Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[DiveCon]

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

no it didnt, asshole

Do you understand WHAT legislating from the bench IS? It's not rocket science... the law has been REINTERPRETED, REVISED, CHANGED, ...


Prior to the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, it was clear that an employer was obligated to avoid causing unintentional impact on a racial minority in hiring, unless the methods used for hiring decisions could be justified as a business necessity and were shown to be not more harmful to the minority than other possible hiring practices.

The Supreme Court's decision changed the analysis, by asserting that when Congress mandated that employers avoid disparate impact in hiring, they must prove that they had a strong fear of losing a lawsuit on this basis or they will be liable for discriminating against the majority.

As Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent, this is a new approach to dealing with disparate impact cases, where previously the Court had not viewed the avoidance of disparate impact on minorities as discriminatory toward the majority. Indeed, there is no discrimination if the employer is merely rectifying a wrong.

Avi Frisch is a lawyer in Paramus and Manhattan.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/what-does-ricci-v-destefano-say-about-judge-sotomayor

it didnt change the law, asshole

 

[Nik]

no it didnt, asshole

Do you understand WHAT legislating from the bench IS? It's not rocket science... the law has been REINTERPRETED, REVISED, CHANGED, ...


Prior to the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, it was clear that an employer was obligated to avoid causing unintentional impact on a racial minority in hiring, unless the methods used for hiring decisions could be justified as a business necessity and were shown to be not more harmful to the minority than other possible hiring practices.

The Supreme Court's decision changed the analysis, by asserting that when Congress mandated that employers avoid disparate impact in hiring, they must prove that they had a strong fear of losing a lawsuit on this basis or they will be liable for discriminating against the majority.

As Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent, this is a new approach to dealing with disparate impact cases, where previously the Court had not viewed the avoidance of disparate impact on minorities as discriminatory toward the majority. Indeed, there is no discrimination if the employer is merely rectifying a wrong.

Avi Frisch is a lawyer in Paramus and Manhattan.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/what-does-ricci-v-destefano-say-about-judge-sotomayor

it didnt change the law, asshole

You apparently have reading comprehension problems. It clearly changed the law, even Yurt won't dispute that.

 

[DiveCon]

Do you understand WHAT legislating from the bench IS? It's not rocket science... the law has been REINTERPRETED, REVISED, CHANGED, ...


Prior to the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, it was clear that an employer was obligated to avoid causing unintentional impact on a racial minority in hiring, unless the methods used for hiring decisions could be justified as a business necessity and were shown to be not more harmful to the minority than other possible hiring practices.

The Supreme Court's decision changed the analysis, by asserting that when Congress mandated that employers avoid disparate impact in hiring, they must prove that they had a strong fear of losing a lawsuit on this basis or they will be liable for discriminating against the majority.

As Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent, this is a new approach to dealing with disparate impact cases, where previously the Court had not viewed the avoidance of disparate impact on minorities as discriminatory toward the majority. Indeed, there is no discrimination if the employer is merely rectifying a wrong.

Avi Frisch is a lawyer in Paramus and Manhattan.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/what-does-ricci-v-destefano-say-about-judge-sotomayor

it didnt change the law, asshole

You apparently have reading comprehension problems. It clearly changed the law, even Yurt won't dispute that.

where did yurt say that?
link?

 

[Ravi]

I see Mani has pulled an RGS:

 

[Nik]

it didnt change the law, asshole

You apparently have reading comprehension problems. It clearly changed the law, even Yurt won't dispute that.

where did yurt say that?
link?

Won't. As in, in the future.

 

[DiveCon]

You apparently have reading comprehension problems. It clearly changed the law, even Yurt won't dispute that.

where did yurt say that?
link?

Won't. As in, in the future.

why dont you let Yurt speak for himself?

 

[WillowTree]

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

no it didnt, asshole

it is seemingly pointless to debate this on this point. they point to no authority that sotomayor followed and that she could not depart from and now are claiming scotus legislated....

unbelievable...but you won't find them saying that if the decision created a special class for minorities

why hell no you won't! until whites become the minority,, then it will all change again!

 

[Nik]

where did yurt say that?
link?

Won't. As in, in the future.

why dont you let Yurt speak for himself?

I'm making a prediction that he'll be sensible. If you have a problem with that, you can go cry until the pain goes away.

 

[chanel]

I don't understand all this legalese but from a lay persons perspective I do not think the law was changed. At issue was not the black firefightets screaming the test was biased, it was white guilt ridden lawmakers that were "afraid" of a suit. I believe Scotus agreed that that presumption was bogus.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

Won't. As in, in the future.

why dont you let Yurt speak for himself?

I'm making a prediction that he'll be sensible. If you have a problem with that, you can go cry until the pain goes away.

you arent sensible


the way sotomayer ruled changed the law, SCOTUS put it back
like they are SUPPOSED to do

 

[Yurt]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

 

[Bfgrn]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

 

[DiveCon]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

but its NOT
you seem to think it was, but they changed no law

 

[Nik]

why dont you let Yurt speak for himself?

I'm making a prediction that he'll be sensible. If you have a problem with that, you can go cry until the pain goes away.

you arent sensible


the way sotomayer ruled changed the law, SCOTUS put it back
like they are SUPPOSED to do

Wtf?

Please explain exactly what in Sotomayors decision changed the law.

 

[Nik]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

but its NOT
you seem to think it was, but they changed no law

Hey. Guess what. Yurt just said they changed the law.

You lose, bitch. Yet again.

 

[Yurt]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

this was not LEGISLATION from the bench, do you even know what that really is...obviously not, they did not create a new law...

why aren't you bitching about the origional disparate impact being legislation from the bench?

 

[DiveCon]

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

but its NOT
you seem to think it was, but they changed no law

Hey. Guess what. Yurt just said they changed the law.

You lose, bitch. Yet again.

uh, no, Yurt is saying the same thing i am

moron

 

[Ravi]

what is comical about the claim that this was legislation from the bench is that disparate impact was first recognized by the scotus and later legislated into law...

this was not legislation from the bench. the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates, it did not however change any of the existing legislation, other than the above standard...

IMO

LOL!!! An awful lot of words to say it is legislating from the bench...

Judge Sotomayor and the lower court did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent.

The Supreme Court REDEFINED and ADDED to the law...

So basically, Sotomayor is actually pretty "conservative" and I will have to examine her record more closely.

 

[Nik]

but its NOT
you seem to think it was, but they changed no law

Hey. Guess what. Yurt just said they changed the law.

You lose, bitch. Yet again.

uh, no, Yurt is saying the same thing i am

moron

the major change promulgated by the court was a new "standard"....which does in essence change how the law operates

Get it now, shithead?

 

[Ravi]

I've got to say it. The hypocrisy of the rightwing nuts is a sight to behold.