[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?[/quote]
Max:
These cases are NEVER as “simple” as us “know-it-alls” on Internet Forums try to make them.
I will be willing to bet that there were legal complexities that we all don’t completely understand.
(Where is BostonBarrister when we need him?)
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am actually shocked that Sotomayor actually told those firefighters that they had no case. I mean, this seems pretty clear cut to me. Hell, the guy Ricci, he is dyslexic and got a tutor so he could understand the exam better and still passed with flying colors. [/quote]
Yeah, the guy did his homwork and got cheated.
Imagine if I gave a math test but the headmaster cancelled it because a couple of black athletes failed. Wow!
[quote]ALKoHoLiK wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?
Of course it does. Great Job Scotus, tho I don’t understand how it was so close…5-4 doesn’t seem right
I believe that makes Sotomayor 0-6 in terms of her decisions that went to the Supreme Court being reversed. [/quote]
Mufasa,
What was that stat you quoted in another thread? Something about the majority of ALL lower court decisions being overturned by the SCOTUS if they get there? I can’t remember which thread I read that in.
I will say I’m not a fan of Sotomayor, and that I think she was dead wrong on this case though.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?
Max:
These cases are NEVER as “simple” as us “know-it-alls” on Internet Forums try to make them.
I will be willing to bet that there were legal complexities that we all don’t completely understand.
(Where is BostonBarrister when we need him?)
Mufasa[/quote]
There were political complexities as well. According to Alito in his concurring opinion indicates that the majority decision and the dissenting decision “provide an incomplete description of the events that led to New HavenÃ?¢??s decision to reject the results of its exam.” Alito’s concurring opinion provides the political background in detail:
[i]As initially described by the dissent, see post, the process by which the City reached the decision not to accept the test results was open, honest, serious, and deliberative. But even the District Court admitted that a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.(554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 162 (Conn. 2006), summarily aff’d, 530 F. 3d 87 (CA2 2008) (per curiam).
This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed "kingmaker."(App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 07-1428, p. 906a; see also id., at 909a. On one occasion, in front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions. Id., at 931a.
Reverend Kimber's personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber, then the manager of a funeral home, was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath. See id., at 126a, 907a. "Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano's political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter." Id., at 126a. According to the Mayor's former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because [h]e's very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots." Id., at 908a (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), "despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management." Id., at 127a; see also id., at 928a�¢??929a. In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told firefighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because "[b]they just have too many vowels in their name[s].[/b]" Thanawala, New Haven Fire Panel Chairman Steps Down Over Racial Slur, Hartford Courant, June 13, 2002, p. B2. After protests about this comment, Rev. Kimber stepped down as chairman of the BFC, ibid.; see also App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 07�¢??1428, at 929a, but he remained on the BFC and retained"a direct line to the mayor," id., at 816a.
Almost immediately after the test results were revealed in early January 2004, Rev. Kimber called the City's Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Dubois-Walton, who "on behalf of the Mayor." Id., at 221a, 812a. Dubois-Walton and Rev. Kimber met privately in her office because he wanted "to express his opinion" about the test results and "to have some influence" over the City's response. Id., at 815 - 816a. As discussed in further detail below, Rev. Kimber adamantly opposed certification of the test results - a fact that he or someone in the Mayor's office eventually conveyed to the Mayor. Id., at 229a.[/i]"
Loose:
As I read this, then New Haven made a VERY smart political move.
Rather than incur the wrath of this “Reverend” they just threw the test results out, most likely knowing full well that it could not withstand true Constitutional muster. (Like I said earlier, these municipalities get a LOT of legal council prior to making many decisions that are not nearly as controversial as this one).
It appears the gamble worked. They shut the “Reverend” up (as much as someone can shut up these Blow Hards)…and eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court.
With that being said, with a 5/4 decision by the Court, there still had to be some parts that are more LEGALLY complex than just some pain-in-the-ass “Reverend”.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Loose:
As I read this, then New Haven made a VERY smart political move.
