http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901608_pf.html

High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia
Sotomayor

The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters
in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of
their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others
that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
nomination for the high court.

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal
laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used
to show discrimination.

In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination
against another.

The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what
happened in New Haven.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on
race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and
said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.

She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored
to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she
said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the
court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of
the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute
film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a
long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance reform act.

Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments
on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next
October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to
the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally
called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to
have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before
the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement
of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.

Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.

The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that
Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her
background influence her decisions, even though her role has been
somewhat inflated.


The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and
government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it
certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good
case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines
presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on
minorities.

The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those
who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be
flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions
have not been made public.)

The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been
violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due
process.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went
to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified
under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its
flaws.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard
the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the
questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed
and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although
it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it
unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in
the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."

Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other
judges only by noting the short opinion.

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test
is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that
the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not
just by looking at the results.

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required
strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they
were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less
discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of
Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim
brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against
simply because of the color of their skin.

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in
sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and
studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had
tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute
to work.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg <---------- dirty, filthy jew. America hater,
white hater, Christian hater, Israel-firster, piece of "human" waste.

Check out my blog. I did a writeup on this SCOTUS ruling:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

On Jun 29, 11:46*am, € <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/06/29/AR200...
>
> High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
> Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia
> Sotomayor
>
> The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters
> in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of
> their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others
> that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
> nomination for the high court.
>
> The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
> African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
> promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal
> laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used
> to show discrimination.
>
> In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
> discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination
> against another.
>
> The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what
> happened in New Haven.
>
> "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on
> race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
> qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
>
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and
> said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights
> Act.
>
> She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored
> to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she
> said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
>
> On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the
> court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of
> the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute
> film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a
> long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign
> finance reform act.
>
> Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments
> on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next
> October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to
> the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally
> called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
>
> The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to
> have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before
> the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement
> of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.
>
> Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.
>
> The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that
> Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her
> background influence her decisions, even though her role has been
> somewhat inflated.
>
> The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and
> government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it
> certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good
> case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines
> presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on
> minorities.
>
> The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those
> who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be
> flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions
> have not been made public.)
>
> The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been
> violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due
> process.
>
> District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went
> to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified
> under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its
> flaws.
>
> The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
> where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard
> the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the
> questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed
> and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although
> it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it
> unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in
> the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."
>
> Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other
> judges only by noting the short opinion.
>
> Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test
> is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that
> the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not
> just by looking at the results.
>
> In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required
> strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they
> were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less
> discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.
>
> The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of
> Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim
> brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against
> simply because of the color of their skin.
>
> The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in
> sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and
> studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had
> tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute
> to work.

God help us if one of those 5 conservative judges dies or retires and
Obama nominates a liberal replacement. This ruling and the recent
ruling on the 2nd amendment will be revisited by the court, and
reversed.

"f.barnes" <fredlb@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:ea3749d5-413b-4b3e-bf13-954e16634a7e@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 29, 11:46 am, € <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/06/29/AR200...
>
> High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
> Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia
> Sotomayor
>
> The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters
> in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of
> their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others
> that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
> nomination for the high court.
>
> The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
> African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
> promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal
> laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used
> to show discrimination.
>
> In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
> discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination
> against another.
>
> The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what
> happened in New Haven.
>
> "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on
> race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
> qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
>
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and
> said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights
> Act.
>

What a f'ing whore, supporting institutionalized racism against
whitey.

