Recent SCOTUS decision.

[zerojunkie]

Probably more of a question for Xian, but it's regarding the case where the white fire fighters in Ct. were discriminated against. I'm interested in whether or not Sotomayor's ruling was simply procedural one because she was only an appellate judge or if she really believed there wasn't discrimination.


No, I haven't read title VII.

[PETA]

Didn't know it has been handed doen - but it reversed Sotomayor as expected.

Probably bad timing for a nominee to get over ruled by her fellow justices.

The prior case on appeal was simply a sumary order... not an opinion. That's a procedural technique many judges will use to avoid having the case hit the books for precedential value... check that.. apparently one judge requested case be heard en banc and a 8 sentence opinion was issued and hearing en banc denied. Shit storm ensues and Chief judge of that circuit writes a dissent urging SCOTUS review.

Sotomayor looks terrible on this one but it won't much matter - the Dems have the votes to get her on the bench... which she should join with the good sense to be a little embarassed.

[jaesun]

I saw this however--> NEWS LINK

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by PETA

Didn't know it has been handed doen - but it reversed Sotomayor as expected.

Probably bad timing for a nominee to get over ruled by her fellow justices.

The prior case on appeal was simply a sumary order... not an opinion. That's a procedural technique many judges will use to avoid having the case hit the books for precedential value... check that.. apparently one judge requested case be heard en banc and a 8 sentence opinion was issued and hearing en banc denied. Shit storm ensues and Chief judge of that circuit writes a dissent urging SCOTUS review.

Sotomayor looks terrible on this one but it won't much matter - the Dems have the votes to get her on the bench... which she should join with the good sense to be a little embarassed.

I doubt she'll be embarrassed about it. She'll fit right in with the 4 judge minority that dissented. I don't get how that shiat in any way wasn't discrimination. Unless of course you failed the test if you answered anything other than white for the race question.

[jaesun]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I doubt she'll be embarrassed about it. She'll fit right in with the 4 judge minority that dissented. I don't get how that shiat in any way wasn't discrimination. Unless of course you failed the test if you answered anything other than white for the race question.

I always mark other just because i don't think race should matter on resumes/applications/etc. My wife does too.

She says most of the time there isn't an option for mixed. So she'll either choose Hispanic/Latin or Other.

She told me she just hates whites. But when she said it I think she was talking about laundry.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by jaesun

She told me she just hates whites. But when she said it I think she was talking about laundry.

Ya'll segregate your laundry...

[Funkenstein]

Another messageboard's take on things:

http://deephousepage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196254

Interesting when considering the possible context.

[jaesun]

Man you know I'd never taint the perfect whites with all that dirty colored laundy.

[BradH]

Yay SCOTUS!

[jaesun]

Originally Posted by BradH

Yay SCOTUS!

Scott Farkus?

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Another messageboard's take on things:

http://deephousepage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196254

Interesting when considering the possible context.

Yeah, I'm not buying that shit. They were all given the same list of study materials three months before the test. The black firefighters association even said it was a test to measure the ability to read and retain the information contained within the study material. That creates a level playing field right there unless some of the fire fighters didn't have access to the study material. In fact, one of the main plaintiffs went to great lengths to study for the exam despite being dyslexic.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Yeah, I'm not buying that shit. They were all given the same list of study materials three months before the test. The black firefighters association even said it was a test to measure the ability to read and retain the information contained within the study material. That creates a level playing field right there unless some of the fire fighters didn't have access to the study material. In fact, one of the main plaintiffs went to great lengths to study for the exam despite being dyslexic.

"That's what I'm having a problem with. It was reported the city just threw the results out. Yahoo and the WSJ editorial board reported this, but they never mentioned that the city saw severe racial disparity from test results which caused them to have a 5-day civil review board in the first place. After the review came to the conclusion that the test was actually flawed (not just based on test results, but in how the test was created, how it was scored, and how the methodology of testing was never explained to the city of New Haven, which was a direct violation of contract). In addition, it was shown that other less disparate tests were given in areas around New Haven that had much less disparate results regarding the qualifications of so-called minorities as supervisors. I think the biggest mistake the city made was throwing the test out altogether, even though it was proven to be flawed. Had the city just slightly altered the test to:
1) Eliminate the questions that were geographically incorrect,
2) Eliminate the questions in which the correct answers were in direct contradiction to New Haven firefighting policy,
3) Eliminate the multiple-choice questions in which ALL the answers were in direct contradiction to New Haven firefighting policy, the results would have been quite different as previous (and more conceptually valid) tests have shown.

