Obama's Supreme Court Pick is.........

[WillowTree]

It's really a complicated case. If anyone is interested here's a good run down...I don't know what the proper ruling should be...but I'm not sure why a city should be forced to hire a dyslexic?


Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case : NPR

and one could say why hire a black man who cannot pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass?? agree??

Why don't you read the article? Apparently the test weeded out the book smart from the street smart. There's no guarantee those that passed the test would be better firefighters.

Or you can join William Joyce and try to convince the world that black people are genetically stupid.

tell mle what was in the test that could not be answered by a firefighter??? with preperation and study,, which questions could not be answered by a black man.. other minorities passed did they not??? could the answer just posssbily be that they did not prepare,, did not put forth the effort,, and the easy was to punish the white men who did is to file a civil rights lawsuit?? you think that's a possibility????

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Pretend it's an essay test. Is that an answer that would suffice at your school?

No, it wouldn't. But my answers to them effect my life, and so are worth me spending four hours on. My answers to you do not, and hence are worth very little unless its on an issue I am actually interested in exploring in depth.

The Ricci case doesn't really interest me, nor am I interested in exploring the jurisprudential arguments surrounding Title VII. I merely point out the rampant hypocrisy of those who decry Sotomayer for her empathy while simultaneously citing a case of someone who they claimed was wronged in party because he is dyslexic and hard working self.

I sympathize with not wanting to discuss the merits of Title VII cases. But, it doesn't look like you will have much to worry about. It looks like this is in Kennedy's hands and it looks like they are probably going to toss out this whole practice.

But, what's going to hurt Sotomayor is if she gets reversed on this appeal. The Dems have been adamant over the last 8 years of judicial nominees that it is legitimate to hold reversals, especially high profile reversals, as evidence that the nominees lack qualifications for elevation. And this one will happen right in the middle of her nomination hearings. Remember .....Primacy and recency.

Hoist...petard....etc....

 

[Nik]

Liar Liar Liar! the point was a black man could not pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass.. no hypocrisy there.. so I'm still wondering what was in that test that made it impossible for a black man to pass???

His dyslexia is legally irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to make us feel sorry for him then?

you,, if educated at all, should know that no one can "make" you do anything.. you are responsible for your own emotions and action.. agree?

Actually people can "make" others do things, despite the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. People being responsible for their own emotions is asinine.

Might want to check the dictionary before spouting off next time.

to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.

 

[Nik]

and one could say why hire a black man who cannot pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass?? agree??

Why don't you read the article? Apparently the test weeded out the book smart from the street smart. There's no guarantee those that passed the test would be better firefighters.

Or you can join William Joyce and try to convince the world that black people are genetically stupid.

tell mle what was in the test that could not be answered by a firefighter??? with preperation and study,, which questions could not be answered by a black man.. other minorities passed did they not??? could the answer just posssbily be that they did not prepare,, did not put forth the effort,, and the easy was to punish the white men who did is to file a civil rights lawsuit?? you think that's a possibility????

Right...all the minorities just happened to not prepare as a group. We aren't talking about 2 or 3 people.

 

[Nik]

Pretend it's an essay test. Is that an answer that would suffice at your school?

No, it wouldn't. But my answers to them effect my life, and so are worth me spending four hours on. My answers to you do not, and hence are worth very little unless its on an issue I am actually interested in exploring in depth.

The Ricci case doesn't really interest me, nor am I interested in exploring the jurisprudential arguments surrounding Title VII. I merely point out the rampant hypocrisy of those who decry Sotomayer for her empathy while simultaneously citing a case of someone who they claimed was wronged in party because he is dyslexic and hard working self.

I sympathize with not wanting to discuss the merits of Title VII cases. But, it doesn't look like you will have much to worry about. It looks like this is in Kennedy's court and it looks like they are probably going to toss out this whole practice.

But, what's going to hurt Sotomayor is if she gets reversed on this appeal. The Dems have been adamant over the last 8 years of judicial nominees that it is legitimate to hold reversals, especially high profile reversals, as evidence that the nominees lack qualifications to elevation. And this one will happen right in the middle of her nomination hearings. Remember .....Primacy and recency.

Hoist...petard....etc....

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

 

[WillowTree]

Why don't you read the article? Apparently the test weeded out the book smart from the street smart. There's no guarantee those that passed the test would be better firefighters.

