Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[del]

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

who could blame you?

 

[Nik]

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.

Funny you can't actually debate the point. Well not that funny...sad really.

Leaf?

 

[del]

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.

Funny you can't actually debate the point. Well not that funny...sad really.

Leaf?

there's no point debating a zealot who is unable to admit he's wrong.

liar.

 

[Nik]

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....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

 

[Nik]

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 they didn't act in good faith?

They got a test that had a disparate racial impact. Regardless of what you think about the case, both sides have a good argument. Asserting that they didn't act in good faith just because you disagree with the outcome is asinine.

 

[del]

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 they didn't act in good faith?

They got a test that had a disparate racial impact. Regardless of what you think about the case, both sides have a good argument. Asserting that they didn't act in good faith just because you disagree with the outcome is asinine.

i love unintentional irony.



keep it coming, nikki.

 

[Nik]

fixed that for you, nikster.

Funny you can't actually debate the point. Well not that funny...sad really.

Leaf?

there's no point debating a zealot who is unable to admit he's wrong.

liar.

Your right...I guess I shouldn't bother with you anymore

Leaf?

 

[del]

Funny you can't actually debate the point. Well not that funny...sad really.

Leaf?

there's no point debating a zealot who is unable to admit he's wrong.

liar.

Your right...I guess I shouldn't bother with you anymore

Leaf?

you really are showing your ass, nikki.
go outside, take a walk. and it's "you're" not "your", wordsmith.

 

[Yurt]

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....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

how many times do i have to explain this....

the case followed by sotomayor was itself, according to you and the other poster's definition of the scotus case, legislation from the bench....so, sotomayor wrongfully follows legislation from the bench instead of taking the time to distinguish the cases which as you should know are factually different.

you can't have it both ways...

next

 

[Yurt]

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.

LMAO.....i guess everytime i say something i need to preface it with:

this is what i think

you're funny!!!!

 

[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.

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?

OK, now I will use YOUR source to prove it IS legislating from the bench (next time, don't try to throw out a long paper, unless YOU know it's content...

In addition to these concerns, critics argue that when judges employ techniques supposedly distinctive to lawmakers, they do so at the expense of precedent and other legal values. In abandoning legal techniques that prevent judges from overstepping their proper and narrow institutional roles, courts make law itself uncertain and unfair.88 The invention of rights by judges who are not directly responsible to the public or other institutions can leave these liberties insecure, dilute the impact of more time-worn and recognized protections, or simply demand too much from the citizens and government institutions that will be called upon to recognize and protect these new rights.89

The Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII . The New Haven test was discriminatory in "practice"; no minorities passed the test, under the existing Title VII the test should be thrown out. That is the law...and the lower court followed precedent.

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

 

[Nik]

there's no point debating a zealot who is unable to admit he's wrong.

liar.

Your right...I guess I shouldn't bother with you anymore

Leaf?

you really are showing your ass, nikki.
go outside, take a walk. and it's "you're" not "your", wordsmith.

Proper names are capitalized, as are the first letter of a sentence.

I gave one a leaf

 

[Nik]

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....

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

how many times do i have to explain this....

the case followed by sotomayor was itself, according to you and the other poster's definition of the scotus case, legislation from the bench....so, sotomayor wrongfully follows legislation from the bench instead of taking the time to distinguish the cases which as you should know are factually different.

you can't have it both ways...

next

So you think she shouldn't have followed it because it was legislation from the bench? Thats your position?

 

[del]

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?

OK, now I will use YOUR source to prove it IS legislating from the bench (next time, don't try to throw out a long paper, unless YOU know it's content...

In addition to these concerns, critics argue that when judges employ techniques supposedly distinctive to lawmakers, they do so at the expense of precedent and other legal values. In abandoning legal techniques that prevent judges from overstepping their proper and narrow institutional roles, courts make law itself uncertain and unfair.88 The invention of rights by judges who are not directly responsible to the public or other institutions can leave these liberties insecure, dilute the impact of more time-worn and recognized protections, or simply demand too much from the citizens and government institutions that will be called upon to recognize and protect these new rights.89

The Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII . The New Haven test was discriminatory in "practice"; no minorities passed the test, under the existing Title VII the test should be thrown out. That is the law...and the lower court followed precedent.

