What you’re asking of Sotomayor in Ricci is that she push to overturn the case in order to defy existing law in favor of white firefighters. What you’re demanding is nothing less than judicial activism.

The last case heard by the Supreme Court on disparate impact was Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio 490 U.S. 642 (1989). The interesting aspect of this case is that the plaintiffs do not dispute that the test results showed a racially adverse impact on African-American candidates for both positions. In other words, had the minority candidates challenged the results of the exams, the City would have had to defend tests.

The Supreme Court has not decided a Title VII disparate impact
case since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 22 are interesting, especially pages 45 to 48 of the transcript where Chief Justice Roberts questions Mr. Meade, attorney for the City, about throwing out test after test until they get they result that they want.
See:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-1428.pdf

Where I live in Southern California almost all the homeless we see are white males.

This proves what, exactly?

.

kassandrasduplex Says:

Too many white men are hurting badly economically.

There are no societal disadvantages to being white and male. Of everybody, they’ve got the best shot at a decent job, and a decent future across the board. If they can’t cut it with all the advantages they have, then maybe they should actually try harder.

.

ralph the wonder locust Says:

People on the far right like to flatter themselves that they are for the poor and the downtrodden.

I call it “whining.”

.

peaceandjustice Says:

Would this show that she would be a Justice that would form opinions based on current social standards rather than established case law?

The three-judge panel she was on declined to overturn the lower court ruling. That’s standard. But look at it the other way – if New Haven had not thrown out the test results, the black firefighters would definitely have had a case to sue them under title VII of the Civil Rights Act and a great deal of judicial precedent. If you back the white firefighters, then at best it’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.

What you’re asking of Sotomayor in Ricci is that she push to overturn the case in order to defy existing law in favor of white firefighters. What you’re demanding is nothing less than judicial activism.

She’s a Mexican racist!

She’s a Lithuanian racist!

She’s an Albanian racist!

She’s a Basque racist!

She’s an Inuit racist!

You know, the disparity between knowledge and confidence in knowledge is truly astonishing with some people. One wonders why some people are so confident in what they say when what they say is manifestly false!

She’s a diabetic penguin!

MY COMMENT: I agree. ‘Old school’ bigotry is far more tasteful than these neo-bigots! Subtlety and understatement are best. Walk softly but carry a BIG, concealed stick.

crumb; an egg beaten up and fried; a scrap, piece, bit, orts; small coin; a prop (m.c.); a kind of cock; children employed in mason work, and who receive one-half, or a third, of a man’s pay; the young of any animal (as p?l-reza, A young elephant); The stars;–reza shudan, To be broken or pounded small; A scrap of food; The shavings of a pen; To break in pieces; A little fragment falling off in cutting with scissors.

Funny name for a warrior.

How about if shows like these replace their republican pundits with independants: [not fake ones like Dobbs]
Situation Room
No Bias No Bull
AC 360
Hardball

That would be a start. I’d hate to think any of the current batch will be around much longer.

calavzma Says:

Gee, and you don’t think that’s what my comment implied?

:|

Or is it that you don’t want to think, that that’s what my comment implied?

i was just piling on for more jokes….

jokes and jokes and jokes and jokes

Pile is a good descriptor.

WHITE POWER!!!
June 13th, 2009 at 1:58 am

This is SO interesting, since Daryll aka looktothehills is black. Or, as he calls himself, a “dark-toned individual.”

In the Ricci case, the New Haven, Connecticut, Fire Department sought to fill captain and lieutenant positions. Pursuant to a City regulation known as the “rule of three,” once test results are “certified,” the Department must promote from the group of applicants achieving the top three scores. Immediate application of the “rule of three” to these exams would not have allowed for the promotion of any black firefighters.

Because of these outcomes, the City’s independent exam review board, which must vote to certify test results, held hearings to consider the possibility that the tests were racially biased. Because the exam review board split evenly, 2-2, on whether to certify the exam results (with one member recusing herself based upon a conflict of interest), they were not certified.

A group of white firefighters, one of whom is also Hispanic, who scored some of the highest results on the administered exams, filed suit against the City and its officials, alleging that the City’s action violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the City’s motion, agreeing that the City did not need to certify the results because doing so could subject it to litigation for violating Title VII’s disparate impact prohibition.

On appeal, the Second Circuit, which Judge Sotomayor sat on, affirmed the district court’s opinion summarily.

The question is this: Is a requirement that there be “at least one minority” a “fixed quota” that was forbidden by the Supreme Court in the Bakke decision, but permitted by the Second Circuit in the Ricci case? If so, would this show that Judge Sotomayor participated in an opinion ignoring a previous precedent from the higher Supreme Court? Would this show that she would be a Justice that would form opinions based on current social standards rather than established case law?

The case is now before the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari.

But, the reply to that from this poster will be that the reason why they are homeless is because they can’t get a job because affirmative action is giving all the jobs he could get to minorities. Which, of course, is pure bunk.

The purpose of affirmative action in schools is to try to level the playing field. If you have an inner city school where the school gets $2,000 per student vs. a suburban school where the school gets $5,000 per student, which one do you think is going to provide the better education? Until such time as an equal education is available to all children in this country, affirmative action will be needed to level the playing field and give the inner city children a chance to compete.

Good point. But, I’m betting he would think that legacy admissions were just fine saying that those people earned their right to admission based on what their parents did.