Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
-- it all changed in 2000. The Clinton administration never existed, and you and your ideological bretheren are as pure as the driven snow. It's all the f-in Democrats.
S_A_M

the guy's point is this:
its not just blackballing someone because his/her views are extreme. the Dems are applying a higher standard (or lower actually) to determine when to fight when the candidate is Hispanic/black.
He says a black judge who isn't liberal can't advance.

Maybe the Reps. improperly fought some nominations, but it was based upon the merits of how the nominee appear to think or rule. They didn't block someone because of what he was.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.s. here is my key quote, which shows Williams is either blind or hopelessly biased:
S_A_M

I meant to mention that in my post (that he is wrong on that), but I forgot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the guy's point is this:
its not just blackballing someone because his/her views are extreme. the Dems are applying a higher standard (or lower actually) to determine when to fight when the candidate is Hispanic/black.

Do you think Clarence Thomas would have been nominated to the D.C. Circuit -- let alone the Supreme Court -- with his qualifications if he wasn't black?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
Fair enough. Here is a link to an executive summary of Metcalf's 2003 study results of the Cleveland voucher program:
aV

This report proves my point more than yours.

On page nine, the authors state:

"Although it is not statistically significant in the data availabile to date, THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN OF SLIGHTLY GREATER ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT GROWTH AMONG STUDENTS WHO HAVE USED A SCHOLARSHIP CONTINUOUSLY SINCE KINDERGARTEN. IF THIS PATTERN CONTINUES, THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS GROUP OF STUDENTS MAY BECOME NOTICEABLE AND MEANINGFULLY HIGHER THAN THAT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS" (emphasis mine)."

I also note that the standardized test scores of those studied, which took place in 2002, will be integrated into the next report, so that a more meaningful comparison will be made.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This report proves my point more than yours.

If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't prove your point -- it supports him. (Also, you have to rule out causation v. correlation.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Do you think Clarence Thomas would have been nominated to the D.C. Circuit -- let alone the Supreme Court -- with his qualifications if he wasn't black?

Federal Judges tend to get initial nominations as a political thank you. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but there you are.
The Senate has the function of making sure this "thank you" is not bestowed upon someone who should perhaps be offered the Amsassorship to Antartica instead. That is, there is apolitical reason behind almost every judge's appointment.

You question Justice Thomas credentials. What I recall from the nomination hearings touched more upon his joke telling. The Senate back then was apparently not troubled by his credentials, or at least did not focus on them as being inadequate. On the other hand, it would seem a huge co-incidence that Thomas was nominated to replace Marshall, so I guess I would agree that his race had to do with his nomination to the Supremes.

The article's point is that given the political lightening strike that pulled Thomas up then, (or a similar lightening strike that brought Sam Hack's name up to sit on the D. Ct of buttfuck since he raised 500K to get the president in) shouldn't the criteria be equal for minority and white candidates? He theorizes it is not being played that wat. This is not something done previously.

I submit to you Ty, that the candidate selected BECAUSE of race is generally at least going to be selected as the best candidate from that race and political party. To me, he then starts a leg up over someone who's main qualification is having helped sway a state last election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Federal Judges tend to get initial nominations as a political thank you. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but there you are.
The Senate has the function of making sure this "thank you" is not bestowed upon someone who should perhaps be offered the Amsassorship to Antartica instead. That is, there is apolitical reason behind almost every judge's appointment.

You question Justice Thomas credentials. What I recall from the nomination hearings touched more upon his joke telling. The Senate back then was apparently not troubled by his credentials, or at least did not focus on them as being inadequate. On the other hand, it would seem a huge co-incidence that Thomas was nominated to replace Marshall, so I guess I would agree that his race had to do with his nomination to the Supremes.

The article's point is that given the political lightening strike that pulled Thomas up then, (or a similar lightening strike that brought Sam Hack's name up to sit on the D. Ct of buttfuck since he raised 500K to get the president in) shouldn't the criteria be equal for minority and white candidates? He theorizes it is not being played that wat. This is not something done previously.

I submit to you Ty, that the candidate selected BECAUSE of race is generally at least going to be selected as the best candidate from that race and political party. To me, he then starts a leg up over someone who's main qualification is having helped sway a state last election.

I disagree with your premise that federal judges are sinecures awarded as political patronage, although no doubt this is sometimes true. Be that as it may, your assumption that nominees of a non-white ethnic background must therefore have been picked for that background and not for patronage reasons makes no sense.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have judges picked because they'd make good judges, and not for political reasons, be they payback or an ideological attempt to remake the courts?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't prove your point -- it supports him. (Also, you have to rule out causation v. correlation.)

Ha, it proves mine more than anybody else. You guys are all nuts. How do you normalize two groups that start at different starting points? The study is only accurate if:

Of a large sample size of ALL eligible kindergardners (greater than 1500 I think), you randomly select children for the vouchers.

Or, maybe to factor out the disparities in children whose parents care enough to want the very best, you should only compare students from two groups with parents who have requested vouchers. One group being allowed the vouchers and one group refused, the allowing and refusing being done on a random basis.

Then, you compare the annual progress of the two groups.

But noooooo, most researchers don't do these blind studies. They don't use random pools. They don't use comparable groups. And the don't measure periodic progress, as compared to absolute standing.

Ahem. Its impossible to really show anything without being given an ability from the start to show an effective causal relationship using, e.g., two comparable groups.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't prove your point -- it supports him. (Also, you have to rule out causation v. correlation.)

It is not statistically significant because the study has only covered kids the last three years in early grades. As these kids move up in years, the difference will become more pronounced. Also, the study didn't not really have any hard evidence on which to base its conclusions (which, admittedly, are interim conclusions). I would bet that when the 2002 standardized test scores are factored in, the differences will be significant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ha, it proves mine more than anybody else. You guys are all nuts.

Suppose that kids with vouchers who go to private schools do somewhat better than their peers who stayed in public schools. You can't conclude that this means vouchers work. Perhaps you just skimmed the cream -- identified the students with committed parents who make more efforts for their kids.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is not statistically significant because the study has only covered kids the last three years in early grades. As these kids move up in years, the difference will become more pronounced. Also, the study didn't not really have any hard evidence on which to base its conclusions (which, admittedly, are interim conclusions). I would bet that when the 2002 standardized test scores are factored in, the differences will be significant.

No, you're wrong. You're assuming that the numbers mean something, but if they're not statistically significant, they don't. And this means the evidence you want to point to isn't there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I disagree with your premise that federal judges are sinecures awarded as political patronage, although no doubt this is sometimes true. Be that as it may, your assumption that nominees of a non-white ethnic background must therefore have been picked for that background and not for patronage reasons makes no sense.

that was your premise..."Thomas was nominated because he was black." I was accepting your premise rather than arguing it because you still make no point about why the article was not accurate in saying the Dems current roadblocks are unprecedented.
I have no idea why any particular person is tapped for nomination. I can tell you I have worked in firms where 3 people were nominated. All 3 had political ties. If you keep plugging away at your profession, become the greatest legal mind in your community, and never work for a political campaign you have a very limited chance of getting nominated.

the guy who taught me litigation had this theory on how we should pick judges. When one dies lock the doors on the Courthouse and round up all the lawyers who are there. then let the President pick one. At least that way you'll get someone likely to have some experience in trial work.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Suppose that kids with vouchers who go to private schools do somewhat better than their peers who stayed in public schools. You can't conclude that this means vouchers work. Perhaps you just skimmed the cream -- identified the students with committed parents who make more efforts for their kids.

That is exactly what I'm saying too. The studies have to start with, e.g., 3000 kids in a system whose parents request vouchers. Then, pick 1500 to receive and 1500 to not receive. Randomly, not based on poverty etc....

Then measure progress.

Guess which studies do not appear to be based on such a methodology?

Hint: All of em.

[Hank Chinaski]

this is cool. its like when Bobby Fischer would play a roomfull of guys all at once, going from table to table.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that was your premise..."Thomas was nominated because he was black." I was accepting your premise rather than arguing it because you still make no point about why the article was not accurate in saying the Dems current roadblocks are unprecedented.

S_A_M has answered that "unprecedented" stuff, I think. Maybe you weren't paying attention to what the GOP Senate did to Clinton's nominees. Now Hatch has changed the rules to prevent the Dems on the Judiciary Committee from doing the same thing, so the action has moved to the full Senate.

Thomas was both black and a party hack. I wasn't suggested that his race was the only criterion.