Rather than incur the wrath of this “Reverend” they just threw the test results out, most likely knowing full well that it could not withstand true Constitutional muster. (Like I said earlier, these municipalities get a LOT of legal council prior to making many decisions that are not nearly as controversial as this one).
It appears the gamble worked. They shut the “Reverend” up (as much as someone can shut up these Blow Hards)…and eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court.
With that being said, with a 5/4 decision by the Court, there still had to be some parts that are more LEGALLY complex than just some pain-in-the-ass “Reverend”.
Mufasa[/quote]
That would be an interesting and scary tactic. Let’s tie up the courts time and tax payer money so we don’t have to worry about being accused of racism. Making the test results public probably would have taken care of that.
My guess is that they didn’t give a shit either way. Betting on this result while being aware of similar affirmative actions rulings wouldn’t have been a good bet. I would also assume civil damages must have been a concern if they were really thinking this through as you have said.
Any legal eagles care to comment how this ruling may effect future affirmative action suits?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Loose:
As I read this, then New Haven made a VERY smart political move.
Rather than incur the wrath of this “Reverend” they just threw the test results out, most likely knowing full well that it could not withstand true Constitutional muster. (Like I said earlier, these municipalities get a LOT of legal council prior to making many decisions that are not nearly as controversial as this one).
It appears the gamble worked. They shut the “Reverend” up (as much as someone can shut up these Blow Hards)…and eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court.
With that being said, with a 5/4 decision by the Court, there still had to be some parts that are more LEGALLY complex than just some pain-in-the-ass “Reverend”.
Mufasa[/quote]
Scalia also filed a concurring opinion that lays out pretty well the complexity of the issues:
I join the Courtâ??s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one. See generally Primus, Equal Protection and Disparate Impact: Round Three, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 493 (2003).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZC.html
Scalia’s questioning during oral argument gave a clue as to where he was headed. The Obama administration filed an amicus brief arguing on behalf of the City arguing that the decision to throw out the test results was “racially neutral” and did not violate the Equal Protection clause. When the Deputy Solicitor General expressed this position during oral argument, Scalia questioned: “It’s neutral because you throw it out for the losers as well as the winners? That’s neutrality?”
Sounds to me like the city ruled to avoid a law suit.
dhickey:
I KNOW you, of all people, are not suggesting that a government; either Local, State or Federal; would never THINK of wasting tax payer money and court time to either a) cover their asses or b) to furthur some political agenda?
Tell me it ain’t so, D-man!!!
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Sounds to me like the city ruled to avoid a law suit. [/quote]
Sort of…
More to appease a pain-in-the-ass that had been a thorn in New Haven’s side for some time…while knowing FULL WELL that the decision would be challenged.
To me, it was a damn good “punt” by New Haven.
Mufasa
So you applaud their screwing over these firefighters for the sake of these objectives you name? Sounds like you do?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So you applaud their screwing over these firefighters for the sake of these objectives you name? Sounds like you do?[/quote]
If you’re talking to me, Bill…no, I don’t favor or “applaud” any of it.
I’m merely pointing out the most likely scenario of what happened.
(Nice try at a Straw Man…)
Mufasa
Its been a while since I’ve taken employment discrimination, but here goes:
Employment discrimination, is, in my opinion one of the strangest and most confusing legal fields that I have been exposed to, mostly because of who has to show the various burdens of proof. Anyway, in this case, standardized testing, even though it is facially neutral, can and usually does have an impact on various groups whether they be minority specific or gender specific. For example, a test requiring employees to run a 7 minute mile would have a disparate impact on women, as women tend to run slower times. However, if it is an important requirement for the job (e.g. physical job like security), then these tests are generally upheld. However, if it is a desk job, it is difficult to form a nexus between a mile time and job performance, in which case testing is not justified.
