Sotomayor Reversed AGAIN!!!

Dungheap said:
Actually, we're getting nowhere. We're still left wondering why you think it was a good decision other than your agreement with the result.

And as far as I can tell you and Soc are talking about runners and broken ankles. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
I'm not arguing against all instances of Affirmative Action. That is also a false premise. If people of other races had not had the same access to study, didn't have the same requisites, were incapable of passing because of an action by the people who gave the test I might agree. But in this case there was no evidence of any of that.
Click to expand...

Right, because I haven't gone into any further details... :rolleyes:

Your assumption was based on what you feel about "people like me" (conservatives), and I rejected the false central premise of your post. Until we can get past that inanity there was no real reason to continue the conversation.
 
Bush got where he got in large part based on the economic and power position he came from.

President Obama got where he got in large part dispite the economice and power position he came from.
 
Damocles said:
Right, because I haven't gone into any further details... :rolleyes:

Your assumption was based on what you feel about "people like me" (conservatives), and I rejected the false central premise of your post. Until we can get past that inanity there was no real reason to continue the conversation.
Click to expand...


1) It's not an assumption. So-called conservatives claim to be opposed to result-based judicial decision-making.

2) I don't really feel much of anything about conservatives. I generally think that they are wrong on most issues, but I don't feel much of anything about them,

3) I'm not sure what you think you've rejected. Are you saying that conservatives favor results-based judicial decision-making?

4) The question remains unanswered. You think it was a correct (and "correct by law") decision but have yet to explain your rationale. Show your work, junior.
 
After reading Kennedy's opinion and then Scalia's concurrence I understand why the Chief Justice chose Kennedy to write the opinion. Scalia would do away with the disparate impact in Title VII completely. Kennedy struggles in his opinion to find a happy medium because he believes that disparate impact is something that should be considered, though it should be at a higher level than the 64 37.5% impact in this case. Title VII itself says it has to be an 80% threshold. Had Scalia been given the opinion it would, I believe, chase Kennedy out of the majority and create a new majority upholding the city's actions. Lots of people don't know that until the opinion is actually announced justices can change their vote at anytime. This decision was a bit tortured I think but all in all a good one. Kennedy took a moderate stance trying to uphold the disparate impact provisions of title VII while at the same time not allowing ANY impact to become a reason to run roughshod over disparate treatment.
 
Jarod said:
If I were interviewing two canidates for a job at my firm. They both scored the same on the criteria I was using... but one came from a very difficult and oppressed background... Id hire the one who got through more obsticals but still scored the same on my crititeria!
Click to expand...

Off the subject but I just finished reading The Partnership: The History of Goldman Sachs and in it the various I-Banking firms on Wall Street were discussed with some firms wanting only people who came from good blue blood (is that the term?) such as good family Ivy League stock etc. while other firms wanted the person who didn't come from such a pedigree and the firm thought had a chip on their shoulder and would be more of a fighter. No right or wrong answer of course just personal preference really.
 
Socrtease said:
After reading Kennedy's opinion and then Scalia's concurrence I understand why the Chief Justice chose Kennedy to write the opinion. Scalia would do away with the disparate impact in Title VII completely. Kennedy struggles in his opinion to find a happy medium because he believes that disparate impact is something that should be considered, though it should be at a higher level than the 64 37.5% impact in this case. Title VII itself says it has to be an 80% threshold. Had Scalia been given the opinion it would, I believe, chase Kennedy out of the majority and create a new majority upholding the city's actions. Lots of people don't know that until the opinion is actually announced justices can change their vote at anytime. This decision was a bit tortured I think but all in all a good one. Kennedy took a moderate stance trying to uphold the disparate impact provisions of title VII while at the same time not allowing ANY impact to become a reason to run roughshod over disparate treatment.
Click to expand...


The quantum of proof the majority would require for an employer to be protected by claiming that it would be subject to a disparate impact case is way too high. In effect, it will almost never work.
 
Dungheap said:
1) It's not an assumption. So-called conservatives claim to be opposed to result-based judicial decision-making.

2) I don't really feel much of anything about conservatives. I generally think that they are wrong on most issues, but I don't feel much of anything about them,

3) I'm not sure what you think you've rejected. Are you saying that conservatives favor results-based judicial decision-making?

4) The question remains unanswered. You think it was a correct (and "correct by law") decision but have yet to explain your rationale. Show your work, junior.
Click to expand...
Silliness, I have shown more "work" than you have in what I have stated in this thread.
 
