Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Yurt]

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.

how come more black people qualify to play basketball than white people? i think the NBA is racist, the acceptance or hiring rate has a disparate impact on its face

 

[Yurt]

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.

says the moron who said/indicated only whites voted for the firefighters....

and i'll ask you as well............how does this decision legislate from the bench

what parts of the decision are legislating from the bench? it is the height of ignorance to claim sotomayor was not legislating from the bench because she wrongly followed a earlier court precedent which one could argue they legislated from the bench.

it is obvious why you're made fun of on so many boards midcan

 

[Nik]

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?

Well isn't any decision that doesn't merely follow pre-existing statutory law and *gasp* dares to make something new, judicial activism in the eyes of the right?

I think the terms are illegitimate, so don't ask me to explain the difference in my eyes. I am merely pointing out how Conservatives tend to describe them.

 

[Nik]

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

Because the reasoning is likely to be poorer coming from a District Court Judge as opposed to an Appeals Court Judge.

Oh, and the other shit I said that you apparently missed.

PS...you made the claim first, bitch. So it should really be you trying to back it up. So have at it.

 

[Nik]

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.

And of course we know it was fairly designed and administered because....umm....yeah.

 

[Nik]

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.

how come more black people qualify to play basketball than white people? i think the NBA is racist, the acceptance or hiring rate has a disparate impact on its face

Really?

How many black v. white people apply to play?

 

[Nik]

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.

says the moron who said/indicated only whites voted for the firefighters....

and i'll ask you as well............how does this decision legislate from the bench

what parts of the decision are legislating from the bench? it is the height of ignorance to claim sotomayor was not legislating from the bench because she wrongly followed a earlier court precedent which one could argue they legislated from the bench.

it is obvious why you're made fun of on so many boards midcan

Sorry, but thats bullshit. Someone isn't legislating from the bench if they are following earlier court precedent. Legislating from the bench, if it means anything, means creating new legislation on the bench. Following legislation that someone else has created isn't creating new legislation. Obviously.

 

[del]

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.

And of course we know it was fairly designed and administered because....umm....yeah.

snappy comeback, nik. SCOTUS seemed to think so or ,do you think the city, its consultants, SCOTUS and the union all conspired to keep the black man down? umm...yeah.

hack

 

[Nik]

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.

And of course we know it was fairly designed and administered because....umm....yeah.

snappy comeback, nik. SCOTUS seemed to think so or ,do you think the city, its consultants, SCOTUS and the union all conspired to keep the black man down? umm...yeah.

hack

No they didn't. They just said there wasn't enough evidence that it was unfairly administered. They didn't say it was actually fair.

Liar.

 

[Yurt]

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.

says the moron who said/indicated only whites voted for the firefighters....

and i'll ask you as well............how does this decision legislate from the bench

what parts of the decision are legislating from the bench? it is the height of ignorance to claim sotomayor was not legislating from the bench because she wrongly followed a earlier court precedent which one could argue they legislated from the bench.

it is obvious why you're made fun of on so many boards midcan

Sorry, but thats bullshit. Someone isn't legislating from the bench if they are following earlier court precedent. Legislating from the bench, if it means anything, means creating new legislation on the bench. Following legislation that someone else has created isn't creating new legislation. Obviously.

LMAO...and that earlier court precedent "wasn't" legislating from the bench....the scotus followed legislation, what they did was interpret the legislations standard for applying the law...which is completely in the perview of the judicial branch...

have you taken con law yet? as if everytime the scotus strikes down a lower court ruling it is legislation from the bench...did you follow that link i gave explaining legislating from the bench?

 

[Yurt]

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?

Well isn't any decision that doesn't merely follow pre-existing statutory law and *gasp* dares to make something new, judicial activism in the eyes of the right?

I think the terms are illegitimate, so don't ask me to explain the difference in my eyes. I am merely pointing out how Conservatives tend to describe them.

how do not know how the "right" defines it... rarely involve myself in those discussions as it is not a black and white issue...and we can all thank marbury v. madison for that

 

[midcan5]

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

Oh, Thomas is Black? Is he? He is one man who seems uncomfortable with who he is. Sounds odd to say, but he never looks happy, it is as if he runs from his skin color. His rulings are certainly oddball, and listening to him on cspan or whatever is like listening to someone who made it but isn't quite sure why.

