Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Nik]

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reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit.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

Why does she need to cite the relevant portions? And the dissent is incorrect I believe as the case is published. The District Court laid out the claims raised by the plaintiffs, although yes it doesn't substantively address the issues on appeal, although they are essentially legal issues which the District Court addressed.

As I said, it seems they agreed with the District Court, which was not an unreasonable opinion. There isn't much of a need to expand on it unless they want to disagree with it. Courts routinely affirm lower courts without re-discussing the entirety of the issue.

 

[Gunny]

You wanted a link, I provided it. Not my fault its behind a wall. I thought you had already read the district court opinion anyway? Or was that another one of your lies?

It is your responsibility to provide an accessible link to websites you are quoting. Them's the rules. I know Del's watching, but I still think I'm going to have to officially report you.

We both know that if you were being honest, you'd have no problem posting an accessible link.

Go for it. Its NOT copyrighted. Therefore, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, bitch.

Besides the fact that you claimed that you READ the opinion. Was that a lie Mani? Had you actually read that opinion? If so, you should be able to access it again, correct?

I have no idea where an accessible link is. I don't need to look for accessible links. I'm happy to post the whole opinion if you actually want to read it and educate yourself, but as for your lie that what I did was against board rules, you are factually incorrect. Public opinions are not copyrighted.

Wrong. You will not knowingly post inaccessible links on this board, copyrighted or not.

If you are using the link as a basis to substantiate your argument, you most assuredly DO have to post an accessible one. If not, one can only assume you are full of shit, and in fat have no basis for whatever statement you are trying to back up.

I haven't even bothered reading any more of your opinions in this thread because they are illogical and stupid, so I just bailed on it. No point in arguing with a moron. Especially one who is a proven liar.

 

[Yurt]

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

Why does she need to cite the relevant portions? And the dissent is incorrect I believe as the case is published. The District Court laid out the claims raised by the plaintiffs, although yes it doesn't substantively address the issues on appeal, although they are essentially legal issues which the District Court addressed.

As I said, it seems they agreed with the District Court, which was not an unreasonable opinion. There isn't much of a need to expand on it unless they want to disagree with it. Courts routinely affirm lower courts without re-discussing the entirety of the issue.

it was published "after" he wrote the dissent...read the ugly politics of it and why she and the other judges changed their mind...

i've explained to you why....and while it is done routinely, it is not often done in such important cases and you should know that. this case was high publicity and there is some thought that the case was given that lazy opinion and unpublished in order to evade scotus review or basically sweep the issue under the carpet. come on nik, not all cases are equal, this case was highly political and IMO sotomayor was trying to shut this down.

 

[Yurt]

here is more on how this case was not legislating from the bench and the only change was a standard....

Despite the best efforts of Sonia Sotomayor and her Second Circuit panel to bury his claim in a cursory opinion, Frank Ricci made it to the Supreme Court and today received justice. In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that under Title VII, the results of Ricci’s promotional test could not be thrown out simply because the city of New Haven feared a lawsuit. Because the issue was easily resolved on this basis, there was no need to proceed to the 14th Amendment issue. There was no remand to the Second Circuit.

Much more will be written about the case. But Justice Kennedy’s opinion is blunt and rather devastating to those who defended Sotomayor and the Second Circuits’ back-of-the-hand treatment of the white firefighters’ case:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1).

Commentary » Blog Archive » Frank Ricci Gets His Day In Court

 

[Bfgrn]

here is more on how this case was not legislating from the bench and the only change was a standard....

Despite the best efforts of Sonia Sotomayor and her Second Circuit panel to bury his claim in a cursory opinion, Frank Ricci made it to the Supreme Court and today received justice. In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that under Title VII, the results of Ricci’s promotional test could not be thrown out simply because the city of New Haven feared a lawsuit. Because the issue was easily resolved on this basis, there was no need to proceed to the 14th Amendment issue. There was no remand to the Second Circuit.