In one of the original main cases, I believe suit was brought against a utility company in the 50s/60s for using unnecessary criteria for certain advancement. Employees either had to have a high school diploma, or pass some sort of test, in order to advance in certain fields. At the time, this disqualified a large proportion of blacks who had lower graduation rates and generally tested worse. Moreover, the court found that the tests really had no link to future job performance, and thus the tests were deemed to violate Title VII.
Anyway I believe one of these cases generally goes as follows: 1) plaintiff brings suit alleging disparate impact from an advancement test, and must make a showing (through statistics or some such) that the test is discriminatory, even if it is facially neutral; 2) Burden shifts to defendant to show that the advancement test is linked to actual job performance; 3) burden shifts back to defendant to show it is not actually linked or there is another test that would more adequately demonstrate capability in the job.
Hopefully another lawyer who actually works in this field can comment, so please don’t take my word on all this, but it is the gist of how these employment discrimination cases go.
Also on a side note, whenever a supreme court case is split 5-4, it is hardly a slam dunk as many on this board seem to think. From what little I know of the facts of this case I think the court got it right, but if you really want the whole picture you have to read the dissent and what they focused on and how they came to a different decision than the majority. Almost always there is a lot more going on than what the press (or even one side of the decision) focuses on.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you applaud their screwing over these firefighters for the sake of these objectives you name? Sounds like you do?
If you’re talking to me, Bill…no, I don’t favor or “applaud” any of it.
I’m merely pointing out the most likely scenario of what happened.
(Nice try at a Straw Man…) [/quote]
Hmmm, I’m surprised that you don’t see that when your comments are, “…New Haven made a VERY smart political move…,” “It appears the gamble worked,” and “To me, it was a damn good “punt” by New Haven,” without ever having a single statement condemning how the firefighters were treated – or if you did condemn that I did not see it – it sounds like you are applauding New Haven’s actions. Certainly you’re finding things to praise. Where are your words objecting to the injustice to human beings?
I don’t see you “merely,” as you now try to claim, pointing out the most likely scenario. I see you using terms of praise.
You really can’t see that?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Democracy – proving that the majority is ALWAYS just.[/quote]
I guess we just need you to choose this “natural elite,” which only you can see, to make decisions for us.
Please hurry!
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Its been a while since I’ve taken employment discrimination, but here goes:
Employment discrimination, is, in my opinion one of the strangest and most confusing legal fields that I have been exposed to, mostly because of who has to show the various burdens of proof. Anyway, in this case, standardized testing, even though it is facially neutral, can and usually does have an impact on various groups whether they be minority specific or gender specific. For example, a test requiring employees to run a 7 minute mile would have a disparate impact on women, as women tend to run slower times. However, if it is an important requirement for the job (e.g. physical job like security), then these tests are generally upheld. However, if it is a desk job, it is difficult to form a nexus between a mile time and job performance, in which case testing is not justified.
In one of the original main cases, I believe suit was brought against a utility company in the 50s/60s for using unnecessary criteria for certain advancement. Employees either had to have a high school diploma, or pass some sort of test, in order to advance in certain fields. At the time, this disqualified a large proportion of blacks who had lower graduation rates and generally tested worse. Moreover, the court found that the tests really had no link to future job performance, and thus the tests were deemed to violate Title VII.
Anyway I believe one of these cases generally goes as follows: 1) plaintiff brings suit alleging disparate impact from an advancement test, and must make a showing (through statistics or some such) that the test is discriminatory, even if it is facially neutral; 2) Burden shifts to defendant to show that the advancement test is linked to actual job performance; 3) burden shifts back to defendant to show it is not actually linked or there is another test that would more adequately demonstrate capability in the job.
Hopefully another lawyer who actually works in this field can comment, so please don’t take my word on all this, but it is the gist of how these employment discrimination cases go.