Or you can join William Joyce and try to convince the world that black people are genetically stupid.

tell mle what was in the test that could not be answered by a firefighter??? with preperation and study,, which questions could not be answered by a black man.. other minorities passed did they not??? could the answer just posssbily be that they did not prepare,, did not put forth the effort,, and the easy was to punish the white men who did is to file a civil rights lawsuit?? you think that's a possibility????

Right...all the minorities just happened to not prepare as a group. We aren't talking about 2 or 3 people.

so? what was on the test that made it impossible for a black man to pass? which questions???? supposing they studied their little hearts out,, which questions were impossible???

 

[Tech_Esq]

No, it wouldn't. But my answers to them effect my life, and so are worth me spending four hours on. My answers to you do not, and hence are worth very little unless its on an issue I am actually interested in exploring in depth.

The Ricci case doesn't really interest me, nor am I interested in exploring the jurisprudential arguments surrounding Title VII. I merely point out the rampant hypocrisy of those who decry Sotomayer for her empathy while simultaneously citing a case of someone who they claimed was wronged in party because he is dyslexic and hard working self.

I sympathize with not wanting to discuss the merits of Title VII cases. But, it doesn't look like you will have much to worry about. It looks like this is in Kennedy's court and it looks like they are probably going to toss out this whole practice.

But, what's going to hurt Sotomayor is if she gets reversed on this appeal. The Dems have been adamant over the last 8 years of judicial nominees that it is legitimate to hold reversals, especially high profile reversals, as evidence that the nominees lack qualifications to elevation. And this one will happen right in the middle of her nomination hearings. Remember .....Primacy and recency.

Hoist...petard....etc....

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

 

[Ravi]

I sympathize with not wanting to discuss the merits of Title VII cases. But, it doesn't look like you will have much to worry about. It looks like this is in Kennedy's court and it looks like they are probably going to toss out this whole practice.

But, what's going to hurt Sotomayor is if she gets reversed on this appeal. The Dems have been adamant over the last 8 years of judicial nominees that it is legitimate to hold reversals, especially high profile reversals, as evidence that the nominees lack qualifications to elevation. And this one will happen right in the middle of her nomination hearings. Remember .....Primacy and recency.

Hoist...petard....etc....

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

It's the Democrat Socialist Party not the Social Democrats. Get your talking points straight.

 

[GHook93]

I read all this.. so,, is she saying it is okay now to be a racist?

It appears so! Note its not the KKK racist, rather the leftist acceptance of setting aside incidents where whites are openly being discriminated against! Her ruling in the firefighter case was horrendous! Justice was not blind that day, she would have made the majority on the Plessy v. Ferguson case proud (the case of the famous Harlan dissent!).

So you think Title VII is illegal? You think thats what she should have said there? Because under Title VII, the results of the test they administered are clearly illegal.

No rather I wholeheartedly agree with it. Obviously you don't understand it if you accept this ruling.

Title VII:
prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 | find US law

I also find dear the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment!

Here is what happened in the case! The board created a test that pertained to on the job skills and knowledge. They gave everyone white, black, orange, or pink the same information training materials and TEST. They all knew scoring high would get them a promotion. This is not the SAT/ACT its a fireman's efficiency test. If 7 black guys scored highest on the test, there would be no issues. However, 6 white guys and 1 ironically Latino scored highest, so the City abitrarily tossed the test out in order to promote people based SOLELY on RACE and COLOR!

The court abritrarily and caprciously violated Title VII and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment!

The courts holding off of Westlaw (note there is very little from the appelate ruling other than they agree with everything in the lower court holding)

Holdings: The District Court, Janet Bond Arterton, J., held that:
(1) defendants' desire to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact was not intentional discrimination against white candidates;
(2) there was no Equal Protection violation in the decision not to use the promotional exams; and

The main facts of the case off Westlaw:

In March 2004 the New Haven Civil Service Board (“CSB”) refused to certify the results of two promotional exams for the positions of Lieutenant and Captain in the New Haven Fire Department. This lawsuit arises from the circumstances leading to that decision and its consequences.