 

[Nik]

says the moron who said/indicated only whites voted for the firefighters....

and i'll ask you as well............how does this decision legislate from the bench

what parts of the decision are legislating from the bench? it is the height of ignorance to claim sotomayor was not legislating from the bench because she wrongly followed a earlier court precedent which one could argue they legislated from the bench.

it is obvious why you're made fun of on so many boards midcan

Sorry, but thats bullshit. Someone isn't legislating from the bench if they are following earlier court precedent. Legislating from the bench, if it means anything, means creating new legislation on the bench. Following legislation that someone else has created isn't creating new legislation. Obviously.

LMAO...and that earlier court precedent "wasn't" legislating from the bench....the scotus followed legislation, what they did was interpret the legislations standard for applying the law...which is completely in the perview of the judicial branch...

have you taken con law yet? as if everytime the scotus strikes down a lower court ruling it is legislation from the bench...did you follow that link i gave explaining legislating from the bench?

Lower decisions aren't binding, you do know that, yes?

 

[del]

And of course we know it was fairly designed and administered because....umm....yeah.

snappy comeback, nik. SCOTUS seemed to think so or ,do you think the city, its consultants, SCOTUS and the union all conspired to keep the black man down? umm...yeah.

hack

No they didn't. They just said there wasn't enough evidence that it was unfairly administered. They didn't say it was actually fair.

Liar.

on the contrary, they said there was ample evidence to prove that it was fair and that there was no proof that a more fair testing methodology was available. or do you believe the following evidence shows bias against minority candidates?

""At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters toensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates.

"IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors who were superior in rank to the positions being tested. At the City’s insistence (because of controversy surrounding previous ex-aminations), all the assessors came from outside Connecti-cut. IOS submitted the assessors’ resumes to City officials for approval. They were battalion chiefs, assistant chiefs,and chiefs from departments of similar sizes to New Ha-ven’s throughout the country. Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority mem-bers. IOS trained the panelists for several hours on the day before it administered the examinations, teaching them how to score the candidates’ responses consistently using checklists of desired criteria."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

 

[Nik]

says the moron who said/indicated only whites voted for the firefighters....

and i'll ask you as well............how does this decision legislate from the bench

what parts of the decision are legislating from the bench? it is the height of ignorance to claim sotomayor was not legislating from the bench because she wrongly followed a earlier court precedent which one could argue they legislated from the bench.

it is obvious why you're made fun of on so many boards midcan

Sorry, but thats bullshit. Someone isn't legislating from the bench if they are following earlier court precedent. Legislating from the bench, if it means anything, means creating new legislation on the bench. Following legislation that someone else has created isn't creating new legislation. Obviously.

LMAO...and that earlier court precedent "wasn't" legislating from the bench....the scotus followed legislation, what they did was interpret the legislations standard for applying the law...which is completely in the perview of the judicial branch...

have you taken con law yet? as if everytime the scotus strikes down a lower court ruling it is legislation from the bench...did you follow that link i gave explaining legislating from the bench?

From your link

As indicated earlier, variations of the “legislating from the bench” critique
gained prominence following the GOP electoral victories of the 1980s,
including Ronald Reagan’s ascension to the presidency and the end of 25 years
of Democratic rule in Congress. Ironically, these charges persisted during a
period (1981–1992) when Republicans and conservatives strongly imprinted
the composition and ideological cast of the judiciary.

Its a nonsensical term. I see the article tries to define it, but I think its frankly bullshit.

What the hell do people think Common Law is, when they bitch so much about judge made law?

 

[Yurt]

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

Because the reasoning is likely to be poorer coming from a District Court Judge as opposed to an Appeals Court Judge.

Oh, and the other shit I said that you apparently missed.

PS...you made the claim first, bitch. So it should really be you trying to back it up. So have at it.

whats with the bitch talk all the time?

and your opinion is flat out wrong as to why the scotus will grant cert...as you have previously stated some app. ct. simply give a summary opinion....

by giving a summary opinion in this case, it made it harder for counsel to argue a very important factor for getting cert...a split in the circuits. all they can do is point to the district ruling, whereas had they not been lazy in such an important case, counsel for plaintiffs would have had more ammunition to argue....

