Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[del]

OK, now I will use YOUR source to prove it IS legislating from the bench (next time, don't try to throw out a long paper, unless YOU know it's content...

In addition to these concerns, critics argue that when judges employ techniques supposedly distinctive to lawmakers, they do so at the expense of precedent and other legal values. In abandoning legal techniques that prevent judges from overstepping their proper and narrow institutional roles, courts make law itself uncertain and unfair.88 The invention of rights by judges who are not directly responsible to the public or other institutions can leave these liberties insecure, dilute the impact of more time-worn and recognized protections, or simply demand too much from the citizens and government institutions that will be called upon to recognize and protect these new rights.89

The Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII . The New Haven test was discriminatory in "practice"; no minorities passed the test, under the existing Title VII the test should be thrown out. That is the law...and the lower court followed precedent.

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

factually untrue. some minorities did pass the test, including 2 hispanics who were part of the suit.

Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed thelieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the exami-nation. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promo-
tion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.""

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
try again

del, I stand corrected for improper wording...but it doesn't change the fact the test in "practice" was discriminatory and under Title VII should have been thrown out...

It doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII and ADDED additional demands and burdens to government institutions.

Everyone can identify with Frank Ricci, but if you understand that our laws are based on precedent, NEW precedent has been set, and the law HAS been CHANGED...

what additional demands and burdens are you referring to?

 

[Bfgrn]

factually untrue. some minorities did pass the test, including 2 hispanics who were part of the suit.

Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed thelieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the exami-nation. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promo-
tion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.""

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
try again

del, I stand corrected for improper wording...but it doesn't change the fact the test in "practice" was discriminatory and under Title VII should have been thrown out...

It doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII and ADDED additional demands and burdens to government institutions.

Everyone can identify with Frank Ricci, but if you understand that our laws are based on precedent, NEW precedent has been set, and the law HAS been CHANGED...

what additional demands and burdens are you referring to?

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

 

[DiveCon]

no, my position is that a fairly designed and administered test is just that. the failure of one group or another to do well on that test is not the same as the test being unfair.

how come more black people qualify to play basketball than white people? i think the NBA is racist, the acceptance or hiring rate has a disparate impact on its face

Really?

How many black v. white people apply to play?

doesnt matter

 

[del]

del, I stand corrected for improper wording...but it doesn't change the fact the test in "practice" was discriminatory and under Title VII should have been thrown out...

It doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII and ADDED additional demands and burdens to government institutions.

Everyone can identify with Frank Ricci, but if you understand that our laws are based on precedent, NEW precedent has been set, and the law HAS been CHANGED...

what additional demands and burdens are you referring to?

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

i don't read it that way. to me, the opinion said that fear of litigation was not a good enough reason not to certify a properly designed and administered test.

"(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermis-sible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for peti-tioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based onthe strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

 

[Ravi]

btw, I found this interesting...

New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.


Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” Buchanan accuses progressive judges of engaging in.

Wonk Room » Buchanan: Senators Should ‘Stand Up For The White Working Class’ And Obstruct Sotomayor

 

[DiveCon]

So you want to know what precedent....but your telling me the precedent is a 2nd district decision? What the hell is a second district decision anyway, do you mean 2nd circuit?

Since you appear to already know what the precedent is, why don't you tell me?

i meant circuit....and you dumdum...you said sotomayor FOLLOWED PRECEDENT and thus did not legislate from the bench

now get it through your head, that precedent she wrongfully followed.....how is that precedent, that she followed, NOT legislating from the bench

what law did that precedent follow? did not that precedent (nassau sp?) create its OWN intrepretation.... in other words, how is it you can claim scotus is legislating, but not the 2nd circuit when the 2nd circuit precedent followed by sotomayor itself created a new operation of the law....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

 

[Bfgrn]

what additional demands and burdens are you referring to?

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

i don't read it that way. to me, the opinion said that fear of litigation was not a good enough reason not to certify a properly designed and administered test.

"(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermis-sible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for peti-tioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based onthe strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Well del, it really doesn't matter how YOU read it. Time and future cases will bear out if this ruling corrodes the "intent" of Title VII...Again, I remind you that our laws are based on precedent, and THIS is NEW precedent..IF this CHANGE and NEW provision is not new precedent, then show me where the legislators that wrote and passed Title VII wrote in this provision?