Much more will be written about the case. But Justice Kennedy’s opinion is blunt and rather devastating to those who defended Sotomayor and the Second Circuits’ back-of-the-hand treatment of the white firefighters’ case:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1).

Commentary » Blog Archive » Frank Ricci Gets His Day In Court

Yurt... this decision IS legislating from the bench...YOUR OWN words and description undermine your assertion that it isn't...

Your far right sources are proof that you can find anything on the web to support a far right wing opinion. The claim of "laziness" is a joke. NO ONE can know the motives of any individual other than themselves. It is irresponsible speculation and makes your source's credibility worthless...

The law was CHANGED, and responsible law observers admit that this will change the workplace. To what degree is the only question.

 

[Ravi]

no, it restored it to its original operation

Really? What was its original operation.

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

So, Del...is it your position that the city should be able to hire whomever they please and use whatever testing method they wish?

 

[Gunny]

Really? What was its original operation.

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

So, Del...is it your position that the city should be able to hire whomever they please and use whatever testing method they wish?

Misleading. Obviously, the testing methods cannot violate the Constitution or any other law, and should pertain to qualifications for they job(s) they are being applied to.

After that, yes. Without fear of witch hunting when the results aren't PC.

 

[Ravi]

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

So, Del...is it your position that the city should be able to hire whomever they please and use whatever testing method they wish?

Misleading. Obviously, the testing methods cannot violate the Constitution or any other law, and should pertain to qualifications for they job(s) they are being applied to.

After that, yes. Without fear of witch hunting when the results aren't PC.

Thanks for your input, big boy, but I was actually interested in Del's opinion.

 

[Nik]

It is your responsibility to provide an accessible link to websites you are quoting. Them's the rules. I know Del's watching, but I still think I'm going to have to officially report you.

We both know that if you were being honest, you'd have no problem posting an accessible link.

Go for it. Its NOT copyrighted. Therefore, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, bitch.

Besides the fact that you claimed that you READ the opinion. Was that a lie Mani? Had you actually read that opinion? If so, you should be able to access it again, correct?

I have no idea where an accessible link is. I don't need to look for accessible links. I'm happy to post the whole opinion if you actually want to read it and educate yourself, but as for your lie that what I did was against board rules, you are factually incorrect. Public opinions are not copyrighted.

Wrong. You will not knowingly post inaccessible links on this board, copyrighted or not.

If you are using the link as a basis to substantiate your argument, you most assuredly DO have to post an accessible one. If not, one can only assume you are full of shit, and in fat have no basis for whatever statement you are trying to back up.

I haven't even bothered reading any more of your opinions in this thread because they are illogical and stupid, so I just bailed on it. No point in arguing with a moron. Especially one who is a proven liar.

And where in the rules does it state that?

I wasn't using the link as a basis to substantiate my argument. You not bother to read real arguments? I'm shocked that you would just skim through and feel like you have the knowledge to vomit out a half-assed opinion. Shocked.

 

[Nik]

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

Why does she need to cite the relevant portions? And the dissent is incorrect I believe as the case is published. The District Court laid out the claims raised by the plaintiffs, although yes it doesn't substantively address the issues on appeal, although they are essentially legal issues which the District Court addressed.

As I said, it seems they agreed with the District Court, which was not an unreasonable opinion. There isn't much of a need to expand on it unless they want to disagree with it. Courts routinely affirm lower courts without re-discussing the entirety of the issue.

it was published "after" he wrote the dissent...read the ugly politics of it and why she and the other judges changed their mind...

i've explained to you why....and while it is done routinely, it is not often done in such important cases and you should know that. this case was high publicity and there is some thought that the case was given that lazy opinion and unpublished in order to evade scotus review or basically sweep the issue under the carpet. come on nik, not all cases are equal, this case was highly political and IMO sotomayor was trying to shut this down.

What are the "ugly politics" of it?

