Ricci v. DeStefano: The Final Thread

[Nik]

No. We actually know how the District Court and the Appeals court ruled. So its less of a mindreader and more of an opinion reader. Do you often have temporal difficulties Del?

And you want to be a lawyer?

It would have been a completly separate case smart guy.

And?

The arguments would have been roughly the same.

 

[manifold]

Your rationale is obviously incorrect since they would have lost in the District Court AND the 2nd circuit, and would have to appeal all the way up to the USSC to prevail.

Bullshit

And you know it.

Really?

They picked one position and won in the District Court and the 2nd circuit.

Therefore, if they picked the opposite position they would have lost.

Wrong. And you know that too.

 

[Nik]

you're a mindreader now, nikstrodamus?

fail.

No. We actually know how the District Court and the Appeals court ruled. So its less of a mindreader and more of an opinion reader. Do you often have temporal difficulties Del?

you left out the fact that mani postulated that they would have prevailed if they had certified the results. since that never happened, you have no way of knowing one way or the other if the city would have prevailed.

try to keep up nikki.
are you this stupid all the time or do you just save it for here?

Right...we have no way at all of knowing

Keep stretching there Del.

 

[del]

No. We actually know how the District Court and the Appeals court ruled. So its less of a mindreader and more of an opinion reader. Do you often have temporal difficulties Del?

you left out the fact that mani postulated that they would have prevailed if they had certified the results. since that never happened, you have no way of knowing one way or the other if the city would have prevailed.

try to keep up nikki.
are you this stupid all the time or do you just save it for here?

Right...we have no way at all of knowing

Keep stretching there Del.

so your position is that you know the outcome of not one, not two, but three nonexistent cases? and i'm stretching?

 

[manifold]

No. We actually know how the District Court and the Appeals court ruled. So its less of a mindreader and more of an opinion reader. Do you often have temporal difficulties Del?

And you want to be a lawyer?

It would have been a completly separate case smart guy.

And?

The arguments would have been roughly the same.

I thought you said you read the opinions?

Apperently not for comprehension.

The lower courts never ruled one way or the other about whether the test violated title VII. They didn't have to. If the city went the other way, the courts would have had to and I'm saying they would have concluded that it did not. Again, you're welcome to form your own opinion about that, but to pass off your last few posts as legitimate logic is laughable at best, and serious intellectual dishonesty at worst.

 

[Nik]

And you want to be a lawyer?

It would have been a completly separate case smart guy.

And?

The arguments would have been roughly the same.

I thought you said you read the opinions?

Apperently not for comprehension.

The lower courts never ruled one way or the other about whether the test violated title VII. They didn't have to. If the city went the other way, the courts would have had to and I'm saying they would have concluded that it did not. Again, you're welcome to form your own opinion about that, but to pass off your last few posts as legitimate logic is laughable at best, and serious intellectual dishonesty at worst.

It didn't rule on it, but it spoke on the issue and pointed to the discriminatory impact of the test. In fact it relied on the fact that it would likely violate Title VII in allowing the city to vacate the results.

 

[manifold]

And?

The arguments would have been roughly the same.

I thought you said you read the opinions?

Apperently not for comprehension.

The lower courts never ruled one way or the other about whether the test violated title VII. They didn't have to. If the city went the other way, the courts would have had to and I'm saying they would have concluded that it did not. Again, you're welcome to form your own opinion about that, but to pass off your last few posts as legitimate logic is laughable at best, and serious intellectual dishonesty at worst.

It didn't rule on it, but it spoke on the issue and pointed to the discriminatory impact of the test.

Right. It didn't rule on it. I accept your gracious concession of this vital point.

Now all that's left if for you to admit that the lower court decisions prove nothing about how they would have ruled if the city was sued for certifying the results.