 

[Bfgrn]

i meant circuit....and you dumdum...you said sotomayor FOLLOWED PRECEDENT and thus did not legislate from the bench

now get it through your head, that precedent she wrongfully followed.....how is that precedent, that she followed, NOT legislating from the bench

what law did that precedent follow? did not that precedent (nassau sp?) create its OWN intrepretation.... in other words, how is it you can claim scotus is legislating, but not the 2nd circuit when the 2nd circuit precedent followed by sotomayor itself created a new operation of the law....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Here's your problem...you are basing your opinion on a FALSE premise and right wing propaganda.

Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling last year supporting New Haven, they were following both the law and legal precedent - specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination in employment, and a 1971 Supreme Court decision that an employer can be liable for discrimination if an employment practice (i.e., a promotion exam) has a "disparate impact" on minorities.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/30/EDS618GC3M.DTL

 

[del]

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

i don't read it that way. to me, the opinion said that fear of litigation was not a good enough reason not to certify a properly designed and administered test.

"(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermis-sible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for peti-tioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based onthe strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Well del, it really doesn't matter how YOU read it. Time and future cases will bear out if this ruling corrodes the "intent" of Title VII...Again, I remind you that our laws are based on precedent, and THIS is NEW precedent..IF this CHANGE and NEW provision is not new precedent, then show me where the legislators that wrote and passed Title VII wrote in this provision?

i never claimed otherwise. i don't see any new provision there, as you said time will tell.

try the decaf. you seem tense.

 

[Nik]

how come more black people qualify to play basketball than white people? i think the NBA is racist, the acceptance or hiring rate has a disparate impact on its face

Really?

How many black v. white people apply to play?

doesnt matter

With how many get hired?

Yes, actually, it does matter.

 

[Nik]

i meant circuit....and you dumdum...you said sotomayor FOLLOWED PRECEDENT and thus did not legislate from the bench

now get it through your head, that precedent she wrongfully followed.....how is that precedent, that she followed, NOT legislating from the bench

what law did that precedent follow? did not that precedent (nassau sp?) create its OWN intrepretation.... in other words, how is it you can claim scotus is legislating, but not the 2nd circuit when the 2nd circuit precedent followed by sotomayor itself created a new operation of the law....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Yes. Thats how the law works. The law is what the judges say. If a judge alters what another judge said they are changing the law.

 

[DiveCon]

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Here's your problem...you are basing your opinion on a FALSE premise and right wing propaganda.

Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling last year supporting New Haven, they were following both the law and legal precedent - specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination in employment, and a 1971 Supreme Court decision that an employer can be liable for discrimination if an employment practice (i.e., a promotion exam) has a "disparate impact" on minorities.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/30/EDS618GC3M.DTL

that had been effected by legislating from the bench'
so, to you that judicial fiat was fine, but undoing it isnt

that is YOUR failure

 

[DiveCon]

Really?

How many black v. white people apply to play?

doesnt matter

With how many get hired?

Yes, actually, it does matter.

no, because you are arguing that the outcome is all the matters

 

[Nik]

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Here's your problem...you are basing your opinion on a FALSE premise and right wing propaganda.

Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling last year supporting New Haven, they were following both the law and legal precedent - specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination in employment, and a 1971 Supreme Court decision that an employer can be liable for discrimination if an employment practice (i.e., a promotion exam) has a "disparate impact" on minorities.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/30/EDS618GC3M.DTL

that had been effected by legislating from the bench'
so, to you that judicial fiat was fine, but undoing it isnt

that is YOUR failure

Please explain how the prior precedent was legislating from the bench.

 

[DiveCon]

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Yes. Thats how the law works. The law is what the judges say. If a judge alters what another judge said they are changing the law.

undoing what was fucked up by judicial fiat is not legislating

 

[Nik]

doesnt matter

With how many get hired?

Yes, actually, it does matter.

no, because you are arguing that the outcome is all the matters

The outcome...as a percentage of who applied, dumbshit.