I. Factual Background

While the parties strenuously dispute the relevance and legal import of, and inferences to be drawn from, many aspects of this case, the underlying facts are largely undisputed. In November and December 2003, the New Haven Fire Department administered written and oral examinations for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain. The City's Department of Human Resources issued a Request for Proposal for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions (“IOS”), a seven-year-old Illinois company that specializes in entry-level and promotional examinations for public safety (police and fire) departments, designed the examinations. Pl.Ex. IV(C) at 8. Under the contract between the City and the New Haven firefighters' union, the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant's score and the oral exam for 40%. Those with a total score above 70% on the exam would pass.

Forty-one applicants took the Captain exam, of whom 25 were white, 8 black, and 8 Hispanic. Twenty-two of those applicants passed, of whom 16 were white, 3 black, and 3 Hispanic. Pl.Ex. Vol. I, at 43. Given that there were 7 Captain vacancies in the department when the tests were administered, and that the “Rule of Three” in the City Charter mandates that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam, it appeared at that time that no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion, as the top 9 scorers included 7 whites and 2 Hispanics. FN2

FN2. Hispanics ranked 7, 8 and 13; blacks ranked 16, 19 and 22. Pl.Ex. Vol. I, at 43.

Seventy-seven applicants took the Lieutenant exam, of whom 43 were white, 19 black, and 15 Hispanic. Thirty-four passed, of whom 25 were white, 6 black and 3 Hispanic. Id. There were 8 vacancies, but because all of the top 10 scorers were white, it appeared that no blacks or Hispanics would be promoted.FN3 Certified promotional lists remain valid for two years.

Patrick Egan, president of the firefighters' union, urged the CSB to conduct a validation study to determine the job-relatedness of the test, referring generally, although not by name, to the EEOC's “Uniform Guidelines of Employee Selection Procedures.” Pl.Ex. Vol. IV(B) at 11-12. Plaintiffs' counsel in the present case also spoke and urged certification.

Legal further stated that all the questions were firmly rooted in the study materials on the syllabus, which was distributed with the promotion applications. See Def. Ex. 16 (“Written Examination Reference List”). Once the test was completed, an “independent reviewer,” a Battalion Chief from the Cobb County, Georgia, Fire Department, “reviewed the written exam for content and fidelity to the source material.” Pl.Ex. Vol. IV(B) at 24-25. Another independent reviewer, a retired Fire Chief from outside Connecticut, reviewed the oral exam questions. Id. at 26. IOS refrained from utilizing reviewers from Connecticut because the RFP had specified that examiners must come from outside Connecticut, due to concerns that utilizing internal personnel could potentially facilitate cheating on the test.

Likewise, IOS selected the panelists for the oral examination panels from departments outside Connecticut, making an effort “to gain maximum diversity.” Id. at 32

Legel concluded by “implor[ing] anyone that had ... concerns [about disparate impact] to review the content of the exam. In my professional opinion, it's facially neutral.” Id. at 49.

 

[GHook93]

Because she ruled according to what the law said?

Why are you so in support of judicial activism ?

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

 

[Nik]

I sympathize with not wanting to discuss the merits of Title VII cases. But, it doesn't look like you will have much to worry about. It looks like this is in Kennedy's court and it looks like they are probably going to toss out this whole practice.

But, what's going to hurt Sotomayor is if she gets reversed on this appeal. The Dems have been adamant over the last 8 years of judicial nominees that it is legitimate to hold reversals, especially high profile reversals, as evidence that the nominees lack qualifications to elevation. And this one will happen right in the middle of her nomination hearings. Remember .....Primacy and recency.

Hoist...petard....etc....

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

Firmly in control of it? So they have 60 votes in the Senate? When did that happen?

As to whether she'll get "Bork'ed", she won't. Thats not even an issue. Republicans are currently so unpopular that they don't have the ability to make it impossible for Democrats to vote for Soyomayer. Who is going to lead this Republican charge for the hearts and minds of the American populace. Maybe Boehner? McConnell? What are their approval ratings again?

If thats really the strategy, good luck. You'll need it

 

[Ravi]

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And Republicans have been adamant about holding up or down votes on Judicial nominees. Besides the fact that at least 8 Republicans currently in Congress voted to confirm her to the 2nd Circuit. Oh, and Republicans aren't exactly eager to shoot down what could be the first Hispanic Justice. Some of them actually want to win some elections sometime in the future.

Naive. This isn't about whether she could win a vote. The Social Democrats are firmly in control of all of that. If they want to ram a vote through, they'll win hands down.