> She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored
> to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she
> said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
>
> On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the
> court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of
> the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute
> film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a
> long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign
> finance reform act.
>
> Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments
> on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next
> October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to
> the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally
> called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
>
> The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to
> have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before
> the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement
> of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.
>
> Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.
>
> The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that
> Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her
> background influence her decisions, even though her role has been
> somewhat inflated.
>
> The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and
> government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it
> certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good
> case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines
> presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on
> minorities.
>
> The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those
> who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be
> flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions
> have not been made public.)
>
> The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been
> violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due
> process.
>
> District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went
> to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified
> under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its
> flaws.
>
> The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
> where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard
> the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the
> questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed
> and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although
> it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it
> unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in
> the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."
>
> Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other
> judges only by noting the short opinion.
>
> Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test
> is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that
> the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not
> just by looking at the results.
>
> In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required
> strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they
> were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less
> discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.
>
> The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of
> Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim
> brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against
> simply because of the color of their skin.
>
> The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in
> sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and
> studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had
> tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute
> to work.

God help us if one of those 5 conservative judges dies or retires and
Obama nominates a liberal replacement. This ruling and the recent
ruling on the 2nd amendment will be revisited by the court, and
reversed.

****************************8
The above is an ugly thought.

ÇDoügßT wrote:
> "f.barnes" <fredlb@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:ea3749d5-413b-4b3e-bf13-954e16634a7e@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 11:46 am, € <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/06/29/AR200...
>>
>> High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
>> Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia
>> Sotomayor
>>
>> The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters
>> in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of
>> their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others
>> that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
>> nomination for the high court.
>>
>> The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
>> African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
>> promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal
>> laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used
>> to show discrimination.
>>
>> In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
>> discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination
>> against another.
>>
>> The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what
>> happened in New Haven.
>>
>> "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on
>> race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
>> qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
>>
>> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and
>> said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights
>> Act.
>>
>
> What a f'ing whore, supporting institutionalized racism against
> whitey.
>
>> She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored
>> to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she
>> said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
>>
>> On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the
>> court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of
>> the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute
>> film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a
>> long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign
>> finance reform act.
>>
>> Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments
>> on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next
>> October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to
>> the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally
>> called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
>>
>> The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to
>> have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before
>> the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement
>> of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.
>>
>> Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.
>>
>> The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that
>> Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her
>> background influence her decisions, even though her role has been
>> somewhat inflated.
>>
>> The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and
>> government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it
>> certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good
>> case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines
>> presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on
>> minorities.
>>
>> The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those
>> who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be
>> flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions
>> have not been made public.)
>>
>> The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been
>> violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due
>> process.
>>
>> District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went
>> to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified
>> under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its
>> flaws.
>>
>> The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
>> where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard
>> the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the
>> questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed
>> and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although
>> it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it
>> unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in
>> the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."
>>
>> Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other
>> judges only by noting the short opinion.
>>
>> Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test
>> is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that
>> the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not
>> just by looking at the results.
>>
>> In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required
>> strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they
>> were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less
>> discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.
>>
>> The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of
>> Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim
>> brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against
>> simply because of the color of their skin.
>>
>> The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in
>> sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and
>> studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had
>> tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute
>> to work.
>
> God help us if one of those 5 conservative judges dies or retires and
> Obama nominates a liberal replacement. This ruling and the recent
> ruling on the 2nd amendment will be revisited by the court, and
> reversed.
>
> ****************************8
> The above is an ugly thought.
>
>
Liberals don't base their decisions on law.

The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who
scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the
court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."

<johnny@.> wrote in message
news:ECa2m.17307$Xl4.2509@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>>
> Liberals don't base their decisions on law.
>
> The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
> dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored
> high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's
> sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."

As everyone knows, I don't participate in the liberal-bashing and
hatemongering that goes on as a sideshow in this newsgroup.

Still, I have to point out, even I -- and I believe I'm one of the ten most
tolerant people on earth -- don't understand a phrase like "no vested right
to promotion" in a context like this.

What does that mean? That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
promotions based on skin color? If you don't make these decisions based on
ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make them?

Unless the statement is taken out of context, I think Ms. Ginburg is due for
a drug test.