Also on a side note, whenever a supreme court case is split 5-4, it is hardly a slam dunk as many on this board seem to think. From what little I know of the facts of this case I think the court got it right, but if you really want the whole picture you have to read the dissent and what they focused on and how they came to a different decision than the majority. Almost always there is a lot more going on than what the press (or even one side of the decision) focuses on.[/quote]
Thanks for the insights, TBT4ver!
Mufasa
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you applaud their screwing over these firefighters for the sake of these objectives you name? Sounds like you do?
If you’re talking to me, Bill…no, I don’t favor or “applaud” any of it.
I’m merely pointing out the most likely scenario of what happened.
(Nice try at a Straw Man…)
Hmmm, I’m surprised that you don’t see that when your comments are, “…New Haven made a VERY smart political move…,” “It appears the gamble worked,” and “To me, it was a damn good “punt” by New Haven,” without ever having a single statement condemning how the firefighters were treated – or if you did condemn that I did not see it – it sounds like you are applauding New Haven’s actions. Certainly you’re finding things to praise. Where are your words objecting to the injustice to human beings?
I don’t see you “merely,” as you now try to claim, pointing out the most likely scenario. I see you using terms of praise.
You really can’t see that?[/quote]
Bill:
This was the VERY FIRST response made on the thread by me:
Yes, justice was done.
But it WAS NOT validation that there is some vast, institutionalized conspiracy to keep white males down (as you will inevitably hear on this thread).
I also question New Haven’s sincerity that they decided to “not promote anybody” because of fear of lawsuits. These municipalities get strong legal advice all the time prior to making less controversial decisions. I think that they simply chose the battle they wanted to fight.
Congratulations to the Firefighters!
Mufasa
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
From what little I know of the facts of this case I think the court got it right, but if you really want the whole picture you have to read the dissent and what they focused on and how they came to a different decision than the majority. Almost always there is a lot more going on than what the press (or even one side of the decision) focuses on.[/quote]
If you want to read the dissent, here it is. It talks about context and the “long shadow” of racism. It talks of “sympathy” (not empathy") for the white firefights. It talks about flaws in the test.
Hopefully, if this case has any impact, it will cause municipalities to focus on the substance of the test and individual abilities instead of “context”.
I stand corrected: while expressing many terms of praise for New Haven’s actions – as opposed to “merely pointing out the most likely scenario” – and never directly condemning New Haven’s wrongful actions so far as I still can tell but rather explaining them away, seemingly exonerating New Haven of their wrongful race-based actions with commentary of how smart this was of them and how they were just picking their battles, which certainly doesn’t seem to show any real moral objection, you did describe it as justice that this was reversed. I had missed that. Thanks for the correction.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you applaud their screwing over these firefighters for the sake of these objectives you name? Sounds like you do?
If you’re talking to me, Bill…no, I don’t favor or “applaud” any of it.
I’m merely pointing out the most likely scenario of what happened.
(Nice try at a Straw Man…)
Hmmm, I’m surprised that you don’t see that when your comments are, “…New Haven made a VERY smart political move…,” “It appears the gamble worked,” and “To me, it was a damn good “punt” by New Haven,” without ever having a single statement condemning how the firefighters were treated – or if you did condemn that I did not see it – it sounds like you are applauding New Haven’s actions. Certainly you’re finding things to praise. Where are your words objecting to the injustice to human beings?
I don’t see you “merely,” as you now try to claim, pointing out the most likely scenario. I see you using terms of praise.
You really can’t see that?
Bill:
This was the VERY FIRST response made on the thread by me:
Yes, justice was done.
But it WAS NOT validation that there is some vast, institutionalized conspiracy to keep white males down (as you will inevitably hear on this thread).
I also question New Haven’s sincerity that they decided to “not promote anybody” because of fear of lawsuits. These municipalities get strong legal advice all the time prior to making less controversial decisions. I think that they simply chose the battle they wanted to fight.
Congratulations to the Firefighters!
Mufasa
[/quote]