Nobody would have a problem with only whites passing if only whites took the test. Do I really need to explain this to you?

 

[Nik]

so, undoing bench legislating is not fixing it, but further legislating?
too fucking stupid

Yes. Thats how the law works. The law is what the judges say. If a judge alters what another judge said they are changing the law.

undoing what was fucked up by judicial fiat is not legislating

Oh, do explain how it was fucked up by judicial fiat.

 

[Yurt]

btw, I found this interesting...

New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.


Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” Buchanan accuses progressive judges of engaging in.

Wonk Room » Buchanan: Senators Should ‘Stand Up For The White Working Class’ And Obstruct Sotomayor

NOTE FOR RAVI -- I THINK:

so we are back to using a legislation from the bench as precedent...and she was not required to follow it, she could have departed using the different facts and thus distinguished the case. further in bushey non of the non minority applicants were denied the promotion or knocked off the list...your reliance on that is misplaced....

additionally, i just read this:

the 1991 amendments to the Civil
Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(l) (“It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the
selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment
or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff
scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related
tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.”)

plaintiffs pointed this out to the district court and the district court erroneously ignored legislation and ruled against them:

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/file/ricciusdc.pdf (see FN 9)

thus, upon further reading, i don't think sotomayor was at all bound by that precedent based not only on my original THINKING that the facts are distinguishable, rather also due to the legislative amendments that i THINK do away the so called binding precedent.

 

[Nik]

btw, I found this interesting...

New Haven’s decision to toss out test results after a promotion test was administered is not unprecedented. Indeed, in the 1984 case Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission—decided eight years before Sotomayor became a judge—the Second Circuit considered a nearly identical case. Just like in Ricci, in Bushey white applicants significantly outperformed minority applicants on a promotion test, and the employer in Bushey responded by adjusting minority scores upward to render more non-whites eligible for promotion. The court upheld this rescoring of minority applicants, explaining that employers are allowed to “voluntarily compl[y]” with civil rights law by reconsidering tests that have an adverse impact on minorities.


Because Bushey has never been overruled, it is considered a binding precedent in the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor was required to follow it when her panel was called upon to decide Ricci. To do otherwise would mean ignoring the law in order to benefit a sympathetic plaintiff—exactly the kind of “judicial activism” Buchanan accuses progressive judges of engaging in.

Wonk Room » Buchanan: Senators Should ‘Stand Up For The White Working Class’ And Obstruct Sotomayor

NOTE FOR RAVI -- I THINK:

so we are back to using a legislation from the bench as precedent...and she was not required to follow it, she could have departed using the different facts and thus distinguished the case. further in bushey non of the non minority applicants were denied the promotion or knocked off the list...your reliance on that is misplaced....

additionally, i just read this:

the 1991 amendments to the Civil
Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(l) (“It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the
selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment
or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff
scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related
tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.”)

plaintiffs pointed this out to the district court and the district court erroneously ignored legislation and ruled against them:

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/file/ricciusdc.pdf (see FN 9)

thus, upon further reading, i don't think sotomayor was at all bound by that precedent based not only on my original THINKING that the facts are distinguishable, rather also due to the legislative amendments that i THINK do away the so called binding precedent.

That legislation has no effect. They didn't adjust the scores. They didn't use different cutoff scores. And they didn't alter the results. The whites still did best, they used the same cutoff scores, and they didn't change the scores. They just threw out the results altogether.

 

[Bfgrn]

i don't read it that way. to me, the opinion said that fear of litigation was not a good enough reason not to certify a properly designed and administered test.

"(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermis-sible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for peti-tioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based onthe strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Well del, it really doesn't matter how YOU read it. Time and future cases will bear out if this ruling corrodes the "intent" of Title VII...Again, I remind you that our laws are based on precedent, and THIS is NEW precedent..IF this CHANGE and NEW provision is not new precedent, then show me where the legislators that wrote and passed Title VII wrote in this provision?

i never claimed otherwise. i don't see any new provision there, as you said time will tell.

try the decaf. you seem tense.

Not tense, just trying to be precise with an IF/THEN argument.