Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Yurt]

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.

thanks for showing what a racist and bigotted asshole you are...

and dumbass....what about the 3 other white dudes that voted with the dissent, you flat out lied your ass off

 

[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.

how is that earlier court precedent not legislating from the bench? that 2nd app. dist. decision was new and the scotus does not have to follow it...

sheeeeesh

 

[manifold]

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



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

The failure is all yours. Tap dance around it all you like, but the presumption that a practice is discriminatory is not the same as the presumption that it's biased or racist. Try to learn the difference between what and why. Maybe then you'll be less likely to keep making an ass of yourself.

 

[manifold]

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.

Oh no! Ravi thinks she has Del cornered. I can't wait to read on...

 

[Ravi]

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.

Oh no! Ravi thinks she has Del cornered. I can't wait to read on...

Jeesh...I'm not a dimwitted fourth grade boy. I actually think Del's opinion is valid and find his thoughts on subjects interesting whether I agree with them or not.

Tissue?

 

[manifold]

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.

Oh no! Ravi thinks she has Del cornered. I can't wait to read on...

One bitch slap from Del and Ravi shuts her pie hole. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[Nik]

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

Yeah...Del thinks that there isn't any difference between a racist test and a non-racist test.

Tell the blacks who don't get jobs because of the racist tests, there is no difference, asswipe.

 

[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.

how is that earlier court precedent not legislating from the bench? that 2nd app. dist. decision was new and the scotus does not have to follow it...

sheeeeesh

The earlier court precedent may well have been, but anything following that court precedent and relying on it is not.

 

[Nik]

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

So you want to know what precedent....but your telling me the precedent is a 2nd district decision? What the hell is a second district decision anyway, do you mean 2nd circuit?

Since you appear to already know what the precedent is, why don't you tell me?

 

[Nik]

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

The failure is all yours. Tap dance around it all you like, but the presumption that a practice is discriminatory is not the same as the presumption that it's biased or racist. Try to learn the difference between what and why. Maybe then you'll be less likely to keep making an ass of yourself.

Discrimination and bias are essentially the same thing. Racist is merely a type of discrimination of bias.

Bias does NOT necessarily entail a "why". Something can be biased, or discriminatory, by complete accident.

 

[del]

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

i'm completely without a leg to stand on here, but i don't have the balls to admit i'm wrong, so i'm gonna play the race card now. ineffectively.

fixed that for you, nikster.

 

[Ravi]

After reading the posts on this thread and reading up on the case here is what I think.

The city acted in good faith out of a fear of being sued and threw out the test results...because they believed the test violated title vii because a test that showed racially disparate results must be racially disparate.

SCOTUS ruled they went too far because they didn't show there were other, less discriminatory tests and they didn't have a big enough reason to fear they would be sued. They also seemed to have ruled that the black firefighters may not sue if the promotions of the white and/or hispanic applicants go through.

Basically we are left with a bowl of mud. Who may determine if a test is or is not discriminatory? How is it possible to act in a non-discriminatory manner? Why may one group sue and not the other? What criteria must be met to allow a lawsuit?

 

[Yurt]

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

So you want to know what precedent....but your telling me the precedent is a 2nd district decision? What the hell is a second district decision anyway, do you mean 2nd circuit?

Since you appear to already know what the precedent is, why don't you tell me?

i meant circuit....and you dumdum...you said sotomayor FOLLOWED PRECEDENT and thus did not legislate from the bench

now get it through your head, that precedent she wrongfully followed.....how is that precedent, that she followed, NOT legislating from the bench

what law did that precedent follow? did not that precedent (nassau sp?) create its OWN intrepretation.... in other words, how is it you can claim scotus is legislating, but not the 2nd circuit when the 2nd circuit precedent followed by sotomayor itself created a new operation of the law....

 

[Yurt]

After reading the posts on this thread and reading up on the case here is what I think.

The city acted in good faith out of a fear of being sued and threw out the test results...because they believed the test violated title vii because a test that showed racially disparate results must be racially disparate.

SCOTUS ruled they went too far because they didn't show there were other, less discriminatory tests and they didn't have a big enough reason to fear they would be sued. They also seemed to have ruled that the black firefighters may not sue if the promotions of the white and/or hispanic applicants go through.