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

factually untrue. some minorities did pass the test, including 2 hispanics who were part of the suit.

Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed thelieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the exami-nation. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promo-
tion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.""

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

 

[Yurt]

The precedent MAY have been legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is, by definition creating a NEW law. How exactly can a court create a NEW law by following a precedent?

how many times do i have to explain this....

the case followed by sotomayor was itself, according to you and the other poster's definition of the scotus case, legislation from the bench....so, sotomayor wrongfully follows legislation from the bench instead of taking the time to distinguish the cases which as you should know are factually different.

you can't have it both ways...

next

So you think she shouldn't have followed it because it was legislation from the bench? Thats your position?

i'm throwing your argument back in your face to show you the sheer stupidity of it....and you can't even see it

 

[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?

OK, now I will use YOUR source to prove it IS legislating from the bench (next time, don't try to throw out a long paper, unless YOU know it's content...

In addition to these concerns, critics argue that when judges employ techniques supposedly distinctive to lawmakers, they do so at the expense of precedent and other legal values. In abandoning legal techniques that prevent judges from overstepping their proper and narrow institutional roles, courts make law itself uncertain and unfair.88 The invention of rights by judges who are not directly responsible to the public or other institutions can leave these liberties insecure, dilute the impact of more time-worn and recognized protections, or simply demand too much from the citizens and government institutions that will be called upon to recognize and protect these new rights.89

The Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII . The New Haven test was discriminatory in "practice"; no minorities passed the test, under the existing Title VII the test should be thrown out. That is the law...and the lower court followed precedent.

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

you're wrong on so many levels.....first off, they did not alter the legislation, second, the precedent you said they changed was itself adding to the law, third they do not have to PROVE they would be liable, read the case before acting like a big shot, lastly, you are dead wrong on title VII....i suggest you follow your own advice and READ

 

[Nik]

how many times do i have to explain this....

the case followed by sotomayor was itself, according to you and the other poster's definition of the scotus case, legislation from the bench....so, sotomayor wrongfully follows legislation from the bench instead of taking the time to distinguish the cases which as you should know are factually different.

you can't have it both ways...

next

So you think she shouldn't have followed it because it was legislation from the bench? Thats your position?

i'm throwing your argument back in your face to show you the sheer stupidity of it....and you can't even see it

No, you really aren't. You are making an incoherent argument which isn't really distinguishing anything. Although I do agree that your argument seems to be quite stupid.

 

[manifold]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For your entertainment and education, I hereby present a 5 second re-enactment of Nik's participation in this discussion.


[youtube]pQkTlr9afR4[/youtube]

 

[Nik]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For your entertainment and education, I hereby present a 5 second re-enactment of Nik's participation in this discussion.


[youtube]pQkTlr9afR4[/youtube]

Maybe you can report me again for not giving a link to a copyrighted source, eh?

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

OK, now I will use YOUR source to prove it IS legislating from the bench (next time, don't try to throw out a long paper, unless YOU know it's content...

In addition to these concerns, critics argue that when judges employ techniques supposedly distinctive to lawmakers, they do so at the expense of precedent and other legal values. In abandoning legal techniques that prevent judges from overstepping their proper and narrow institutional roles, courts make law itself uncertain and unfair.88 The invention of rights by judges who are not directly responsible to the public or other institutions can leave these liberties insecure, dilute the impact of more time-worn and recognized protections, or simply demand too much from the citizens and government institutions that will be called upon to recognize and protect these new rights.89

The Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII . The New Haven test was discriminatory in "practice"; no minorities passed the test, under the existing Title VII the test should be thrown out. That is the law...and the lower court followed precedent.

NOW, cities like New Haven have to PROVE they would be liable to lawsuit. That ADDS additional demands and burdens to government institutions. HOW do you prove you would be sued unless you ARE sued.

factually untrue. some minorities did pass the test, including 2 hispanics who were part of the suit.

Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed thelieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the exami-nation. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promo-
tion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.""

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

del, I stand corrected for improper wording...but it doesn't change the fact the test in "practice" was discriminatory and under Title VII should have been thrown out...

It doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court CHANGED Title VII and ADDED additional demands and burdens to government institutions.

Everyone can identify with Frank Ricci, but if you understand that our laws are based on precedent, NEW precedent has been set, and the law HAS been CHANGED...