Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_ ... _lawsuit_4

It's nice that the courts have finally recognized that reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

but blacks will not be promoted to positions that exceed their intellectual capacity any longer what will they do?????

citdog wrote:but blacks will not be promoted to positions that exceed their intellectual capacity any longer what will they do?????

Be your supervisor.

dbackjon wrote:

citdog wrote:but blacks will not be promoted to positions that exceed their intellectual capacity any longer what will they do?????

Be your supervisor.

not in this State.......We're STILL the OVERSEERS!!!

I've heard this story on the TV and on the net, but I have yet to hear or read anything about the type of tests that they are using. If it is a test over FD protocol, regulations, safety, basic arithmatic and accounting, and things of that nature I have no problem with the ruling. If this is some kind of voodoo pseudoscientific Freudian psychometry nonsense, then I do. I've always thought psychometrics was a load of horsesh^t. I've known successful managers and leaders who would not do exceedingly well on an I.Q. test.

*cue JSO*

Looks like the right result to me. Kind of embarrassing for Sotomayor, but it won't derail her nomination.

Ivytalk wrote:Looks like the right result to me. Kind of embarrassing for Sotomayor, but it won't derail her nomination.

Never! Just proves she isn't an activist judge.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Looks like the right result to me. Kind of embarrassing for Sotomayor, but it won't derail her nomination.

Never! Just proves she isn't an activist judge.

Proves she is mainstream - 4 of the current judges voted to side with her. 5 against. Pretty close to the center.

Had it been 9-0, or 8-1 against her, that would be embarrassing.

dbackjon wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Never! Just proves she isn't an activist judge.

Proves she is mainstream - 4 of the current judges voted to side with her. 5 against. Pretty close to the center.

Had it been 9-0, or 8-1 against her, that would be embarrassing.

You need to read the comments of those who voted "for her". It IS embarrassing, but the freight train to her nomination has left the station. She's a shoe in, regardless of the fact that she's a racist and a sexist.

Ivytalk wrote:Looks like the right result to me. Kind of embarrassing for Sotomayor, but it won't derail her nomination.

I agree.

I thought that one of the most interesting comments on this case came from a Yale law faculty member in one of the legal journals there. I can look her name up if anyone is interested, but her beef was that, GET THIS... the test (which was administered and developed by a professional testing consultancy that purposefully generates tests that cannot be challenged on the basis of cultural biases) was biased towards "fire nuts," the kinds of guys who read fire suppression manuals during their time off. In other words, promotion in the fire house should be based more on racial diversity than job knowledge or studiousness.

The local activist (I guess you could call him a 'community organizer') who raised the original stink was delivering votes to the Mayor, who was going to invalidate the test results if the fire department didn't do it on their own.

This whole case was egregious and stank to high heaven. Too many people look at the surface of these things and don't see the writhing pile of maggots hidden just underneath. The problem with Sotomayor's decision is that she ruled in the case on its face, that is, she ruled in favor of racial preference regardless of the particulars to that one case. This is one problem with the both the appelate courts and the Supreme Court itself. Too many justices confuse judicial impartiality with ignorance of situational backgrounds. Actually researching and knowing the particulars of a case is not improper as say, getting to know the actual people involved, which WOULD go against impartiality.

The court got this one right, but what is unsettling is that had Sotomayor been seated, it would have gotten it wrong.

CID1990 wrote:I thought that one of the most interesting comments on this case came from a Yale law faculty member in one of the legal journals there. I can look her name up if anyone is interested, but her beef was that, GET THIS... the test (which was administered and developed by a professional testing consultancy that purposefully generates tests that cannot be challenged on the basis of cultural biases) was biased towards "fire nuts," the kinds of guys who read fire suppression manuals during their time off. In other words, promotion in the fire house should be based more on racial diversity than job knowledge or studiousness.

The local activist (I guess you could call him a 'community organizer') who raised the original stink was delivering votes to the Mayor, who was going to invalidate the test results if the fire department didn't do it on their own.

This whole case was egregious and stank to high heaven. Too many people look at the surface of these things and don't see the writhing pile of maggots hidden just underneath. The problem with Sotomayor's decision is that she ruled in the case on its face, that is, she ruled in favor of racial preference regardless of the particulars to that one case. This is one problem with the both the appelate courts and the Supreme Court itself. Too many justices confuse judicial impartiality with ignorance of situational backgrounds. Actually researching and knowing the particulars of a case is not improper as say, getting to know the actual people involved, which WOULD go against impartiality.

The court got this one right, but what is unsettling is that had Sotomayor been seated, it would have gotten it wrong.

So...what you're saying is...you place more importance on a firefighter's ability to perform his job than the color of his skin? How radical.....that's just crazy talk CID.....and will get you nowhere in this society....get with the program buddy....

dbackjon wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Never! Just proves she isn't an activist judge.

Proves she is mainstream - 4 of the current judges voted to side with her. 5 against. Pretty close to the center.

Had it been 9-0, or 8-1 against her, that would be embarrassing.

I heard a talking head on a local radio show say something about how Ginsburg's dissent ripped Sotomayor because of the way she wrote her opinion/made her decision. I don't know if this was true or if that was a R talking point of the day. Any of our brilliant legal minds read the dissent and have an opinion?

Appaholic wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I thought that one of the most interesting comments on this case came from a Yale law faculty member in one of the legal journals there. I can look her name up if anyone is interested, but her beef was that, GET THIS... the test (which was administered and developed by a professional testing consultancy that purposefully generates tests that cannot be challenged on the basis of cultural biases) was biased towards "fire nuts," the kinds of guys who read fire suppression manuals during their time off. In other words, promotion in the fire house should be based more on racial diversity than job knowledge or studiousness.

The local activist (I guess you could call him a 'community organizer') who raised the original stink was delivering votes to the Mayor, who was going to invalidate the test results if the fire department didn't do it on their own.

This whole case was egregious and stank to high heaven. Too many people look at the surface of these things and don't see the writhing pile of maggots hidden just underneath. The problem with Sotomayor's decision is that she ruled in the case on its face, that is, she ruled in favor of racial preference regardless of the particulars to that one case. This is one problem with the both the appelate courts and the Supreme Court itself. Too many justices confuse judicial impartiality with ignorance of situational backgrounds. Actually researching and knowing the particulars of a case is not improper as say, getting to know the actual people involved, which WOULD go against impartiality.

The court got this one right, but what is unsettling is that had Sotomayor been seated, it would have gotten it wrong.

So...what you're saying is...you place more importance on a firefighter's ability to perform his job than the color of his skin? How radical.....that's just crazy talk CID.....and will get you nowhere in this society....get with the program buddy....

What is the world coming too? Being judged on your abilities. Terrible, terrible concept.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Proves she is mainstream - 4 of the current judges voted to side with her. 5 against. Pretty close to the center.

Had it been 9-0, or 8-1 against her, that would be embarrassing.

You need to read the comments of those who voted "for her". It IS embarrassing, but the freight train to her nomination has left the station. She's a shoe in, regardless of the fact that she's a racist and a sexist.

Straight outta Rush's mouth, no lie!

[youtube][/youtube]