| Ricci:outright reversal..5-4; Ideological lines..reverse dicscrim. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM (3,466 Views) | |
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 29 2009, 11:02 PM Post #61 |
|
. Thank you Tidbits! |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 29 2009, 11:08 PM Post #62 |
|
. Her ass |
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Jun 29 2009, 11:24 PM Post #63 |
|
Genny6348
|
Thanks Tidbits
|
![]() |
|
| Tidbits | Jun 30 2009, 12:11 AM Post #64 |
|
You are welcome. We trolls are here to serve. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 30 2009, 04:59 AM Post #65 |
|
Stuart Taylor "But as a matter of law, the difference between the Sotomayor position and the Supreme Court dissenters' position is nonetheless important and revealing. Both, in my view, would risk converting disparate-impact law into an engine of overt discrimination against high-scoring groups across the country and allow racial politics and racial quotas to masquerade as voluntary compliance with the law. But while Ginsburg at least required the city to produce some evidence that the test was invalid, the Sotomayor panel required no such evidence at all. Its logic would thus provide irresistible incentives for employers to abandon any and all tests on which disproportionate numbers of protected minorities have low scores." snip "Justice Ginsburg's prediction that the New Haven decision "will not have staying power" seems to reflect a conviction that the nondiscrimination ideal articulated by Dr. King should be put on hold for the indefinite future, if not forever. Judge Sotomayor's position in the case, and some of her off-the-bench pronouncements, suggest the same even more strongly. President Obama's campaign rhetoric about getting away from identity politics and racial spoils seemed to promise something rather different." http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/justices-reject-sotomayor-posi.php Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 30 2009, 05:01 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 30 2009, 05:19 AM Post #66 |
|
Tidbits, I jumped in and read Ginsberg's opinion too. I cannot speak as a lawyer but here's my humble impression as a "civilian.". The progressive view articulated here is that one has to rework and re-write and redesign these tests UNTIL you get the minority results you are looking for. Blah, blah, blah..60%-40%...blah, blah, blah "equipment operator"...blah, blah, blah, verbal-oral. Ricci went to great lengths with his dyslexia to pass; the city will go to great lengths to get minorities to pass....even scrapping the test and giving new ones till they do. One decides what results one wants and changes whatever necessary till one gets those results. I used to do something like this with our bathroom scale...I was always 5-10lbs thinner near the window.It sure beat the hard work of dieting but unfortunately non compliant zippers and buttons refused to "certify" these results either. |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Jun 30 2009, 06:06 AM Post #67 |
|
The “progressive” view of affirmative action presumes that in a perfectly fair society all identifiable groups will show up in various occupations and callings in percentages roughly the same as the groups bear to the population as a whole. If they don’t, then something nefarious is at work. For decades, Thomas Sowell and others have argued persuasively that this notion is first cousin to buncombe. No heterogeneous society has ever attained anything close to proportional representation, and no society ever will realize such an arrangement—unless, that is, government “induces” folks to pursue occupations they’d otherwise not pursue or discourages them from working at jobs commensurate with their training, ability, and inclinations. The narrow political animus of so many progressives often surfaces when they are asked whether government should redress the “imbalances” in some of our most lucrative occupations. How many deep thinkers are banging pots these days to force a greater representation of whites in the NBA and the NFL? |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 30 2009, 09:02 AM Post #68 |
|
The media usually hails the SCOTUS rulings and revels in their reverence ... when they go their way. Not with Ricci. Reverse discrimination ruling leaves confusion By DAVE COLLINS – 6 hours ago HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Supreme Court ruling in favor of white New Haven firefighters who said they were victims of reverse discrimination will probably leave employers confused, civil rights advocates and labor attorneys say. The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the white firefighters were denied promotions unfairly because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as a federal appeals court judge. The majority of justices said the city was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results. The city said it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. While the court upheld that employers still have an obligation under civil rights laws to avoid discrimination in hiring, promoting and compensating workers, the ruling creates confusing standards on how to meet that obligation, said Wade Henderson, president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination," Henderson said. "Employers are looking for bright lines ... they're looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions." The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. "It puts employers in a real quandary," he said. The Obama administration should direct the government's civil rights agencies to offer guidance on the ruling, said Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action. "In the meantime, we're scratching our heads," she said. "We're concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate ... and it's not clear how to do that." Bernard Jacques, a Hartford-based labor and employment attorney, also believes the ruling will stump many employers. The court ruled that test results alone are not enough to prove discrimination, that a "strong basis in evidence" is needed, but justices didn't define that phrase, Jacques said. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the ruling, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Speaking dismissively of the majority opinion, she predicted the court's ruling "will not have staying power." The ruling is "a sign that individual achievement should not take a back seat to race or ethnicity," said Karen Torre, the firefighters' attorney. "I think the import of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups or act to achieve racial quotas." At a news conference on the steps of city hall in New Haven, firefighter Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the ruling showed that "if you work hard, you can succeed in America." New Haven, trying to fill senior fire department vacancies, gave a test to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain. Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion. The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination. Twenty white plaintiffs sued. The city declined to validate the test after it was given, a step that could have identified flaws or determined that there were no serious problems with it. In addition, city officials could not say what was wrong with the test, other than the racially skewed results. "The city could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related" or the city failed to use a less discriminatory alternative, Kennedy said. "We conclude that there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects." But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., and Katie Nelson in New Haven contributed to this report. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdV4k6q8whNn7fJ_JhZb5tdIy4ZwD994RJ0G0 . |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jun 30 2009, 09:08 AM Post #69 |
|
Joan, yes I know.It was a dumb excuse wasn't it. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 30 2009, 09:10 AM Post #70 |
|
So very Durham-esque, one might say, dear Brit. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jun 30 2009, 09:17 AM Post #71 |
|
Three of the firefighters, along with their attorney were thefirst story upon Hannity last night. Guess Sotomayor forgot Vargas (one of the 3 on the show) was Hispanic,or Latina as Soto wouldsay.Wonder if he had been the only one suing, if she would have handled it differently. The timing of this reversal is NOTgood forSotomayor.It give Republicans lots of annumnition to discuss it at her nomination hearing. Hannity brought this up but do they now get their promotions and backpay retroactive????? Edited by brittany, Jun 30 2009, 09:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kethra | Jun 30 2009, 09:21 AM Post #72 |
|
So I have to say this, I am glad of the reversal. I am frankly tired of the reverse discrimination that now takes place under the guise of "equal rights". I have watched nurses I know study their ASS's off for tests only to NOT get the job because...... they were NOT the right color (read white). I have tolerated grossly incompetent nurses who were promoted ONLY because they were black or latino NOT because they were competent. The hospital HAD to meet federal guidelines on how many of what race you have in management positions or lose funding for Christ's sake. HOW STUPID IS THAT. Ya lets put incompetent people in management over health care because of what color they are NOT for the knowledge they can bring. If you want to administer a test to decide on promotion then you better be ready for the results. I mean the whole POINT of a test is for promotion based on knowledge. If they want to claim now that blacks can't take tests I am going to throw my hands in the air and scream. This equal rights thing has gone far beyond where it needed to in some cases and not far enough in others. The problem exists in that imbalance. I frankly am tired of hearing people whine that they didn't get a good enough score so they didn't get promoted and you know its all a conspiracy to hold the poor man down. Bleh! Enough already. The folks that scored high should get the promotions period. I could care less if they are pink with purple polka dots or any other shade. |
![]() |
|
| weezie | Jun 30 2009, 09:32 AM Post #73 |
|
Yep. Just imagine how swell it is being a physician and knowing how incompetent some of your fellow docs are.... |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 30 2009, 09:36 AM Post #74 |
|
Here's how I see it. Skin hue is just that. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity but no guarantee of equal outcome. Do the work, try your best, that's life. I'm sad for my Grandmother that she encountered "Irish need not apply" signs when she tried to get work in NYC. That's about HER not ME. I don't need a NYC system rigged for all eternity for myself and my progeny to compensate me or punish them. There is an insult in all this: that somehow without all these new tests, multiple chances, and special treatment, Blacks can't get those promotions. Somehow, this insult implies they NEED this stuff. I say ...NONSENSE! Those pity parties degrade more significantly and more insultingly...than any racist's words. Do what Ricci did...work hard, hire tutors, make tapes. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM Post #75 |
|
I found affirmative action repugnant to the concept of equality to begin with. None of us will deny the effects of discrimination but the solution to discrimination is discrimination? It was absurd from the start. The point was to remove the discrimination yet we now have 40 years of intentional discrimination with the resulting polarization that could have been predicted. It was about Power, building political voting blocs, and it giving the State power over areas of life it shouldn't have. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






3:25 AM Jul 11