Datesfat

Datesfat Chicks wrote:
> <johnny@.> wrote in message
> news:ECa2m.17307$Xl4.2509@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>>>
>> Liberals don't base their decisions on law.
>>
>> The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
>> dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who
>> scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract
>> the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to
>> promotion."
>
> As everyone knows, I don't participate in the liberal-bashing and
> hatemongering that goes on as a sideshow in this newsgroup.
>
> Still, I have to point out, even I -- and I believe I'm one of the ten
> most tolerant people on earth -- don't understand a phrase like "no
> vested right to promotion" in a context like this.
>
> What does that mean? That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
> promotions based on skin color? If you don't make these decisions based
> on ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make
> them?
>
> Unless the statement is taken out of context, I think Ms. Ginburg is due
> for a drug test.
>
> Datesfat

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1428.pdf

Page 55

JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE
BREYER join, dissenting.

In assessing claims of race discrimination, “[c]ontextmatters.” Grutter
v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 327 (2003).In 1972, Congress extended Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover public employment. At that
time, municipal fire departments across the country, includingNew
Haven’s, pervasively discriminated against minori-ties. The extension of
Title VII to cover jobs in firefighting effected no overnight change. It
took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to
open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities.

The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams
understandably attract this Court’s sympathy. But they had no vested
right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in
preference to them. New Haven maintains that it refused to certify the
test results because it believed, for good cause, that it would be
vulnerable to a Title VII disparate-impact suit if it relied on those
results.

The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong
basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court
pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the
higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension,
essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of
multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to
acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded
less racially skewed outcomes.

On Jun 29, 3:30*pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What does that mean? *That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
> promotions based on skin color? *If you don't make these decisions based on
> ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make them?

It looks like Ginsberg didn't just pull this phrase out of thin air,
but there's a lot of buzz on the web about what she said, because it
threatens The Old Boys networks...

Vested right: a right that has accrued, or is secured, to its
possessor and is not contingent on any event that may or may not
occur.

Traditionally, persons in military or civil service expect to be
promoted to higher positions, as they open up, according to their
seniority.

Length of qualifying service which allows seniority to be accumulated
is actually contingent upon the loyalty of the individual to his
immediate supervisors and the appearance that the individual is not so
ambitious as to pose a threat to the
advancement of the individual's immediate superior.

If the White firefighters have no expectation of a vested right to
promotion within their own tight knit oganization, the minority groups
who want to tear down all the White Old Boys networks and replace them
gradually with Black Old Boys networks are winning.

"johnny@." <johnny@invalid.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h2bhgv$958$2@news.motzarella.org...
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1428.pdf

Thanks. Interesting read.

This also caught my eye:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/...ven/index.html

I really do appreciate your post. You are the first person in a long time
on this group who has responded rationally to anything. Pointing me to a
..PDF of the court's opinion was great.

Datesfat

On Jun 29, 4:08 pm, "johnny@." <joh...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:

> The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong
> basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court
> pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the
> higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension,
> essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of
> multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to
> acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded
> less racially skewed outcomes.

Ginsburg isn't very specific.

The city apparantly hired a consulting firm to produce
the test.

What substantial flaws did the city cite in their case ?
How and when did they become aware of these flaws ?

It's unfortunate that the city didn't bother to do their
homework on the test's validity until after they saw
the test results.

I'd really love to hear more about the actual content of
the test, what specific flaws it may contain and what
changes the city now thinks it should have made.

I think virtually anybody in the position of the guys who
took it and qualified would be strongly tempted to sue.
I know I would be.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:30:09 -0700 (PDT), ¿ wrote:

> On Jun 29, 3:30*pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What does that mean? *That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
>> promotions based on skin color? *If you don't make these decisions based on
>> ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make them?
>
> It looks like Ginsberg didn't just pull this phrase out of thin air,
> but there's a lot of buzz on the web about what she said, because it
> threatens The Old Boys networks...
>
> Vested right: a right that has accrued, or is secured, to its
> possessor and is not contingent on any event that may or may not
> occur.

Having submitted to the test, the White and Hispanic applicants amply
demonstrated that they neither possessed nor relied on "any event that may
or not occur." The required exam and its comparative results was not "any
event."