How the hell does this make any sense? She was trying to avoid review by....not addressing the issue? Not addressing the issue makes it MORE likely to be granted cert, not less. This is an insane argument your making that she issues a poor, short, lazy opinion so that she would avoid review. That is a completely incoherent argument.

 

[Yurt]

Why does she need to cite the relevant portions? And the dissent is incorrect I believe as the case is published. The District Court laid out the claims raised by the plaintiffs, although yes it doesn't substantively address the issues on appeal, although they are essentially legal issues which the District Court addressed.

As I said, it seems they agreed with the District Court, which was not an unreasonable opinion. There isn't much of a need to expand on it unless they want to disagree with it. Courts routinely affirm lower courts without re-discussing the entirety of the issue.

it was published "after" he wrote the dissent...read the ugly politics of it and why she and the other judges changed their mind...

i've explained to you why....and while it is done routinely, it is not often done in such important cases and you should know that. this case was high publicity and there is some thought that the case was given that lazy opinion and unpublished in order to evade scotus review or basically sweep the issue under the carpet. come on nik, not all cases are equal, this case was highly political and IMO sotomayor was trying to shut this down.

What are the "ugly politics" of it?

How the hell does this make any sense? She was trying to avoid review by....not addressing the issue? Not addressing the issue makes it MORE likely to be granted cert, not less. This is an insane argument your making that she issues a poor, short, lazy opinion so that she would avoid review. That is a completely incoherent argument.

you obviously know very little about cert

 

[Yurt]

here is more on how this case was not legislating from the bench and the only change was a standard....

Despite the best efforts of Sonia Sotomayor and her Second Circuit panel to bury his claim in a cursory opinion, Frank Ricci made it to the Supreme Court and today received justice. In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that under Title VII, the results of Ricci’s promotional test could not be thrown out simply because the city of New Haven feared a lawsuit. Because the issue was easily resolved on this basis, there was no need to proceed to the 14th Amendment issue. There was no remand to the Second Circuit.

Much more will be written about the case. But Justice Kennedy’s opinion is blunt and rather devastating to those who defended Sotomayor and the Second Circuits’ back-of-the-hand treatment of the white firefighters’ case:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1).

Commentary » Blog Archive » Frank Ricci Gets His Day In Court

Yurt... this decision IS legislating from the bench...YOUR OWN words and description undermine your assertion that it isn't...

Your far right sources are proof that you can find anything on the web to support a far right wing opinion. The claim of "laziness" is a joke. NO ONE can know the motives of any individual other than themselves. It is irresponsible speculation and makes your source's credibility worthless...

The law was CHANGED, and responsible law observers admit that this will change the workplace. To what degree is the only question.

you're wrong...read this....and bone up on what it means to legislate from the bench

http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_1_Peabody.pdf

i still find it amusing that you whine about this when disparate impact first recognized by the scotusB]....why aren't you complaining about them creating an entire new class or law?

 

[midcan5]

Sonia Sotomayor was interpreting the law, the scotus was legislating from the bench. The irony of this is too rich. A Hispanic judge interprets the law as written and the white men on the scotus rule in favor of white men. More irony is the fact they ruled against the woman who sued but was a little late in filing. Woman, I'd stay away from this court you may find the backlash that always follows progress tantamount in their rulings.

 

[Nik]

it was published "after" he wrote the dissent...read the ugly politics of it and why she and the other judges changed their mind...

i've explained to you why....and while it is done routinely, it is not often done in such important cases and you should know that. this case was high publicity and there is some thought that the case was given that lazy opinion and unpublished in order to evade scotus review or basically sweep the issue under the carpet. come on nik, not all cases are equal, this case was highly political and IMO sotomayor was trying to shut this down.

What are the "ugly politics" of it?

How the hell does this make any sense? She was trying to avoid review by....not addressing the issue? Not addressing the issue makes it MORE likely to be granted cert, not less. This is an insane argument your making that she issues a poor, short, lazy opinion so that she would avoid review. That is a completely incoherent argument.

you obviously know very little about cert

Oh, well, do feel free to explain it to me

 

[Nik]

here is more on how this case was not legislating from the bench and the only change was a standard....

