Quote:

---

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven 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 court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

"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," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

---

Quote:

---

afoaf said:and I'm sure we will either hear little to no candid discussion on the statement
that the supreme court has made in the media or, at least, some fuckwits will turn
this in to something other than a clear damnation for yellow-bellied reverse racism.

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:

Quote:

---

afoaf said:and I'm sure we will either hear little to no candid discussion on the statement
that the supreme court has made in the media or, at least, some fuckwits will turn
this in to something other than a clear damnation for yellow-bellied reverse racism.

---

This case was not a judgment about reverse racism. The fire department didn't drop the test because they wanted to intentionally discriminate against against white people, despite what some people say (I think the same people who fear white people are becoming an endangered majority). According to the fire department, the test did adversely affect black test-takers, and they did not want to be subject to lawsuit by black firefighters. By nullifying the results of the test, after the test was taken, they were complying with anti-discrimination laws, and the white firefighter claimed discrimination had taken place.

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:

Quote:

---

afoaf said:and I'm sure we will either hear little to no candid discussion on the statement
that the supreme court has made in the media or, at least, some fuckwits will turn
this in to something other than a clear damnation for yellow-bellied reverse racism.

---

This case was not a judgment about reverse racism. The fire department didn't drop the test because they wanted to intentionally discriminate against against white people, despite what some people say (I think the same people who fear white people are becoming an endangered majority). According to the fire department, the test did adversely affect black test-takers, and they did not want to be subject to lawsuit by black firefighters. By nullifying the results of the test, after the test was taken, they were complying with anti-discrimination laws, and the white firefighter claimed discrimination had taken place.

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:
This case was not a judgment about reverse racism.

---

Quote:

---

The fire department didn't drop the test because they wanted to intentionally discriminate against against white people...According to the fire department, the test did adversely affect black test-takers, and they did not want to be subject to lawsuit by black firefighters.

---

Quote:

---

By nullifying the results of the test, after the test was taken, they were complying with anti-discrimination laws, and the white firefighter claimed discrimination had taken place.

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
that's right, it was about racism because reverse racism is a
move away from racism and sotomeyers ruling was in fact
promotion of racism

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The fire department didn't drop the test because they wanted to intentionally discriminate against against white people...According to the fire department, the test did adversely affect black test-takers, and they did not want to be subject to lawsuit by black firefighters.

---

correct, it was meant to entitle those less qualified to fill
positions they obviously were not smart enough to fill, it just
so happened those folks were black and I'm sure it that when you
learn your too stupid to fill a position that it would have an
adverse effect, oh fucking well

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

By nullifying the results of the test, after the test was taken, they were complying with anti-discrimination laws, and the white firefighter claimed discrimination had taken place.

---

and the white firefighters are right because they'd been
discriminated against whether based on race or intelligence

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:
It's also extremely ironic that by setting a new, more stringent standard for establishing the disparate impact of employment tests, the conservative members of the Court have in effect made policy.

I recall Sotomoyor being heavily criticized by this forum for espousing that basic judicial function, although I see there's no complaints when the results favor your beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

CaptainCrunch said:
prisoner#1 your the shit.. i read everybody's post often but i enjoys Seuss and you and phred probably the most keep up the good work..

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:
It's also extremely ironic that by setting a new, more stringent standard for establishing the disparate impact of employment tests, the conservative members of the Court have in effect made policy.

I recall Sotomoyor being heavily criticized by this forum for espousing that basic judicial function, although I see there's no complaints when the results favor your beliefs.

---

Once again you prove you have zero understanding of the matter at hand.  Or the English language.  What the fuck does this mean?
"more stringent standard for establishing the disparate impact of employment tests"
The Court actually avoided any equal protection decision, which was there for the taking should they have felt the desire to "make law".  What was actually rejected was the argument by New Haven that they had to toss a test (that nobody ever showed to be biased) simply because they feared lawsuits due to the fact that the results didn't meet some kind of acceptable quota.  Let us not forget that this was a relatively small sample size and that it wasn't even statistically significant in result to prove a bias.  "Sued if you do, sued if you don't" is no justification.  New Haven didn't even attempt to argue that the test was biased.

The Supreme Court simply threw out the results of the New Haven officials' cowardice in the face of Sharpton/ACORN type extortion.  They rather ripped the cowards a new asshole for it.  Which is not a surprise.  New Haven is one seriously fucked up town.

Sotomayor got criticized for punting and allowing an obvious case of racial discrimination to stand.  She was equally cowardly.  Is it your argument that any decision by any judge in any case is judicial activism?  Because that is one dumb argument.

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:
Yeah, and the district court, and the other members of the panel she was on, and the dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. They must be racists too! Why do they hate white people so much?!

---

Quote:

---

The test was simply not certified at all. You're trying to inject heavy-handed racial tension into this case.

---

Quote:

---

After your performance in the last thread where you straight-up lied about the contents of a bill and refused to acknowledge it even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, I'm not sure if it's worth it to have a discussion with you. You appear to be somewhat unwilling to engaged in a nuanced or intellectually honest debate, but I'll try anyway!

---

Quote:

---

Simply put, the case is about compliance with Title VII, not a mandate on the merits of affirmative action. I don't think anyone believes there was discriminatory intent within the test itself that was meant to exclude black people.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, zappa, I know I don't want to hear the answer to this, but what is the "Rodney" you keep smugly inserting in place of what I assume to be "black people" in your posts?

---

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

THC Titan said:
It's also extremely ironic that by setting a new, more stringent standard for establishing the disparate impact of employment tests, the conservative members of the Court have in effect made policy.

I recall Sotomoyor being heavily criticized by this forum for espousing that basic judicial function, although I see there's no complaints when the results favor your beliefs.

---

Once again you prove you have zero understanding of the matter at hand.  Or the English language.  What the fuck does this mean?
"more stringent standard for establishing the disparate impact of employment tests"
The Court actually avoided any equal protection decision, which was there for the taking should they have felt the desire to "make law".  What was actually rejected was the argument by New Haven that they had to toss a test (that nobody ever showed to be biased) simply because they feared lawsuits due to the fact that the results didn't meet some kind of acceptable quota.  Let us not forget that this was a relatively small sample size and that it wasn't even statistically significant in result to prove a bias.  "Sued if you do, sued if you don't" is no justification.  New Haven didn't even attempt to argue that the test was biased.

The Supreme Court simply threw out the results of the New Haven officials' cowardice in the face of Sharpton/ACORN type extortion.  They rather ripped the cowards a new asshole for it.  Which is not a surprise.  New Haven is one seriously fucked up town.

Sotomayor got criticized for punting and allowing an obvious case of racial discrimination to stand.  She was equally cowardly.  Is it your argument that any decision by any judge in any case is judicial activism?  Because that is one dumb argument.

---

Clearly by raving about the unrelated actors of Sharpton and ACORN without mentioning the core issues of disparate impact and Title VII, you're the one who's talking out of ignorance. Here's a ditty for you:

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court first described the disparate impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): Title VII "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. . . . [G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."

---

In other words, there doesn't even need to be massive racial bias in order to call the test into question, if the results reveal a disparate impact. "Sued if you do, sued if you don't" sounds like a pretty damn good justification for throwing out the results and seeking an alternative testing method (such as a practical exam instead of written).

---