Ginsberg was not referring to "vested right" as just defined by yourself.

"Vested right," as Ginsberg put it, was referring to the White and Hispanic
applicants argument of merit being a right vested by the Civil Rights Act
where the only "vested right" being the inclusion of the black applicants
who had not merited promotion based on the results of the exam.

According to Ginsberg's argument, the exam and consequent promotions was
simply not or ever 'contingent' on merit rather than inclusion or, if no
inclusion, the exam itself be flawed.

The argument is ludicrous. If in fact it were the Whites and Hispanic
applicants had all failed and only the Black applicants passed for
promotion, there would have been no dissenting opinions.

There would in fact have been no case in that, in this case, only the
Blacks were considered protected by the Civil Rights Act---a clear
infringement on the precept of 'equal protection of the law.'



> Traditionally, persons in military or civil service expect to be
> promoted to higher positions, as they open up, according to their
> seniority.
>
> Length of qualifying service which allows seniority to be accumulated
> is actually contingent upon the loyalty of the individual to his
> immediate supervisors and the appearance that the individual is not so
> ambitious as to pose a threat to the
> advancement of the individual's immediate superior.
>
> If the White firefighters have no expectation of a vested right to
> promotion within their own tight knit oganization, the minority groups
> who want to tear down all the White Old Boys networks and replace them
> gradually with Black Old Boys networks are winning.

On Jun 29, 3:30*pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> <johnny@.> wrote in message
>
> news:ECa2m.17307$Xl4.2509@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>
>
> > Liberals don't base their decisions on law.
>
> > The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
> > dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored
> > high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's
> > sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."
>
> As everyone knows, I don't participate in the liberal-bashing and
> hatemongering that goes on as a sideshow in this newsgroup.
>
> Still, I have to point out, even I -- and I believe I'm one of the ten most
> tolerant people on earth -- don't understand a phrase like "no vested right
> to promotion" in a context like this.
>
> What does that mean? *That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
> promotions based on skin color? *If you don't make these decisions based on
> ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make them?
>
> Unless the statement is taken out of context, I think Ms. Ginburg is due for
> a drug test.
>
> Datesfat

She's a white hating jew. That's the only explanation you need. It's
really a shame her parents didn't die along with the other 1.2 million
kikes who Hitler killed. Jews are and have always been the #1 driving
force behind radical leftism.

"B. Jackson" <bjackson445@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca5c563e-8997-44fe-b298-64f77d41c780@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>She's a white hating jew. That's the only explanation you need. It's
>really a shame her parents didn't die along with the other 1.2 million
>kikes who Hitler killed. Jews are and have always been the #1 driving
>force behind radical leftism.

Just a few questions are apparent:

a)Where did you get the number 1.2 million (why not 6 million)?

b)Why do you feel that some Jews hate white people?

c)How could you morally support something like the Holocaust?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Datesfat

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt
<Rkleinsch1216128@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 29, 4:08 pm, "johnny@." <joh...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong
>> basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court
>> pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the
>> higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension,
>> essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of
>> multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to
>> acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded
>> less racially skewed outcomes.
>
>Ginsburg isn't very specific.
>
>The city apparantly hired a consulting firm to produce
>the test.
>
>What substantial flaws did the city cite in their case ?
>How and when did they become aware of these flaws ?
>
>It's unfortunate that the city didn't bother to do their
>homework on the test's validity until after they saw
>the test results.
>
>I'd really love to hear more about the actual content of
>the test, what specific flaws it may contain and what
>changes the city now thinks it should have made.
>
>I think virtually anybody in the position of the guys who
>took it and qualified would be strongly tempted to sue.
>I know I would be.
>
I don't understand why they don't just get the NAACP to make the
tests.

Oh yeah, they have tried. I wonder why it is not working.........humm

On Jun 29, 9:30*pm, "B. Jackson" <bjackson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> She's a white hating jew. *That's the only explanation you need. *It's
> really a shame her parents didn't die along with the other 1.2 million
> kikes who Hitler killed. *Jews are and have always been the #1 driving
> force behind radical leftism.

