Firefighters Case Decided By Supreme Court

[Morfin]

The Supreme Court ruled today that the City of New Haven violated the rights of the firefighters who scored well on the testing. Here is the syllabus from the Court:

New Haven, Conn. (City), uses objective examinations to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion. When the results of such an exam to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorous public debate ensued. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test results—and threats of a lawsuit either way—the City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity. Petitioners, white and Hispanic firefighters who passed the exams but were denied a chance at promotions by the City’s refusal to certify the test results, sued the City and respondent officials,alleging that discarding the test results discriminated against them based on their race in violation of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants responded that had they certified the test results, they could have faced Title VII liability for adopting a practice having a disparate impact on minority firefighters. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Held: The City’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII.
Link to the opinion.
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf)
This overturns Sotomayor's original decision granting summary judgment to the City validating their action of discarding the test results.

[Claydon]

The Supreme Court ruled today that the City of New Haven violated the rights of the firefighters who scored well on the testing. Here is the syllabus from the Court:

Link to the opinion.
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf)
This overturns Sotomayor's original decision granting summary judgment to the City validating their action of discarding the test results.


I posted this in the sotomayor thread 20 minutes, except i didnt have a link.


:(

[Morfin]

By the way, the decision was 5-4.

Majority:
Kennedy
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Alito

Minority:
Breyer
Souter
Ginsberg
Stevens

[redsox39]

Well, she has ruled on the minority side or has been overturned over 60% of the timeI believe, so this can't be too shocking.

Remember, though, she was the best available candidate for the Supreme Court according to the President.

[Morfin]

Remember, though, she was the best available candidate for the Supreme Court according to the President.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, being overturned by 1 vote -- meaning that 4 justices agreed with her decision -- hardly is grounds for implying that she does not follow the law or is some sort of rogue judge who needs to be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

Your 60% figure -- which I would like to see the foundation for -- may be a valid point, however, the fact that she was reversed here, is not.

[redsox39]

You're entitled to your opinion. However, being overturned by 1 vote -- meaning that 4 justices agreed with her decision -- hardly is grounds for implying that she does not follow the law or is some sort of rogue judge who needs to be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

Your 60% figure -- which I would like to see the foundation for -- may be a valid point, however, the fact that she was reversed here, is not.

Agreed. I am really just upset with the point that she was appointed because she was a Female Latina.

I mean, the media had been reporting for almost a year that Obama's first SCOTUS appointment was going to be a Woman, probably latina. Seriously. Maybe she was the best available, but it seems highly doubtful and at best lowers her percieved value as a justice.

The 60% thing was just something I heard on the news. Some columnist was talking about jobs where you could be wrong or fail 60% of the time and still be considered for the top office in your profession.

[Willam]

I just hope that Fox News and other stations will quit calling this the "reverse-discrimination" case.

Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter who it comes from.

[redsox39]

I just hope that Fox News and other stations will quit calling this the "reverse-discrimination" case.

Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter who it comes from.

No, Discrimination is only against Minorities.

"Getting Yours" is what happens to white dudes.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Well, she has ruled on the minority side or has been overturned over 60% of the timeI believe, so this can't be too shocking.

Remember, though, she was the best available candidate for the Supreme Court according to the President.

Are 60% of all her decisions overturned or just 60% of the decisions which have been reviewed by a higher court? If it's the latter, that's not a big deal because the entire reson for a review is that the issues are not clear cut. I would want the ratio to be close to 50% because then you know the checks and balances are working.

[Morfin]

I assume it is the latter.

[BIG PIZZLE]

If it is, then that's just stupid. I'd like to see other judge's track records tho.


The 60% thing was just something I heard on the news. Some columnist was talking about jobs where you could be wrong or fail 60% of the time and still be considered for the top office in your profession.

Only an ignroamus would make this argument. That's not how courts work.

[redsox39]

If it is, then that's just stupid. I'd like to see other judge's track records tho.



Only an ignroamus would make this argument. That's not how courts work.


I think it was more of the "60% of the time she was on the minority ruling" Bascially, she ruled on the side that "lost".

But that would make sense, because she probably served on courts with White men, who she is way smarter than because she is a Latina.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Only an ignroamus would make this argument. That's not how courts work.

I would want the ratio to be close to 50% because then you know the checks and balances are working.

[freegood]

Agreed. I am really just upset with the point that she was appointed because she was a Female Latina.


They picked her because she was a wise Latina. It's not like they picked her off the streets.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I dont think it's such a bad idea to have different perspectives on the Supreme court. What's wrong with that?

[freegood]

White people think they'll get reverse discriminated?

[Willam]

I dont think it's such a bad idea to have different perspectives on the Supreme court. What's wrong with that?


Nothing is wrong with that, as long as the perspectives are based in law.

[BIG PIZZLE]

They arent, they are based on politics. I think Sandra Day Occonnor or Ginsberg said that when she was a lawyer, she knew how the justices were going to rule before she even argued the case. It's true, there are very rarely any surprises at the supreme court level. It's more about how they craft a decision than what the actual decision is.

[redsox39]

I dont think it's such a bad idea to have different perspectives on the Supreme court. What's wrong with that?

White people think they'll get reverse discriminated?

Nothing is wrong with having a Latina on the court. Nice try.

I just happen to feel the "BEST" person available for the Job should get hired or nominated.

But, Maybe she is the best. I dont know. But when you read about the next supreme court justice being hired solely on race, that just seems retarded, white, black, Latin, whatever.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/26/obama-nominates-new-supreme-court-justice/
The President had been expected to nominate a liberal judge, probably a woman, and possibly the Court’s first Justice of Hispanic descent

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/02/obama_may_break_with_tradition_for_high_court_pick/
Obama is widely expected to nominate a woman - and could make history by choosing what could be the high court's first African-American female or Latino

Sure, a woman's perspective would be nice. So would a minority perspective. But, and stop me if this is WAY too conservative for you, wouldn't you say that being the best should come before sex or race, both of which have NOTHING to do with the job?