Despite the best efforts of Sonia Sotomayor and her Second Circuit panel to bury his claim in a cursory opinion, Frank Ricci made it to the Supreme Court and today received justice. In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that under Title VII, the results of Ricci’s promotional test could not be thrown out simply because the city of New Haven feared a lawsuit. Because the issue was easily resolved on this basis, there was no need to proceed to the 14th Amendment issue. There was no remand to the Second Circuit.

Much more will be written about the case. But Justice Kennedy’s opinion is blunt and rather devastating to those who defended Sotomayor and the Second Circuits’ back-of-the-hand treatment of the white firefighters’ case:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. See §2000e–2(a)(1).

Commentary » Blog Archive » Frank Ricci Gets His Day In Court

Yurt... this decision IS legislating from the bench...YOUR OWN words and description undermine your assertion that it isn't...

Your far right sources are proof that you can find anything on the web to support a far right wing opinion. The claim of "laziness" is a joke. NO ONE can know the motives of any individual other than themselves. It is irresponsible speculation and makes your source's credibility worthless...

The law was CHANGED, and responsible law observers admit that this will change the workplace. To what degree is the only question.

you're wrong...read this....and bone up on what it means to legislate from the bench

http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_1_Peabody.pdf

i still find it amusing that you whine about this when disparate impact first recognized by the scotusB]....why aren't you complaining about them creating an entire new class or law?

He isn't whining about it, he is pointing out conservative hypocrisy.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt... this decision IS legislating from the bench...YOUR OWN words and description undermine your assertion that it isn't...

Your far right sources are proof that you can find anything on the web to support a far right wing opinion. The claim of "laziness" is a joke. NO ONE can know the motives of any individual other than themselves. It is irresponsible speculation and makes your source's credibility worthless...

The law was CHANGED, and responsible law observers admit that this will change the workplace. To what degree is the only question.

you're wrong...read this....and bone up on what it means to legislate from the bench

http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_1_Peabody.pdf

i still find it amusing that you whine about this when disparate impact first recognized by the scotusB]....why aren't you complaining about them creating an entire new class or law?

He isn't whining about it, he is pointing out conservative hypocrisy.

so nik....how is the decision legislating from the bench and not merely the judicial branch acting within its judicial capacity?

 

[Yurt]

What are the "ugly politics" of it?

How the hell does this make any sense? She was trying to avoid review by....not addressing the issue? Not addressing the issue makes it MORE likely to be granted cert, not less. This is an insane argument your making that she issues a poor, short, lazy opinion so that she would avoid review. That is a completely incoherent argument.

you obviously know very little about cert

Oh, well, do feel free to explain it to me

no, you made the claim, you tell me why a summary decision makes it "MORE likely" to get cert

 

[del]

Really? What was its original operation.

stupid and misguided, hence your affinity for it.

So, Del...is it your position that the city should be able to hire whomever they please and use whatever testing method they wish?

no, my position is that a fairly designed and administered test is just that. the failure of one group or another to do well on that test is not the same as the test being unfair.

 

[Yurt]

Sonia Sotomayor was interpreting the law, the scotus was legislating from the bench. The irony of this is too rich. A Hispanic judge interprets the law as written and the white men on the scotus rule in favor of white men. More irony is the fact they ruled against the woman who sued but was a little late in filing. Woman, I'd stay away from this court you may find the backlash that always follows progress tantamount in their rulings.

you're such a hack....thomas voted for the firefighters and souter and breyer joined in the dissent

 

[midcan5]

He isn't whining about it, he is pointing out conservative hypocrisy.

I don't think Yurt read the piece, thinking isn't part of his repertoire of BS. And the 'legislate from the bench' critics miss the irony of this ruling completely.