Ricci v. DeStefano: The Final Thread

[manifold]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

 

[manifold]

scotus did not legislate from the bench

sotomayor was lazy and sloppy by not addressing in writing the important issues presented in the case

Or maybe she was scared to pick a side that could be used against her at confirmation hearings, should she be fortunate enough to be nominated to the SC.

 

[manifold]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

they capitulated to fear mongering of those that cry racism

And in doing so elected to go with the obviously racist option. Don't you just love the irony?

 

[Nik]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

How did they know beforehand?

A federal district judge and a court of appeals ruled they acted properly. You think when they decided what to do it was obvious what would happen???

 

[manifold]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

How did they know beforehand?

A federal district judge and a court of appeals ruled they acted properly. You think when they decided what to do it was obvious what would happen???

If they didn't know that certifying the results was the less legally risky choice, they weren't thinking rationally IMO. You're welcome to form your own opinion about that.

 

[Yurt]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

they capitulated to fear mongering of those that cry racism

And in doing so elected to go with the obviously racist option. Don't you just love the irony?

you and i see it, but most do not see racism if it is towards whites, especially white men

 

[Nik]

Sitting back to take in the whole forest I would conclude the following.

There is little debating the fact that the city of New Haven found themselves between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they did, they were likely to have a lawsuit on their hands. The only difference is that if they certified the exams and promoted accordingly, they would have successfully defended this decision against any legal challenge. They went to painstaking lengths to do everything required specifically to withstand any such allegations. This is the part that puzzles me. They had to know this beforehand. Yet they still chose to go with screwing the white guys, aware of the fact that it was the more legally risky choice. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the media frenzy and Al Sharpton soup-boxing that would have accompanied the right choice. I'm not really sure what that says about us, but I don't think I like it.

How did they know beforehand?

A federal district judge and a court of appeals ruled they acted properly. You think when they decided what to do it was obvious what would happen???

If they didn't know that certifying the results was the less legally risky choice, they weren't thinking rationally IMO. You're welcome to form your own opinion about that.

That is incredibly stupid. It was impossible to predict which action was "less legally risky". The one they chose is completely rational.

 

[Nik]

they capitulated to fear mongering of those that cry racism

And in doing so elected to go with the obviously racist option. Don't you just love the irony?

you and i see it, but most do not see racism if it is towards whites, especially white men

Why is it that Republicans only decry perceived racism when its against whites?

Whens the last time you spoke out against racism against blacks Yurt?

 

[manifold]

How did they know beforehand?

A federal district judge and a court of appeals ruled they acted properly. You think when they decided what to do it was obvious what would happen???

If they didn't know that certifying the results was the less legally risky choice, they weren't thinking rationally IMO. You're welcome to form your own opinion about that.

That is incredibly stupid. It was impossible to predict which action was "less legally risky". The one they chose is completely rational.

You're funny. It's incredibly stupid apparently to have a different opinion than Nik.

Even more so if your opinion is validated by the eventual outcome!

 

[Nik]

If they didn't know that certifying the results was the less legally risky choice, they weren't thinking rationally IMO. You're welcome to form your own opinion about that.

That is incredibly stupid. It was impossible to predict which action was "less legally risky". The one they chose is completely rational.

You're funny. It's incredibly stupid apparently to have a different opinion than Nik.

Even more so if your opinion is validated by the eventual outcome!

Its not an opinion thats different than mine, its a stupid opinion on its merits.

Saying that they should have known that a policy that was upheld in TWO different federal courts was obviously going to fail is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

 

[manifold]

That is incredibly stupid. It was impossible to predict which action was "less legally risky". The one they chose is completely rational.

You're funny. It's incredibly stupid apparently to have a different opinion than Nik.

Even more so if your opinion is validated by the eventual outcome!

Its not an opinion thats different than mine, its a stupid opinion on its merits.

Saying that they should have known that a policy that was upheld in TWO different federal courts was obviously going to fail is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

The decision to throw out the scores preceded any litigation.

Nikfail.

 

[Nik]

You're funny. It's incredibly stupid apparently to have a different opinion than Nik.

Even more so if your opinion is validated by the eventual outcome!

Its not an opinion thats different than mine, its a stupid opinion on its merits.

Saying that they should have known that a policy that was upheld in TWO different federal courts was obviously going to fail is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

The decision to throw out the scores preceded any litigation.

Nikfail.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Your point?

 

[manifold]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

 

[Nik]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

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.

 

[del]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

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.

you're a mindreader now, nikstrodamus?

fail.

 

[Nik]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

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.

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?

 

[manifold]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Nik]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your 15th strawman either.

I didn't say it would obviously fail. I said it was more risky. And my rationale is that they would have won, all the way to the SC, if they went the other way.

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.

 

[del]

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.

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?