This is a question of whether she'll get Bork'ed or not. Whether she gets to be so unpopular, it will be untenable to vote for her and so the Social Democrats will through her over the side like so much flotsam.

It's the Democrat Socialist Party not the Social Democrats. Get your talking points straight.

Yeah. I saw that dust up last week. No. I came up with this, they were copy cats. See the back and forth I had with Jillian some weeks ago on here.

I included "Social Democrats" in some post. She asked what it meant. I posted:

These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy. This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end capitalism altogether. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

Social Democracy

As I think this is a fair description of what the Democratic Party wants, I'll call them by a more apt description than what they use.

 

[Nik]

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

The results of the test were contrary to Title VII. So, they discarded the results of the test. Its the discarding of the test that the firemen are arguing violates Title VII. Apparently its you who doesn't understand the facts.

 

[GHook93]

No, it wouldn't. But my answers to them effect my life, and so are worth me spending four hours on. My answers to you do not, and hence are worth very little unless its on an issue I am actually interested in exploring in depth.

The Ricci case doesn't really interest me, nor am I interested in exploring the jurisprudential arguments surrounding Title VII. I merely point out the rampant hypocrisy of those who decry Sotomayer for her empathy while simultaneously citing a case of someone who they claimed was wronged in party because he is dyslexic and hard working self.

Liar Liar Liar! the point was a black man could not pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass.. no hypocrisy there.. so I'm still wondering what was in that test that made it impossible for a black man to pass???

His dyslexia is legally irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to make us feel sorry for him then?

No! Its factually relevant! In theory (I'm a dyslexic so I can relate) a dyslexic under normal circumstance should not score as well as his counterparts. However, it can be used to show that under normal studing and hardwork anyone regardless of race or color can do well on the test!

 

[jillian]

I will give you Scalia and Alito, but not Thomas! If anything the man applies the law better than anyone on the bench!

That's funny. Seriously. Most lawyers acknowledge that he's the least capable jurist on the bench and is most ignorant of Constitutional law and the concept of Constitutional Construction. He also rejects the concept of stare decisis so he can insert his own agenda rather than abide by the law.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[GHook93]

It's really a complicated case. If anyone is interested here's a good run down...I don't know what the proper ruling should be...but I'm not sure why a city should be forced to hire a dyslexic?


Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case : NPR

and one could say why hire a black man who cannot pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass?? agree??

They didn't hire the black men who couldn't pass the test.

You did notice that a Latino was part of the lawsuit, because he worked his butt off to be in the top 7 and was then denied based on a violation of Title VII and the 14th A!

 

[GHook93]

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

Why do you find it ironic that a hispanic scored highly?

Also, how do you violate title vii if you don't promote anyone at all.

Title VII is supposed to protect employees from employers hiring and promoting employees based on race, religion, color etc. The city created a system that took race, religion and color out of the mix via the efficiency test, but they violated Title VII when they didn't like the results so they decided to base the hiring on color and race instead!

I say ironically to the Latino, because in an effort to make sure more minorites were artifically promoted they passed over and denied the most qualified minority and one of the most qualified overall! "You scored too well boy, now you get nothing!"

 

[GHook93]

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Get your facts right! The fireman were arguing the city violated Title VII and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court erroneously said the city didn't.

This case is now headed to the supreme court, I can't wait until it gets overturned!

The results of the test were contrary to Title VII. So, they discarded the results of the test. Its the discarding of the test that the firemen are arguing violates Title VII. Apparently its you who doesn't understand the facts.

That is what the city gave as an excuse after the fact! But that is NOT what they court decided on or issue of the case! The case issues was whether the city violated Title VII and the 14th amendment (and a weak 1st amendment argument) of the fireman! So again get your facts straight!

 

[Nik]

Liar Liar Liar! the point was a black man could not pass a test that a dyslexic white man could pass.. no hypocrisy there.. so I'm still wondering what was in that test that made it impossible for a black man to pass???

His dyslexia is legally irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to make us feel sorry for him then?

No! Its factually relevant! In theory (I'm a dyslexic so I can relate) a dyslexic under normal circumstance should not score as well as his counterparts. However, it can be used to show that under normal studing and hardwork anyone regardless of race or color can do well on the test!

No, it can't be used to show that. The things that make it difficult for someone who is dyslexic to do well are likely different than the things that make it difficult for a minority to do well.