Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[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...

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

Not really. Shes left of center, but nowhere near far left. She seems to follow the law as written pretty closely and doesn't seem to want to rock the boat much, which isn't always a good trait.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

but it doesnt change the law like you claimed, you fucking moron

 

[DiveCon]

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

as is your own

 

[Yurt]

IMO, the current law, e.g., standard was changed, however, the legislation itself was not changed, with that said, by changing the operation of the law it does in essence change the law.

my guess as to the precedent, since no one has offered it up yet...is in the dissent of ricci...apparently in ginsberg's dissent the precedent is Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F. 3d 42, 51 (CA2 1999)....IMO, i don't believe it was necessary to follow this precedent. the facts are distinguishable as i stated earlier. sotomayor and the other judges could have simply cited this case and made it more clear. however, due to their judicial laziness and sloppiness they merely gave a summary opinion so we cannot know for sure sotomayor even relied on Nassau.

 

[manifold]

I didnt' just read a flawed opinion, I went a step further and read the full text of the law referenced.

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

Section 2000e-2[k]

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this subchapter only if -
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment
practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
employment practice.

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

PWNED!
​

Are you really this stupid? Lets break this down, since you apparently have trouble reading English.

complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity;

A complaining party (Black firefighters) demonstrate that the respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact. And the respondent (the city) fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related.

This means that the disparate impact creates a presumption of racism, and then that it is up to the city to say that there is a good reason for that racism. Thanks for pointing out how the statute proves what I said before

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. It's no longer presumption of bias, it's presumption of racism.

The actual presumption is that the practice is discriminatory. It says nothing about why, shit-for-brains.

 

[Nik]

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?

but it doesnt change the law like you claimed, you fucking moron

Lmfao, actually it does. If its operating differently, then the law has changed.

 

[Nik]

I didnt' just read a flawed opinion, I went a step further and read the full text of the law referenced.

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

Section 2000e-2[k]



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

PWNED!
​

Are you really this stupid? Lets break this down, since you apparently have trouble reading English.

complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity;

A complaining party (Black firefighters) demonstrate that the respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact. And the respondent (the city) fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related.

This means that the disparate impact creates a presumption of racism, and then that it is up to the city to say that there is a good reason for that racism. Thanks for pointing out how the statute proves what I said before

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. It's no longer presumption of bias, it's presumption of racism.

The actual presumption is that the practice is discriminatory. It says nothing about why, shit-for-brains.

Racism is a type of bias you retard.

The presumption is that if that the disparate impact is on blacks, its discriminatory against blacks. Are you really this fucking stupid? Do you actually believe that the statute says that a disparate impact on blacks can be used to find discrimination against gays?

Epic fail. But keep at it Mani. Maybe you can report me again for posting non-copyright material without a link

 

[DiveCon]

Get it now, shithead?

but it doesnt change the law like you claimed, you fucking moron

Lmfao, actually it does. If its operating differently, then the law has changed.

no, it restored it to its original operation

 

[Nik]

but it doesnt change the law like you claimed, you fucking moron

Lmfao, actually it does. If its operating differently, then the law has changed.

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

 

[del]

Lmfao, actually it does. If its operating differently, then the law has changed.

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

 

[DiveCon]

Lmfao, actually it does. If its operating differently, then the law has changed.

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

what it was before sotomayer changed it

 

[Yurt]

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

what it was before sotomayer changed it

how did sotomayor change it? all she did was give a summary opinion based entirely on the district court's opinion....

she was lazy and sloppy and IMO this should come back to haunt her

 

[DiveCon]

Really? What was its original operation.

what it was before sotomayer changed it

how did sotomayor change it? all she did was give a summary opinion based entirely on the district court's opinion....

she was lazy and sloppy and IMO this should come back to haunt her

by siding with the city in the misuse of the law

 

[Trigg]

Yeah Republicans want everyone on a level playing field. Except if you grow up in a poor area. Then its your own fault that you parents sucked, your schools sucked, and your neighborhood was shitty, and you should just take your lumps.

You want institutions to treat all people as having equal opportunities growing up. Of course thats obviously absurd, but Republicans never had much trouble believing absurdities.

So if people grow up poor they deserve a promotion more than another person?????? People who grow up rich all have great parents and poor people are all shitty parents who don't care????? Wonderful generalizations, no wonder libs are screwed up.

People from inner cty schools/trailor parks thrive everyday and become VERY wealthy. Oprah comes to mind for one.

Growing up in a poor area is no excuse for not studying.

Oh, well, anecdotal evidence makes it A OK. And nobody said it was always like that, try to avoid creating strawmen.

Any evidence that they didn't study in this case?

Well since they didn't pass the test and 11 other people did, including 2 hispanics, did. I'll concluded that they didn't study as well as the men who passed the test.

You can't prove the test was "racist" and there is no mention of "questionable" material in the test.

Common knowledge of firefighting is not racist simply because the black men didn't pass.

 

[Nik]

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

And how was it stupid and misguided?

*waits for the dodge and deflection*.

 

[Nik]

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

what it was before sotomayer changed it

Which was what, exactly?

 

[Nik]

Really? What was its original operation.

what it was before sotomayer changed it

how did sotomayor change it? all she did was give a summary opinion based entirely on the district court's opinion....

she was lazy and sloppy and IMO this should come back to haunt her

How was it lazy and sloppy? The District Court opinion was a fine opinion, they didn't need to re-write it if they agreed with it.

 

[Nik]

So if people grow up poor they deserve a promotion more than another person?????? People who grow up rich all have great parents and poor people are all shitty parents who don't care????? Wonderful generalizations, no wonder libs are screwed up.

People from inner cty schools/trailor parks thrive everyday and become VERY wealthy. Oprah comes to mind for one.

Growing up in a poor area is no excuse for not studying.

Oh, well, anecdotal evidence makes it A OK. And nobody said it was always like that, try to avoid creating strawmen.

Any evidence that they didn't study in this case?

Well since they didn't pass the test and 11 other people did, including 2 hispanics, did. I'll concluded that they didn't study as well as the men who passed the test.

You can't prove the test was "racist" and there is no mention of "questionable" material in the test.

Common knowledge of firefighting is not racist simply because the black men didn't pass.

And you can't prove that they didn't study.

We have end results and many different explanations for the end results. Why do you feel that its ok to conclude one, but feel the need to ask for proof for the others?

 

[Yurt]

what it was before sotomayer changed it

how did sotomayor change it? all she did was give a summary opinion based entirely on the district court's opinion....

she was lazy and sloppy and IMO this should come back to haunt her

How was it lazy and sloppy? The District Court opinion was a fine opinion, they didn't need to re-write it if they agreed with it.

how about citing the relevent portions, you know in a case of this magnitude....absolute laziness and sloppiness on a national scale...taking 5 minutes to cite precedent....just like the dissent in the 2nd said:

This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.



And then this killer understatement:



This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.

Obama Supreme Court Candidate Sonia Sotomayor—Part 1 - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

 

[Yurt]

what it was before sotomayer changed it

how did sotomayor change it? all she did was give a summary opinion based entirely on the district court's opinion....

she was lazy and sloppy and IMO this should come back to haunt her

by siding with the city in the misuse of the law

what misuse of the law?