What scares me about the decision isn't that Ricci is necessarily less-qualified than any African-American or Latinos who took the test or visa-versa (I honestly think Ricci and the African-Americans would have scored higher had the test been more relevant to the city of New Haven). My fear is that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act will have less weight in proving racial discrimination because now an intent to discriminate will have to be shown even when the numbers already show racial disparity (and a pretty flawed test in this case). Racial disparity might not hold weight as an argument anymore, even when African-Americans are qualified for the positions as this case eventually showed."



My issues stand with the bolded (as DJMarbil, the original poster pointed out). Again, we'll see.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

they never mentioned that the city saw severe racial disparity from test results which caused them to have a 5-day civil review board in the first place.

There's severe racial disparity in nearly every bar and physicians board exam that's administered as well. Are those racially flawed? There are a lot more variables to take into account to explain why different tests that were administered in different municipalities yielded more racially parity than these. You can't just say the test was flawed. Especially given that the test maker routinely screens the tests for these kinds of anomalies specifically because a large number of it's customers are municipalities. As well as the fact all the takers were given the same study material. That simple fact alone makes it hard to dispute any sort of flaw in the test itself.

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

I think the biggest mistake the city made was throwing the test out altogether

They sort of had to, which is why chief justice Robert's agreed with Ginsberg's statement of them being damned if they do damned if they don't. I don't know if it was covered in the thread you're referencing, but there's a four-fifths rule that states if the pass rate of a minority is less than 80% than that of white test takers the test is flawed.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Another messageboard's take on things:

http://deephousepage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196254

Interesting when considering the possible context.

Yeah, that poster has no clue what he's talking about.

It was about the validity of the test but not the specific questions... he said

mean some of the geographical questions had nothing to do with New Haven at all,

the case wasn't about going through each question and determining if they were good/acceptable questions or not. The validity issue was whether a test which saw zero black applicants pass was vaid based on the racial dispartity of the results.

There are some other points. The city had been sued multiple times by black firemen. There was a state statutre on the books regarding racially disparate results. Title VII was also in play. Imo, this case is a great example of the stupidity of trying to mandate an outcome to have a specific racial representation.

Anyweay, the state law (iirc) said if there were racially disparate results then the first element in proving up discrimination was met. However, the second step was, again irrc, that there must not have been a legitimate basis for the test... which of course there was... meaning it was designed to selkect the best applicants - not to discriminate against minorities.

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Racial disparity might not hold weight as an argument anymore, even when African-Americans are qualified for the positions as this case eventually showed."


My issues stand with the bolded (as DJMarbil, the original poster pointed out). Again, we'll see.

Racially disparate results resulting from a non-discriminatory process is not racial discrimination. One must show more than all black test takers failed. They'd need to show discriminatory intent.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

They sort of had to, which is why chief justice Robert's agreed with Ginsberg's statement of them being damned if they do damned if they don't. I don't know if it was covered in the thread you're referencing, but there's a four-fifths rule that states if the pass rate of a minority is less than 80% than that of white test takers the test is flawed.

That wasn't covered and that is news to me. Duly noted.

Originally Posted by PETA

Title VII was also in play. Imo, this case is a great example of the stupidity of trying to mandate an outcome to have a specific racial representation.

I can kinda see that.

Originally Posted by PETA

Racially disparate results resulting from a non-discriminatory process is not racial discrimination. One must show more than all black test takers failed. They'd need to show discriminatory intent.

Gonna take some of this stuff and try to create an exchange of sorts. Nothing violent or label-bringing, just to see what they say in response to these responses.