Basically we are left with a bowl of mud. Who may determine if a test is or is not discriminatory? How is it possible to act in a non-discriminatory manner? Why may one group sue and not the other? What criteria must be met to allow a lawsuit?

no, they did not act in good faith, they capitulated to the fear mongering tactics of the cry racism/wolf crowd

 

[Ravi]

After reading the posts on this thread and reading up on the case here is what I think.

The city acted in good faith out of a fear of being sued and threw out the test results...because they believed the test violated title vii because a test that showed racially disparate results must be racially disparate.

SCOTUS ruled they went too far because they didn't show there were other, less discriminatory tests and they didn't have a big enough reason to fear they would be sued. They also seemed to have ruled that the black firefighters may not sue if the promotions of the white and/or hispanic applicants go through.

Basically we are left with a bowl of mud. Who may determine if a test is or is not discriminatory? How is it possible to act in a non-discriminatory manner? Why may one group sue and not the other? What criteria must be met to allow a lawsuit?

no, they did not act in good faith, they capitulated to the fear mongering tactics of the cry racism/wolf crowd

How do you know that? From what I've read there have been successful lawsuits by minority groups claiming discrimination. It's quite possible that they were looking out for the best interests of their citizens as a whole by avoiding a costly lawsuit. And it's also possible that they made every effort to be non-discriminatory, title vii isn't exactly crystal clear.

Good for you that you know the thoughts of others, idiot.

 

[manifold]

It's quite possible that they were looking out for the best interests of their citizens as a whole by avoiding a costly lawsuit.

How'd that work out for them?

 

[Yurt]

After reading the posts on this thread and reading up on the case here is what I think.

The city acted in good faith out of a fear of being sued and threw out the test results...because they believed the test violated title vii because a test that showed racially disparate results must be racially disparate.

SCOTUS ruled they went too far because they didn't show there were other, less discriminatory tests and they didn't have a big enough reason to fear they would be sued. They also seemed to have ruled that the black firefighters may not sue if the promotions of the white and/or hispanic applicants go through.

Basically we are left with a bowl of mud. Who may determine if a test is or is not discriminatory? How is it possible to act in a non-discriminatory manner? Why may one group sue and not the other? What criteria must be met to allow a lawsuit?

no, they did not act in good faith, they capitulated to the fear mongering tactics of the cry racism/wolf crowd

How do you know that? From what I've read there have been successful lawsuits by minority groups claiming discrimination. It's quite possible that they were looking out for the best interests of their citizens as a whole by avoiding a costly lawsuit. And it's also possible that they made every effort to be non-discriminatory, title vii isn't exactly crystal clear.

Good for you that you know the thoughts of others, idiot.

same way you know they acted in good faith....paleese, don't show your partisan slip so much hypocrite

 

[Ravi]

no, they did not act in good faith, they capitulated to the fear mongering tactics of the cry racism/wolf crowd

How do you know that? From what I've read there have been successful lawsuits by minority groups claiming discrimination. It's quite possible that they were looking out for the best interests of their citizens as a whole by avoiding a costly lawsuit. And it's also possible that they made every effort to be non-discriminatory, title vii isn't exactly crystal clear.

Good for you that you know the thoughts of others, idiot.

same way you know they acted in good faith....paleese, don't show your partisan slip so much hypocrite

I prefaced my most with this is what I think, you judgmental nitwit.

 

[del]

How do you know that? From what I've read there have been successful lawsuits by minority groups claiming discrimination. It's quite possible that they were looking out for the best interests of their citizens as a whole by avoiding a costly lawsuit. And it's also possible that they made every effort to be non-discriminatory, title vii isn't exactly crystal clear.

Good for you that you know the thoughts of others, idiot.

same way you know they acted in good faith....paleese, don't show your partisan slip so much hypocrite

I prefaced my most with this is what I think, you judgmental nitwit.

with the exception that i don't think the opinion rules out a suit by the black firefighters, i agree with you.
i do think they should have listened to their consultants and certified the results, but there seems to be a history in new haven of discriminatory testing with the attendant lawsuits. that they went out of their way, as indicated in the opinion, to ensure that racial bias was eliminated as much as possible from the test, was a good start, but they should have had the fortitude to trust that they had acted properly.

the 2nd circuit was negligent in their handling of the appeal, imo, and basically tried to broom it.

 

[Ravi]

Well, I'd respond to that Del but I'm ascared of you.