I mean, we have been told to ignore skin color, sex, biases...until you get far enough in life that you are hired strictly on your pigment and lack of penis?
Granted, she might have been the smartest of the slightly darker pigmented ladies, but since pool was smaller, did we really get the best person available?

Maybe we did, but she'll be forever tainted as less than in my mind since it seems her job history was less important than her race.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Totally but the problem here is that there is no "best". It's not a race (pardon the pun). There is no first place. There is no real emperical way to determine the "best" candidate (how would you determine who is the best supreme court nominee?) all you can do is hope for a really good one.

[redsox39]

Totally but the problem here is that there is no "best". It's not a race (pardon the pun). There is no first place. There is no real emperical way to determine the "best" candidate (how would you determine who is the best supreme court nominee?) all you can do is hope for a really good one.

So why was there such a fucking riot over every single Bush Nominee? I mean, since it doesn't matter, there is no "best" and it is all just a political thing where you are expected to toe the line?

Or is this something only Liberals are allowed to complain about?

[BIG PIZZLE]

No. I liked all of Bush's nominees except for the chick. I think that was the only one that was a real big deal because she was his personal lawyer and she had never even been a judge. You can complain about her policies and past decisions, her ability to reason, her character, her intillegence, her propensity to sexually abuse her subordinates, but saying she's not the absolute "best" is just a stupid argument because "best" is impossible to determine.

[Pharon]

Well, she has ruled on the minority side or has been overturned over 60% of the timeI believe, so this can't be too shocking.
Your 60% figure -- which I would like to see the foundation for -- may be a valid point, however, the fact that she was reversed here, is not.
60% of the majority opinions she was part of that were reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. But let's put that into perspective -- she ruled on 380 majority opinions in her 10 years on the 2nd circuit. 5 of those were reviewed by the Supreme Court and 3 were reversed. A far more accurate soundbite would be to say that 0.8% of the opinions on which she was in the majority were reversed by the Supreme Court. But you won't hear that tidbit on Fox News.

[Phil Theehor]

Gator's point is a fair one. Any time you artificially reduce a candidate pool by hiring based on race, gender, eye color, etc., you are likely to reduce the quality of the hire. She might actually be (however you judge it), the best candidate for the job. However, she's probably not.

Latina females represent maybe 5 or 6% of the population. If you go into the process saying that you are going to hire someone qualified from that pool, you are disqualifying the qualified candidates that exist within the other 95% of the population. The odds state that you have disqualified somebody better than her.

[BIG PIZZLE]

So 60% = 3 decisions (actually 4 now) so now it's 67%. What a horrible judge. Actually it's 66.6% OMG THE MARK OF THE BEAST! Even god doesnt want her to be a justice!

[BIG PIZZLE]

Gator's point is a fair one. Any time you artificially reduce a candidate pool by hiring based on race, gender, eye color, etc., you are likely to reduce the quality of the hire. She might actually be (however you judge it), the best candidate for the job. However, she's probably not.

Latina females represent maybe 5 or 6% of the population. If you go into the process saying that you are going to hire someone qualified from that pool, you are disqualifying the qualified candidates that exist within the other 95% of the population. The odds state that you have disqualified somebody better than her.

That still beggs the question. How are they better? Better on what basis?

[Das Kahlua]

You're entitled to your opinion. However, being overturned by 1 vote -- meaning that 4 justices agreed with her decision -- hardly is grounds for implying that she does not follow the law or is some sort of rogue judge who needs to be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

Your 60% figure -- which I would like to see the foundation for -- may be a valid point, however, the fact that she was reversed here, is not.

I see the issue the exact opposite from you here. I don't place a whole lot of weight on the number of her decisions that overturned by a higher court, if for no other reason than there could have been a bunch of asshats who made those decisions. Not ever court/judge is created the same, and that includes state and the US Supreme Courts.

In lieu of that, I tend to look at the individual cases and what her rulings were to see how she views her role as a judge/justice, and how she believes the law should be applied.

Her position on this particular case seemed to be such a misguided decision that I have to really question what motivations/agendas she's bringing with her to the courtroom. It also doesn't in the least surprise me that someone like Ginsburg would agree with her decision, as it seems that the far left has no problem in the least with using the power of the court to advance political agendas that they can't achieve through the legislative process.

[Pharon]

Gator's point is a fair one. Any time you artificially reduce a candidate pool by hiring based on race, gender, eye color, etc., you are likely to reduce the quality of the hire. She might actually be (however you judge it), the best candidate for the job. However, she's probably not.
It's all relative. If you're going to say this about Sotomayor, then you'd have to include every woman or non-white male that's ever served on the Court.

And even among the white males, it all depended upon their ruling philosophy -- liberal or conservative -- and who was President at the time.

It's never been strictly about nominating "the best candidate" but rather "the best candidate within a particular judicial philosophy." Pizz is right -- it's at least as much about politics as competence. All we can hope for is that we get candidates with a relative competence. And with that in mind, anyone who graduated from an Ivy League school or who has served on a district or circuit federal court would be qualified as a nominee.

With respect to Sotomayor, if she's confirmed, she will bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in the past 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than any confirmed Supreme Court justice in the past 70 years.

Oh right, and she was also valedictorian of her high school class, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and got her law degree at Yale where she was also the editor of the Yale Law Journal.

If that's not the definition of "qualified," then I don't know what is.

[Phil Theehor]

That still beggs the question. How are they better? Better on what basis?

Fair question, but not relevant. However you judge the candidates, reducing the candidate pool by 95% using irrelevant criteria will likely reduce the quality of the hire.

It's funny that it actually ties into the issue in the thread. If I'm in a burning building and in need of rescue, I won't care how diverse the fire department is. All I care about is that the best available firefighter is en route to rescue my dumb ass.

Same goes here. If you are part of a group of nine that has the ability to change the course of US history, I want you to be the best available candidate for the role. I want the president to pick you because in his judgment, you will do the best job-- not because he wants a little more rainbow in that nifty annual SCOTUS portrait.

[redsox39]

If I'm in a burning building and in need of rescue, I won't care how diverse the fire department is. All I care about is that the best available firefighter is en route to rescue my dumb ass.



If you were a Latina, you would see the error and stupidity of this statement. Dumb white guy.

[Phil Theehor]

It's all relative. If you're going to say this about Sotomayor, then you'd have to include every woman or non-white male that's ever served on the Court.

And even among the white males, it all depended upon their ruling philosophy -- liberal or conservative -- and who was President at the time.

It's never been strictly about nominating "the best candidate" but rather "the best candidate within a particular judicial philosophy." Pizz is right -- it's at least as much about politics as competence. All we can hope for is that we get candidates with a relative competence. And with that in mind, anyone who graduated from an Ivy League school or who has served on a district or circuit federal court would be qualified as a nominee.

With respect to Sotomayor, if she's confirmed, she will bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in the past 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than any confirmed Supreme Court justice in the past 70 years.

Oh right, and she was also valedictorian of her high school class, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and got her law degree at Yale where she was also the editor of the Yale Law Journal.

If that's not the definition of "qualified," then I don't know what is.

I'm not questioning her credentials. I don't know enough to say that a better candidate existed. As I said, she might be the best (although I really, really do question her judgment on the case at hand). All I'm saying is that I'd rather that the president starts the search seeking the best candidate, not the best female latina candidate.

[Pharon]

I'm not questioning her credentials. I don't know enough to say that a better candidate existed. As I said, she might be the best (although I really, really do question her judgment on the case at hand). All I'm saying is that I'd rather that the president starts the search seeking the best candidate, not the best female latina candidate.
And all I'm saying is that there's no such thing as "best" when it comes to judges. It's not like firefighters -- that's a black and white issue, where there's a physical fitness test involved (and perhaps a written one). With justices, all you can really hope for is a competent and qualified candidate -- and the rest is relative, because there are politics involved in every single ruling they make, whether people are willing to admit to that or not.

The greatest fallacy there is out there is perpetrated by conservatives who say that "conservatives follow the letter of the law and liberals don't." If only it were that simple. But the more I read on both sides, the more I question that statement. Just take a look at Bush v. Gore and tell me that the conservatives followed the letter of the law there -- it's just a myth. But that's why we have judges -- for interpretation. Just like why we have umpires -- and some of those decisions are gonna be pretty close to the strike zone, on both sides. And when they are, they're bound to piss off a few people.

There are probably hundreds of competent and qualified candidates. And Sotomayor is certainly one of them. That's all I'm trying to say.

[redsox39]

And all I'm saying is that there's no such thing as "best" when it comes to judges. It's not like firefighters -- that's a black and white issue, where there's a physical fitness test involved (and perhaps a written one). With justices, all you can really hope for is a competent and qualified candidate -- and the rest is relative, because there are politics involved.

There are probably hundreds of competent and qualified candidates. And Sotomayor is certainly one of them. That's all I'm trying to say.
And Harriet Meyer is not. (true)

But didn't the Democrats pretty much have a cow over each of Bush's nominees, and in fact, disrupt the entire process. They Filibustered for days and days for no reason other than the nominees were nominated by a conserative?

But if you have a problem with a judge who was hired almost exclusively because her ancestors could whip up a mean Guacamole, you are an asshole.

[Aegis]

About time the man ruled in the favor of the man. Not our fault teh blacks are retarded, they're just made that way.

Make damn good slaves though...lest that's what my Grandpa says.

[redsox39]

Awesome. That will help the cause.

[Phil Theehor]

There are probably hundreds of competent and qualified candidates. And Sotomayor is certainly one of them. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm with you. All I'm saying is that only looking at 5% of those candidates is bad practice.

[Pharon]

But didn't the Democrats pretty much have a cow over each of Bush's nominees, and in fact, disrupt the entire process. They Filibustered for days and days for no reason other than the nominees were nominated by a conserative?
It wasn't "each" of Bush's nominees. It was a handful. And Republicans did kind of the same thing when Clinton was President -- because they had a Senate majority, they didn't need to filibuster, but many of Clinton's nominees died in committee and weren't even allowed a floor vote, which ultimately had the same effect.

[Pharon]

I'm with you. All I'm saying is that only looking at 5% of those candidates is bad practice.
How do you know that's what they did?

Also, it could have been just as likely they did the same thing for Clarence Thomas, not that I'm sure you'd disagree with me on that.

[Morfin]

If I'm in a burning building and in need of rescue, I won't care how diverse the fire department is. All I care about is that the best available firefighter is en route to rescue my dumb ass.


Number 1, the issue isn't physical qualifications or reducing those to create diversity.

Number 2, this decision, as with the University of Michigan case a few years ago, followed your beliefs.

Number 3, your misguided belief about choosing "the best candidate" is odd, like there is some theoretical "best" candidate out there. Do you propose that we should look at the reversal rate and that will determine the best justice? Well, if that is the case, your theoretical "best" candidate would have an undefined percentage because his/her decisions would always be so goshdarned perfect that the Supreme Court would never need to review any of them.

Pharon's point is good, that the issue is whether the person is qualified or not, then you get into the issue of philosophy and the sort.

I am guessing, but I assume that if Sotomayor was conservative and had the same reversal rate, you would not have a problem with her.

And, for one last comment, I do not see the problem with her "Latina woman" comment -- in fact, I welcome it and her different perspective. Instead of trying to demean her regarding the "nifty" annual picture of the court, you would welcome that different perspectives are heard. (And this is from a conservative-leaning libertarian.)

[Stax]

So why was there such a fucking riot over every single Bush Nominee? I mean, since it doesn't matter, there is no "best" and it is all just a political thing where you are expected to toe the line?

Or is this something only Liberals are allowed to complain about?

There wasn't. There was a riot over a very select few extreme Bush candidates. I was fine with Roberts because I knew he was about as moderate as you'd get from a Republican president with a friendly Republican Congress and thought Alito was a little farther to the right so didn't mind disliking him, but it wasn't really worth the show of political capital that you knew would come to nothing to whine about him.

Jon Stewart still put it best early on in the Obama administration, when comparing Republican statements that you can't criticize a sitting president because it 'undermines' them or whatever (under Bush) to obvious (and perfectly fair) criticisms of Obama.

He basically said you have to realize that when you lose that means you aren't always going to get your way. Morfin said it nicely for this issue, being overturned 5-4 with a pretty normal decision (not one yelling at the Lower Court for deciding it stupidly) is hardly a sign she's some crazy rebel judge, she simply has a slightly different viewpoint than the current 5-4 majority on the Court holds (and would still hold were she confirmed).

On this case, BTW, I agree with the SCOTUS finding, discrimination can still be discrimination if it's going in favor of the group once in power. It's worth remembering that many of the early gender-discrimination cases were actually MEN arguing that laws made specially to protect women (setting weekly work hour maxes and things like that) were unfair.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Fair question, but not relevant. However you judge the candidates, reducing the candidate pool by 95% using irrelevant criteria will likely reduce the quality of the hire.

It's funny that it actually ties into the issue in the thread. If I'm in a burning building and in need of rescue, I won't care how diverse the fire department is. All I care about is that the best available firefighter is en route to rescue my dumb ass.

Same goes here. If you are part of a group of nine that has the ability to change the course of US history, I want you to be the best available candidate for the role. I want the president to pick you because in his judgment, you will do the best job-- not because he wants a little more rainbow in that nifty annual SCOTUS portrait.

That is true but she's acutally a very good candidate. She seems qualified even though her politics are different from yours and the current court.


But if you have a problem with a judge who was hired almost exclusively because her ancestors could whip up a mean Guacamole, you are an asshole.

But that is not the case here. She seems pretty qualified. I mean, for a mexican, right?

[Phil Theehor]

Number 1, the issue isn't physical qualifications or reducing those to create diversity.

Number 2, this decision, as with the University of Michigan case a few years ago, followed your beliefs.

Number 3, your misguided belief about choosing "the best candidate" is odd, like there is some theoretical "best" candidate out there. Do you propose that we should look at the reversal rate and that will determine the best justice? Well, if that is the case, your theoretical "best" candidate would have an undefined percentage because his/her decisions would always be so goshdarned perfect that the Supreme Court would never need to review any of them.

Pharon's point is good, that the issue is whether the person is qualified or not, then you get into the issue of philosophy and the sort.

I am guessing, but I assume that if Sotomayor was conservative and had the same reversal rate, you would not have a problem with her.

And, for one last comment, I do not see the problem with her "Latina woman" comment -- in fact, I welcome it and her different perspective. Instead of trying to demean her regarding the "nifty" annual picture of the court, you would welcome that different perspectives are heard. (And this is from a conservative-leaning libertarian.)

Friend, you misread me. This isn't about her qualifications-- I'm not qualified to opine on that. And a racial rainbow on the court doesn't bother me in the slightest-- nor would a whitewash.

My gripe is with the fact the president reportedly set out to bring in a latina woman. If Thomas was strictly a diversity appointment, then I'm not fond of that, either.

Libertarians, btw, believe in free competition and meritocracy. Doesn't affirmative action run contrary to that?

[BIG PIZZLE]

I dont mind if he started out with that requirement just because of the nature of such an appointment. I'm typically against affirmative action and all that shit but things move really slow as far as the makeup of the court (oh look another pun). If he had nominated Judge Milian, then we would have a problem. But this judge seems genuinely qualified dispite any apparent predisposition on Obama's part.

[Stax]

Friend, you misread me. This isn't about her qualifications-- I'm not qualified to opine on that. And a racial rainbow on the court doesn't bother me in the slightest-- nor would a whitewash.

My gripe is with the fact the president reportedly set out to bring in a latina woman. If Thomas was strictly a diversity appointment, then I'm not fond of that, either.

Libertarians, btw, believe in free competition and meritocracy. Doesn't affirmative action run contrary to that?

What most modern ideas of affirmative action are? Yes, probably. The early days of it under LBJ, ensuring a fair competition for those with imbalanced chances? No.

[Morfin]

A point that needs to be made here (and was well-made in Slate's discussion of the case here (http://www.slate.com/id/2220927/entry/2221759/)) is that Sotomayor's decision in the appeal of this case was consistent with the law as it existed at the time.

Today, the majority crafted a new rule, which led to a different result. However, she decided the case correctly based on the rule of law at the time.

And those who are concerned about her Latina Woman comment, note that she ruled against the plaintiffs -- who were a bunch of white guys and one latino.

[atoms]

If it is as Phil says....I can understand why he is disturbed. However, if the process were more of one where you took a pool of the qualified candidates. Within this pool, everyone is qualified, and one person might argue one candidate is better, another might argue for another....that is, at some point personal opinion, etc. are going to play a large roll in picking between these qualified candidates.

So now....with a list of qualified candidates, the President may look to see....are there any people from the hispanic community....any women....any other minorities....anyone with a viewpoint that just really goes with mine....any that have shown a really good legal mind.....hell, I don't know, but, basically, once he has a short list, he might have enough candidates to pick and choose from that both meet qualification requirements, and meet his personal requirements, be they about politics, getting diversity in background on the court, or he just thought she was a little cooler than the other candidates.

OK....from another viewpoint....if we take Phil's number of 5%....then a candidate pool of 20 would likely have 1 latina. I can believe there are 20 virtually equally qualified candidates for the supreme court...(I could probably believe that there were 100).

So I don't have a problem with her selection....even if her race/background was part of the decision....as long as her qualifications were the main factor that got her to the short list to begin with.

BTW....I think the republicans do themselves a disservice when there campaign against her is based upon bullshit. Saying 60% of her cases have been overturned.....when I think most people would understand the .8%....bullshit. Saying she is racist, when the entire "wise latina" quote is taken so out of context.....bullshit. Of course bullshit often works....hell it may be all that works in presidential campaigns. While I don't agree with him (at least completely), Kahlua is arguing above on the only thing worth arguing (if you accept that she is qualified), and that is based upon her actual rulings. Even then there is lot's of opportunity to simplify these rulings in to soundbites, that don't take into account all the complexities of these cases.

[redsox39]

But that is not the case here. She seems pretty qualified. I mean, for a mexican, right?

Nice try. Once again I don't have a problem with her being a Latina. I have a problem with the fact that she got nominated because she was a Latina. That seems like a silly criteria.

I agree with you, that she seems qualified, and has tons of exp, I just don't like that she was a racial nominee and now gets to decide on matters of racial discrimination and affrimative action.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Nice try. Once again I don't have a problem with her being a Latina. I have a problem with the fact that she got nominated because she was a Latina. That seems like a silly criteria.

I agree with you, that she seems qualified, and has tons of exp, I just don't like that she was a racial nominee and now gets to decide on matters of racial discrimination and affrimative action.

You would rather have white judges make those determinations?

[redsox39]

You would rather have white judges make those determinations?

I would rather have someone who wasn't hired based on race to decide racial matters. Seems to me like a conflict of interest.

Like I said, if they hadn't been talking about nominating a Latino Woman for the last 6 months, than maybe I don't give a shit. But since that was the gold standard for her hiring, her decisions on racial matters might be biased.

She is qualified, she is educated, she is smart, she has lot of EXP on the bench, so I don't see why she shouldn't be there.

But really, who knows how much of that really mattered?

[BIG PIZZLE]

The fact of the matter is that she is all those things regardless of how she got where she is today. Also, I think that if 9 justices are to rule on affirmative action, it could be helpful that one of them was a product of affirmative action. She's not going to be the only person that decides these cases. I would want my court with the broadest experience possible. One of the biggest criticisms of the supreme court is that they are out of touch and they basically rule from an ivory tower. I dont know how much of that is true. I have met a couple justices and the one thing that surprises me is how old and slow and boring they are. Especially since most of them were pretty formadible attorneys.

[redsox39]

The fact of the matter is that she is all those things regardless of how she got where she is today.

So what do you think about the firefighters case up top then? Should the test scores not matter and we should throw in a couple of brothers that don't "test well" because of their skin color? (since we are way off topic?)

[HAWK]

I just hope that Fox News and other stations will quit calling this the "reverse-discrimination" case.

Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter who it comes from.

So true.

[redsox39]

Also, I think that if 9 justices are to rule on affirmative action, it could be helpful that one of them was a product of affirmative action.

It could also be helpful to get Madoff's opinion on the punishments handed out to investment fraud convicts, but I think that would also be a poor desicion.

[BIG PIZZLE]

So what do you think about the firefighters case up top then? Should the test scores not matter and we should throw in a couple of brothers that don't "test well" because of their skin color? (since we are way off topic?)

I think it starts with the test. If the test is proven to be non-discriminatory then there should be no problem. The test should stand. If you really want to hire black dudes despite all that, then I think you should perscribe to the Chris Rock school of Affirmative Action.

SuDUT5hsp6I

[atoms]

I would rather have someone who wasn't hired based on race to decide racial matters. Seems to me like a conflict of interest.

Like I said, if they hadn't been talking about nominating a Latino Woman for the last 6 months, than maybe I don't give a shit. But since that was the gold standard for her hiring, her decisions on racial matters might be biased.

She is qualified, she is educated, she is smart, she has lot of EXP on the bench, so I don't see why she shouldn't be there.

But really, who knows how much of that really mattered?


Maybe we should get judges who aren't Americans. Because since they are Americans....that might influence their judgment on..American issues.

Maybe we should get judges that aren't human....since being human might influence there ability to make judgments on other humans...

[BIG PIZZLE]

It could also be helpful to get Madoff's opinion on the punishments handed out to investment fraud convicts, but I think that would also be a poor desicion.

Nice try. If you cant see why that's a rediculous analogy you are a retard.

[HAWK]

Or maybe we should make all court decisions based entirely on the law and be done with it.

[Phil Theehor]

The fact of the matter is that she is all those things regardless of how she got where she is today. Also, I think that if 9 justices are to rule on affirmative action, it could be helpful that one of them was a product of affirmative action. She's not going to be the only person that decides these cases. I would want my court with the broadest experience possible. One of the biggest criticisms of the supreme court is that they are out of touch and they basically rule from an ivory tower. I dont know how much of that is true. I have met a couple justices and the one thing that surprises me is how old and slow and boring they are. Especially since most of them were pretty formadible attorneys.

You make a great point, Pizz, one that will make me temper my opinion a bit. My gripe with affirmative action, beyond the unfairness, is that it's bad business (or bad government or bad whatever).

The thought of winnowing a candidate pool with demographic data makes my colon clench. However, if part of the logic behind her appointment is that her demographic profile could be an asset in the performance of her job, I can live with it a little more. I might not like it, but the concept does not offend me nearly as much.

Consider my objections softened.

Now, I'll just return to bitching about how she found in favor the MLB players union...

[BIG PIZZLE]

I think affirmative action is stupid too but I dont think that the court will suffer in this instance. I dont like to have my principles get in the way of my reasoning. Which is probably why I will never be on the supreme court.

[Whiffleball]

They invalidated it because it was a test being looked into and they didn't know if the results were valid. This is very standard to do and any mature person who has worked in this line would know that; but these people chose to throw a shit fit and scream that their white privilege was being infringed on.

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/plaintiff-wail-ricci-v-destefano-and-myth-white-victimhood

According to the Journal editorial, New Haven officials "don't deny that their decision was based on race." But as a matter of fact they do, quite strenuously. And never, contrary to the claim in the Journal, have they argued that tossing the scores was necessary because of the need to promote diversity in the fire department. Though others have made the diversity argument--such as a national organization for black firefighters, whose spokesperson insists that kids of color need more role models--this position played no part of the city's defense. They are not arguing that merit should be cast aside so as to promote racial balance, or so that black kids will have someone to look up to. Rather, it is their position, amply documented in the record, that the tests on which Ricci and the other plaintiffs did so well, and on which blacks did so much worse, were invalid indicators of ability. As such, throwing them out did not amount to sacrificing standards, and did not deny Ricci or the others anything to which they were morally or legally entitled. To be promoted on the basis of a flawed exam is not a right, philosophically or constitutionally, that either Ricci or any other person can claim to hold. That the Journal implies "diversity" is the only reason offered for throwing out the scores--when it was not even among the reasons offered--suggests a duplicity uncommon even for such persons as these.

That the city concluded the test was flawed is critical here, because it suggests that tossing out the scores was not merely a pretext for racial discrimination against the white firefighters. This is ultimately the Constitutional issue at hand, which the Court is being asked to decide, and which two previous courts have decided in the city's favor. Rather, New Haven's actions were based on a determination that the standard being used was inadequate to the task of picking those who would make the best supervisors, and that if they used it, they might be subjected to a successful lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under the law, policies that have a disparate racial impact are prohibited, unless those policies can be deemed directly related to job performance. Because they felt the test might not be defensible on those grounds, the city threw out the results. But this decision was about test validity, rather than being based on a desire for racial balance as some larger social goal.

...

Indeed, in this particular case, black test-takers who had previously ranked 3rd and 5th on exams for the same positions (and who had just missed being promoted in the past) only managed to rank 13th and 15th respectively: one on the lieutenant's test, and another on the test for captain. That such a regression would occur for persons who had previously done so well was another reason the test's validity seemed questionable.

...Also, according to testimony offered by several experienced firefighters, there were several problems with the content of the exam. First, some material on the test was completely inapplicable to the New Haven community, and other questions actually had correct answers that were contrary to local firefighting policy...

Secondly, as even the test makers admit, the source material to which they turned in order to construct the test often involved contradictory information, increasing the likelihood that items selected would potentially have "correct answers" that were open to interpretation and dispute.

Additionally, the weighting system used for the exam, by which the written portion would count for 60 percent of the total score, and the oral portion, 40 percent--which was mandated by a union contract, rather than any independently validated scientific logic--was also questionable. As one witness testified, nearby towns that used different weighting systems had managed to get equally capable firefighters and supervisors, while witnessing far less racial disparity.

Also during the hearings, experts noted several methods of testing for supervisory ability within a fire department, which would have been more genuine indicators of ability than a multiple-choice exam. Alternative tests, which would test for "situational judgment," were explained by the industrial psychology expert to be far superior in such cases, as were other alternatives. Interestingly, had the city simply altered the test by requiring passage on both the oral and written sections separately--rather than allowing poor oral skills to be compensated for by high written scores--a black test-taker would have qualified for promotion and two of the whites who did would not have. Likewise, had they been allowed to round scores up to the nearest full integer (reflecting the commonly understood social science truth that fractional score differences can result from random chance and say nothing about real aptitude), four blacks would have qualified. And if they had merely weighted the test differently, as other communities have done, giving more weight to the oral exam than the written, two black test takers would have been in the running for a lieutenant position, and one would have been in the mix for captain.

That the test was understandably viewed by the city as being a flawed indicator of merit seems logical.

...

Yet, based on the questions asked and statements made by several justices during oral arguments this week, it appears likely that at least four members of the Court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs. If Justice Kennedy joins them in this, the 5-4 decision would set a dangerous precedent for civil rights law, and strike a serious and destructive blow against the cause of equal opportunity. To say that New Haven was legally required to use the test scores, and that to throw them out was inherently discriminatory against whites because they scored better, would mean that whites would now be able to sue any institution--a college, an employer, a government agency, anyone--that adopted a policy, practice or procedure that had the effect of diminishing their pre-existing advantage. For example, if a school decided to minimize the importance of the SAT for admissions, or to disregard standardized test scores altogether (as some have done, in part because of the racial disparities on the test, and also because such instruments are known to be flawed indicators of ability), whites (assuming Ricci wins) could sue the school, claiming that their "rights" as whites to reap the benefits of their superior performance (even on a flawed test) had been violated. Institutions would be forced to use merit selection instruments that maximized white advantage, because to choose a less disparity-producing instrument could be seen as somehow anti-white by the twisted logic of the plaintiffs' claims in Ricci.

A Ricci victory would throw civil rights jurisprudence into utter chaos, as well. In effect, such a result would mean that the court had said employers must take actions that produce disparate racial impact against people of color, or else be sued for disparate treatment of whites. In other words, they must violate one part of Title VII in order to not violate another portion of it. That such a holding is repugnant to the legislative intent of those who framed the law should be obvious. For the Supreme Court's conservatives, who claim to be "strict constructionists," beholden to legislative intent, to find for Ricci and thereby shred the framer's intent for Title VII, would make a mockery of their entire judicial philosophy, and demonstrate the disingenuousness of their claims to believe in it.

Not only that, but if employers were required to use tests, even when they produced a disparate racial impact--or even because they produced that result, and thus, to do otherwise would injure the group that scored higher--this would effectively remove disparate impact altogether as a valid category of civil rights law, overturning not only legislative intent, updated as recently as 1991, but almost forty years of judicial opinion. And if this were to happen, it would mean that any policy, practice or procedure, no matter how significantly it disadvantaged a particular racial group, would be legal, unless it were possible to prove that the standard had been adopted intentionally so as to block access to certain groups: a virtually impossible standard to meet, even in the most blatant of cases.

[Pox]

Redsox, instead of insisting over and over again that some more qualified judge exists, why don't you tell us who it is.

Representation has been an important factor in SCOTUS nominations for decades. First it was regional, now it is along racial, religious and ethnic lines. So fucking what? If you really care that much, go build yourself a time machine so you can bitch about O'Connor, Thomas, or Louis Brandeis for that matter. These people are all among the top 1% of 1% of legal minds in the country. You act like there are hundreds of unfortunate white males have been laboring for years in the salt mines that are US circuit courts, only to be passed over for shitty judges who happen to be brown. Thats pretty much wrong. Obviously, identity plays an important part in ANY political nomination, but theres also a good chance that Sotomayor really is the best qualified (liberal) judge in the country. I haven't seen any reason why she isn't, only histrionics over her race and bitching about her ideology.

[Das Kahlua]

The fact of the matter is that she is all those things regardless of how she got where she is today. Also, I think that if 9 justices are to rule on affirmative action, it could be helpful that one of them was a product of affirmative action. She's not going to be the only person that decides these cases. I would want my court with the broadest experience possible. One of the biggest criticisms of the supreme court is that they are out of touch and they basically rule from an ivory tower. I dont know how much of that is true. I have met a couple justices and the one thing that surprises me is how old and slow and boring they are. Especially since most of them were pretty formadible attorneys.

My issue with this is that I find AA to be a massively unconstitutional, retarded ass, racist policy that is trying to undue discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. I want my SC justices to be the best of the best, not having gotten to their position as a token.

Justice is supposed to be blind to race, gender and sexual preference; it seems very counter to that mindset to promote a supreme arbiter of the law based on her race.

Redsox, instead of insisting over and over again that some more qualified judge exists, why don't you tell us who it is.

Representation has been an important factor in SCOTUS nominations for decades. First it was regional, now it is along racial, religious and ethnic lines. So fucking what? If you really care that much, go build yourself a time machine so you can bitch about O'Connor, Thomas, or Louis Brandeis for that matter. These people are all among the top 1% of 1% of legal minds in the country. You act like there are hundreds of unfortunate white males have been laboring for years in the salt mines that are US circuit courts, only to be passed over for shitty judges who happen to be brown. Thats pretty much wrong. Obviously, identity plays an important part in ANY political nomination, but theres also a good chance that Sotomayor really is the best qualified (liberal) judge in the country. I haven't seen any reason why she isn't, only histrionics over her race and bitching about her ideology.

But that's just the point, Pox, there are fully qualified people to serve on the SC; not millions, but they are out there. We should be trying to promote the best candidate to that position and not try to nominate someone to gain a voting demographic.

I don't care about her background, or her life story, I care about how she views the role of the court and how she believes the Constitution should be interpreted. Full stop. End of story. IMO, she fails miserably in that aspect, and at the end of the day that's all that matters. I don't care where she went to undergrad or law school, I don't care where she worked or anything like that, I would hope that a nominee would be fully vetted and deemed qualified to get to this point. Now the only issue is her views and past decisions, and that's where I believe the wheels come off.

[Pharon]

I want my SC justices to be the best of the best, not having gotten to their position as a token.
With respect to Sotomayor, if she's confirmed, she will bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in the past 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than any confirmed Supreme Court justice in the past 70 years.

Oh right, and she was also valedictorian of her high school class, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and got her law degree at Yale where she was also the editor of the Yale Law Journal.

If that's not the definition of "qualified," then I don't know what is.

[atoms]

Kahlua,

Let's say I have an aerospace company. I have a team of 20 aeronautical engineers. Every one of them has nearly the same education, going to school and getting a bachelors, a masters and a PhD in aerospace engineering. One of these guys just left to go work for Lockheed Martin, and I'm considering new candidates. Almost all of these candidates have the same background as the engineers I currently have working for me. But one got his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, went to work for a company manufacturing prosthetic limbs for 5 years, before going back to school to get his masters and PhD in aeronautical engineering. This guy seemed to have just a little different way of looking at things because of this different (but related) field that he worked in. Am I allowed to consider this background to distinguish him from the other candidates, and to add to my team a different viewpoint as we tackle new projects.

I'm not sure that ethnic background is much different. It shouldn't get someone the job....but may be the final key in why someone get's the nomination....and I'm okay with that. This is far from affirmative action. It is one thing when someone get's the job over someone more qualified because of the color of their skin. But it is another, when, to a body you want to include different views and backgrounds, that someone's views and background is the final piece of the puzzle in their selection. It's fine to say justice is blind. But, unfortunately, our justice is still run by human beings, even at the level of the supreme court. If you are correct, and justice is blind, than the fact that Sotamayor is a latina doesn't matter. If background has some bearing on how people view the world, than maybe her background does matter....just a little bit.

You go on to say that you care about how she has ruled.....great. That is what you should care about. But you seemed in your last thread to be arguing that AND arguing that she shouldn't be there because of her background. I'm all for going after her based on how she has ruled. So far nothing has troubled me when I looked in to it, but we all have different politics. But going after her based upon her record to me seems the most appropriate way to argue against a supreme court nominee. Frankly, if she is following the law, with an interpretation that is just a bit left of center, I think that is going to be hard to fight, but who knows.

My issue with this is that I find AA to be a massively unconstitutional, retarded ass, racist policy that is trying to undue discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. I want my SC justices to be the best of the best, not having gotten to their position as a token.

Justice is supposed to be blind to race, gender and sexual preference; it seems very counter to that mindset to promote a supreme arbiter of the law based on her race.



But that's just the point, Pox, there are fully qualified people to serve on the SC; not millions, but they are out there. We should be trying to promote the best candidate to that position and not try to nominate someone to gain a voting demographic.

I don't care about her background, or her life story, I care about how she views the role of the court and how she believes the Constitution should be interpreted. Full stop. End of story. IMO, she fails miserably in that aspect, and at the end of the day that's all that matters. I don't care where she went to undergrad or law school, I don't care where she worked or anything like that, I would hope that a nominee would be fully vetted and deemed qualified to get to this point. Now the only issue is her views and past decisions, and that's where I believe the wheels come off.

[marquis]

People's understanding of this case, and her decision on this case is mostly misguided. Sotomyor did not say in her decision that the city had to throw out the test results, just agreed with the lower court ruling that the law in Connecticut says that, if there is a test for employment (or advancement) that it must be specifically job related and must be reviewed if it poses a specific bais against any group (gender, race, religion, etc.). When only 1 of the minority candidates for promotion "passed" the test the city reviewed how relative to the job qualifications the test was. The city decided that the test was bias and chose to throw out the results. The firefighters that "passed" the test sued that it should be used. Her ruling, which again only agreed with the lower court, was that the city was following the law as written in CT that the test should have been reviewed and that the city had the right to throw out the test.

My personal belief is that SCOTUS made the wrong decision, though it is not surprising that the conservatives voted to overturn that decision.

[kareyn01]

Agreed. I am really just upset with the point that she was appointed because she was a Female Latina.

I mean, the media had been reporting for almost a year that Obama's first SCOTUS appointment was going to be a Woman, probably latina. Seriously. Maybe she was the best available, but it seems highly doubtful and at best lowers her percieved value as a justice.

The 60% thing was just something I heard on the news. Some columnist was talking about jobs where you could be wrong or fail 60% of the time and still be considered for the top office in your profession.

I'm not taking sides for or against Sotomayor, but what you have to realize about the 60% number is that it only factors in the cases appealed to higher courts that were accepted by that higher court. The vast majority of her decisions have never been heard by a higher court to even be considered for reveral. Five have been heard, and three of those five have now been overturned. In that same time, she has made HUNDREDS of rulings, so that percentage is pretty artificial (as it would be for any judge).

[Das Kahlua]

Kahlua,

Let's say I have an aerospace company. I have a team of 20 aeronautical engineers. Every one of them has nearly the same education, going to school and getting a bachelors, a masters and a PhD in aerospace engineering. One of these guys just left to go work for Lockheed Martin, and I'm considering new candidates. Almost all of these candidates have the same background as the engineers I currently have working for me. But one got his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, went to work for a company manufacturing prosthetic limbs for 5 years, before going back to school to get his masters and PhD in aeronautical engineering. This guy seemed to have just a little different way of looking at things because of this different (but related) field that he worked in. Am I allowed to consider this background to distinguish him from the other candidates, and to add to my team a different viewpoint as we tackle new projects.

Sure, if you own this company, you can hire for any reason you see fit. If you choose to hire less than qualified people because they look like you, and your company goes down in flames, that's just tough shit.

In the governmental level, things are vastly different.

I'm not sure that ethnic background is much different. It shouldn't get someone the job....but may be the final key in why someone get's the nomination....and I'm okay with that. This is far from affirmative action. It is one thing when someone get's the job over someone more qualified because of the color of their skin. But it is another, when, to a body you want to include different views and backgrounds, that someone's views and background is the final piece of the puzzle in their selection. It's fine to say justice is blind. But, unfortunately, our justice is still run by human beings, even at the level of the supreme court. If you are correct, and justice is blind, than the fact that Sotamayor is a latina doesn't matter. If background has some bearing on how people view the world, than maybe her background does matter....just a little bit.

I have no problem with many people of different backgrounds, I just don't think that one's background should matter when it comes to selection for the SC.

Look, Bill Gates is a genius and never graduated college. If I were to start a committee of the top computer specialists, should I exclude him even though he didn't graduate college? He's clearly a genius, and should be put on the committee, whether he's a single black mother or a young white teenager. Genius is genius.

The same applies for the SC. If a white male had the same judicial background as her, he would never be considered. We shouldn't make an exception because she's a latina.

You go on to say that you care about how she has ruled.....great. That is what you should care about. But you seemed in your last thread to be arguing that AND arguing that she shouldn't be there because of her background. I'm all for going after her based on how she has ruled. So far nothing has troubled me when I looked in to it, but we all have different politics. But going after her based upon her record to me seems the most appropriate way to argue against a supreme court nominee. Frankly, if she is following the law, with an interpretation that is just a bit left of center, I think that is going to be hard to fight, but who knows.

No, since all that anyone else seems to be talking about is her background, I decided to jump in. I made my position clear on her voting record, I was merely stating that her personal history shouldn't be taken into account, no matter how great it might look in the media.

[Pharon]

On an important domestic issue, Obama said the Supreme Court was "moving the ball" on affirmative action in this week's decision favoring white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., but he added that the court had not ruled out the use of racial preferences. "I don't think that hiring on the basis of race ... alone is constitutionally plausible," said Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law.

He spoke sympathetically at one point of the white firefighters, who said they had been discriminated against, and he added, "I've always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue than it has been made out to be in news reports."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_ap_interview
*golf clap*

[HAWK]

Interesting.