 

[Nik]

snappy comeback, nik. SCOTUS seemed to think so or ,do you think the city, its consultants, SCOTUS and the union all conspired to keep the black man down? umm...yeah.

hack

No they didn't. They just said there wasn't enough evidence that it was unfairly administered. They didn't say it was actually fair.

Liar.

on the contrary, they said there was ample evidence to prove that it was fair and that there was no proof that a more fair testing methodology was available. or do you believe the following evidence shows bias against minority candidates?

""At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters toensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates.

"IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors who were superior in rank to the positions being tested. At the City’s insistence (because of controversy surrounding previous ex-aminations), all the assessors came from outside Connecti-cut. IOS submitted the assessors’ resumes to City officials for approval. They were battalion chiefs, assistant chiefs,and chiefs from departments of similar sizes to New Ha-ven’s throughout the country. Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority mem-bers. IOS trained the panelists for several hours on the day before it administered the examinations, teaching them how to score the candidates’ responses consistently using checklists of desired criteria."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Nope, but it doesn't prove it was fair either. Their decision, in essence, doesn't say the test was fair. It says that there is no evidence that a MORE FAIR test could be created.

 

[del]

No they didn't. They just said there wasn't enough evidence that it was unfairly administered. They didn't say it was actually fair.

Liar.

on the contrary, they said there was ample evidence to prove that it was fair and that there was no proof that a more fair testing methodology was available. or do you believe the following evidence shows bias against minority candidates?

""At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters toensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates.

"IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors who were superior in rank to the positions being tested. At the City’s insistence (because of controversy surrounding previous ex-aminations), all the assessors came from outside Connecti-cut. IOS submitted the assessors’ resumes to City officials for approval. They were battalion chiefs, assistant chiefs,and chiefs from departments of similar sizes to New Ha-ven’s throughout the country. Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority mem-bers. IOS trained the panelists for several hours on the day before it administered the examinations, teaching them how to score the candidates’ responses consistently using checklists of desired criteria."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Nope, but it doesn't prove it was fair either. Their decision, in essence, doesn't say the test was fair. It says that there is no evidence that a MORE FAIR test could be created.

a distinction without a difference-your specialty

 

[Yurt]

Sorry, but thats bullshit. Someone isn't legislating from the bench if they are following earlier court precedent. Legislating from the bench, if it means anything, means creating new legislation on the bench. Following legislation that someone else has created isn't creating new legislation. Obviously.

LMAO...and that earlier court precedent "wasn't" legislating from the bench....the scotus followed legislation, what they did was interpret the legislations standard for applying the law...which is completely in the perview of the judicial branch...

have you taken con law yet? as if everytime the scotus strikes down a lower court ruling it is legislation from the bench...did you follow that link i gave explaining legislating from the bench?

Lower decisions aren't binding, you do know that, yes?

dude..............................you said they were following precedent, WHAT PRECEDENT AND HOW WAS THAT PRECEDENT NOT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH AS IT WAS A 2ND DISTRICT DECISION.....

SHIT....why are you so dense

 

[Nik]

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

Because the reasoning is likely to be poorer coming from a District Court Judge as opposed to an Appeals Court Judge.

Oh, and the other shit I said that you apparently missed.

PS...you made the claim first, bitch. So it should really be you trying to back it up. So have at it.

whats with the bitch talk all the time?

and your opinion is flat out wrong as to why the scotus will grant cert...as you have previously stated some app. ct. simply give a summary opinion....

by giving a summary opinion in this case, it made it harder for counsel to argue a very important factor for getting cert...a split in the circuits. all they can do is point to the district ruling, whereas had they not been lazy in such an important case, counsel for plaintiffs would have had more ammunition to argue....

You do know that by granting a summary opinion they essentially are embracing the opinion of the lower court, right? So that its actually exactly as easy to argue that there is a split in the circuits.

Read the dissent you posted again. Saying that the Appeals Court failed to address pressing constitutional questions....you think thats not a good argument for cert?