases would go to trial.

Obviously, such a system favors wealthy corporations in other ways. If it becomes a trial over technicalities, a team of 100 defense lawyers can find a technical violation from plaintiff attorney that work solo or in small groups. In other words, it becomes a rigged system that doesn't pursue justice but technical perfection. Of course, anthropologists who have studies the law have for years claimed that's what has occurred in the legal profession. It's system that ignores outcomes and is only interested in the process. Anthropologist also point out that process is a false God that leads to inferior outcomes and that's been proven not just for law but in medicine and in a myriad of other professions.

You may disagree but science strongly backs my assertions in the last paragraph. As for the rest, we know that liberal judges are less willing to allow technical errors, process or rules to interfere with justice and many liberals view it as biased to allow technique to preclude a jury trial.

Others argue that such opinions are simply written off the defense arguments and are accepting defense claims regardless of what else is said. One can't really determine that without seeing both sides arguments. However, there are many examples in the literature where that has occurred literally including one appeals court case 5th circuit where the judges called the defense to ask why they ruled in the defense favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread