tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19913884.post115434277464817355..comments2023-04-14T06:24:55.668-04:00Comments on Everyone takes their turn: US District Court Judge John Feikens misses on civil rights commissionTom Gagnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11466965984472091709noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19913884.post-1154522618228328372006-08-02T08:43:00.000-04:002006-08-02T08:43:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rocketstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048394765796741834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19913884.post-1154430339208757552006-08-01T07:05:00.000-04:002006-08-01T07:05:00.000-04:00Now that I think about it, why do we have a commis...Now that I think about it, why do we have a commission at all? If there's a law then plaintifs can sue defendents for discrimination. It's how employees, ex- and potential, sue for discrimination and any number of other reasons our civil courts are jammed with.<BR/><BR/>The mere existence of a commission to "investigate" allegations separate from the courts suggests partiality in favor of complainants.<BR/><BR/>That type of impartiality should not be enshrined in a commission. The law was pass and courts established.<BR/><BR/>The state constitution only required the legislature pass appropriate law. It's possible the state government may have overstepped its authority in creating a commission to investigate complaints--aiding one side over another. How much easier is it to bring suit, legitimate or not, when you've an entire state commission on your side to dig up evidence, subpeona witnesses, and issue press releases?Tom Gagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11466965984472091709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19913884.post-1154427274033307652006-08-01T06:14:00.000-04:002006-08-01T06:14:00.000-04:00"a strange and dangerous assumption that the commi..."a strange and dangerous assumption that the commission should remain neutral ..."<BR/><BR/>When Mr. Fiekens says something like this, it becomes clear that his understanding of discrimination is heavily biased. <BR/><BR/>(sarcasm)Heaven forbid that a judge of anything should be neutral! How can we expect fair and honest decisions from someone who doesn't take a side? Where's the justice in a mediator who hears both sides of an argument without prejudice?(/sarcasm)<BR/><BR/>Apparently Mr. Fiekens has decided that some people do not need justice. And the saddest thing of all, is that too many people agree with him.Russel Trojanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08099997476446337420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19913884.post-1154346047276403152006-07-31T07:40:00.000-04:002006-07-31T07:40:00.000-04:00I believe your analysis of the Fiekens commentary ...I believe your analysis of the Fiekens commentary is sound. Fiekens has been an advocate of reverse discrimination for nearly 40 years, at one judicial level or another, and has become totally myopic on the subject. He refuses to accept that the idea of "anti-discrimination" has morphed into something that has worked against the minority he - and we all - would like to see given more opportunities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com