Socrtease said:
After reading Kennedy's opinion and then Scalia's concurrence I understand why the Chief Justice chose Kennedy to write the opinion. Scalia would do away with the disparate impact in Title VII completely. Kennedy struggles in his opinion to find a happy medium because he believes that disparate impact is something that should be considered, though it should be at a higher level than the 64 37.5% impact in this case. Title VII itself says it has to be an 80% threshold. Had Scalia been given the opinion it would, I believe, chase Kennedy out of the majority and create a new majority upholding the city's actions. Lots of people don't know that until the opinion is actually announced justices can change their vote at anytime. This decision was a bit tortured I think but all in all a good one. Kennedy took a moderate stance trying to uphold the disparate impact provisions of title VII while at the same time not allowing ANY impact to become a reason to run roughshod over disparate treatment.
Click to expand...
I believe that the city was in a no-win situation, IMO one cannot "blame" them or Sotomayor, et al, for the decisions that they made. (In short, this isn't a sign that Sotomayor should be rejected for the SCOTUS, IMO there are other issues that show her to be the wrong selection, this decision is not one of them.)

Again, I am happy that these people who worked so hard will get the promotions they richly deserve, but that isn't why I think that this was the correct decision by law.

It isn't as if the 80% rule hasn't been questioned by courts or been seen as arbitrary or uncontroversial or even applied in all cases by courts currently. Recently a memorandum was sent suggesting that a more defensible standard might be the "random rule", but IMO that has an equal problem in its arbitrary nature.

Anyway, this looked at the selection process and showed that the process itself was not created to make it statistically impossible for people of protected classes to pass. Instead of applying solely arbitrary rules that are not in themselves seen as uncontroversial and perfect, they applied whether the selection system was what made it happen and found that in this case it was not when considering the need for the employer.
 
If you read what the city did to make sure the test was fair you can see this was NOT a case of discrimination. In constructing the test the testing company OVERSAMPLED minority fire fighters in coming up with questions, they took all the questions from manuals readily available to all qualified firefighters and told them what sections they came from. This was a case of some people, including Ricci studying their asses off and being rewarded. Ricci brought this suit not even knowing if he passed or not.
 
Socrtease said:
If you read what the city did to make sure the test was fair you can see this was NOT a case of discrimination. In constructing the test the testing company OVERSAMPLED minority fire fighters in coming up with questions, they took all the questions from manuals readily available to all qualified firefighters and told them what sections they came from. This was a case of some people, including Ricci studying their asses off and being rewarded. Ricci brought this suit not even knowing if he passed or not.
Click to expand...


The problem doesn't seem to be the test itself but the weight applied to the written v. oral portions of the examination. Maybe you should read Ginsburg's dissent.

I'd also note that saying that the test was not designed to be discriminatory really misses the point of the disparate impact provisions of Title VII.
 
Dungheap said:
The problem doesn't seem to be the test itself but the weight applied to the written v. oral portions of the examination. Maybe you should read Ginsburg's dissent.

I'd also note that saying that the test was not designed to be discriminatory really misses the point of the disparate impact provisions of Title VII.
Click to expand...

How could that be a problem? That makes no rational sense. If a portion was weighted I bet it weighted equally for all test takers?

Is it too much to expect minorities to be able to write? That assumption itself is racist.
 
AssHatZombie said:
How could that be a problem? That makes no rational sense. If a portion was weighted I bet it weighted equally for all test takers?

Is it too much to expect minorities to be able to write? That assumption itself is racist.
Click to expand...


Minority candidates scored higher on the oral examination than on the multiple-choice written exam. The weighing of the two parts of the test had a disproportionate impact on minorities because the written test was weighed more heavily than the oral examination.
 
You should have seen some of the questions. One was "name all the children in the Brady Bunch" and "Pronounce the word 'ask'".
 
Dungheap said:
Minority candidates scored higher on the oral examination than on the multiple-choice written exam. The weighing of the two parts of the test had a disproportionate impact on minorities because the written test was weighed more heavily than the oral examination.
Click to expand...

So minorities need things skewed in their favor or they can't succeed? Fairness is if it's weighted the SAME FOR EVERYONE. Which i'm sure it was.
 
Funny how the neocon cabal here dance with glee over every decision Sotomayor has overturned by the SCOTUS, thinking it points to her bad judgement.....yet two clowns that were put in by the Bush family (Daddy & the Shrub respectively) make Sotomayor's reversals look like badges of honor....if we are to go by the skewed criteria and mindset of the neocon cabal.

It just keeps getting better and better, folks.
 
Sotomayer, being the bigot she is, didn't even see fit the hear the case of the firefighters.....didn't bother to hear the evidence....dismissed their case out of hand.....judging their complaint by relying one her own racism and bigotry to make a determination ....

That shows she is unfit to be even a lower court judge, let alone a JOTSC....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Funny how the neocon cabal here dance with glee over every decision Sotomayor has overturned by the SCOTUS, thinking it points to her bad judgement.....yet two clowns that were put in by the Bush family (Daddy & the Shrub respectively) make Sotomayor's reversals look like badges of honor....if we are to go by the skewed criteria and mindset of the neocon cabal.

It just keeps getting better and better, folks.
Click to expand...

Bush threw the libs a bone when he appointed her. It was good PR at the time, but clearly, she's unfit, having made such terrible decisions as this and the other recent case in which she opined that a student couldn't exercise free speech on a personal blog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top