Gee, doesn't the froth make your keyboard all sticky, Adolph?

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C6SdnbsROJ453dTXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com ...
> <johnny@.> wrote in message
> news:ECa2m.17307$Xl4.2509@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>>>
>> Liberals don't base their decisions on law.
>>
>> The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
>> dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored
>> high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's
>> sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."
>
> As everyone knows, I don't participate in the liberal-bashing and
> hatemongering that goes on as a sideshow in this newsgroup.
>
> Still, I have to point out, even I -- and I believe I'm one of the ten
> most tolerant people on earth -- don't understand a phrase like "no vested
> right to promotion" in a context like this.
>
> What does that mean? That the city should make capricious and arbitrary
> promotions based on skin color? If you don't make these decisions based
> on ability to comprehend and do the work, how would you propose to make
> them?
>
> Unless the statement is taken out of context, I think Ms. Ginburg is due
> for a drug test.
>
> Datesfat

Nah, she's due for an early retirement. Affirmative action is nothing but a
nice
euphemism for anti-white racism. It's time for a revolution, violent if
necessary.
Better to die free than live a slave to these fucking anti-white racist
cretins.

On Jun 29, 9:39�pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> c)How could you morally support something like the Holocaust?

Lebensraum?

A great political philosopher once saud that history is the record of
violent struggles between peoples.

And, so far as I know, there is no history of any other nation besides
the USA saying, "Welcome, come in and take our country, we want you to
have it, you deserve it more than we do, because we stole it from
those other people, and some other people that I never met said that
my great great grandfather was mean to your great great grandfather a
long time ago, so here, take the keys to my house and car, and my wife
and kids are at your disposal too,"

On Jun 29, 9:39�pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> b)Why do you feel that some Jews hate white people?

Why does the Talmud tell the Jews to "kill the best Gentiles"?

"ÇDoügßT" <nada@muerto.com> wrote>
> Nah, she's due for an early retirement. Affirmative action is nothing but
> a euphemism for anti-white racism.....

FWIW, Mike was well liked but only an average engineer, making a good salery
and happy being 'one of the guys'. Then a black activist organization
threatened to sue over the fact that the company had fewer black executives
than there were blacks in the general population. The company capitulated
and retained the same activists as its atty's (some call it "vig") and to
promote more blacks. Mike got two quick promotions to jobs well beyond his
"Peter Point". Two years later Mike had a heart attack and died at 40
something leaving a wife and two kids - thanks to affirmative action.

On Jun 29, 10:11 pm, Metspitzer <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt
>
>
>
> <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 29, 4:08 pm, "johnny@." <joh...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong
> >> basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court
> >> pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the
> >> higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension,
> >> essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of
> >> multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to
> >> acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded
> >> less racially skewed outcomes.
>
> >Ginsburg isn't very specific.
>
> >The city apparantly hired a consulting firm to produce
> >the test.
>
> >What substantial flaws did the city cite in their case ?
> >How and when did they become aware of these flaws ?
>
> >It's unfortunate that the city didn't bother to do their
> >homework on the test's validity until after they saw
> >the test results.
>
> >I'd really love to hear more about the actual content of
> >the test, what specific flaws it may contain and what
> >changes the city now thinks it should have made.
>
> >I think virtually anybody in the position of the guys who
> >took it and qualified would be strongly tempted to sue.
> >I know I would be.
>
> I don't understand why they don't just get the NAACP ...
[more blather]

For anybody actually interested in the legal arguments,
this is a decent summary of the majority position.
Note that minority candidates did pass but were not
the top scorers as required by the city charter.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...f306159785.txt

They hired a professional, experienced and presumably
qualified firm to construct the test who went to some lengths
to assure fairness and compliance with the law.

It looks as if the city painted themselves into a corner by
trying to implement a policy of affirmative action which was
in potential conflict with both the city charter and agreements
between the city and the firefighter's union.

A different test or promotion standard might have been
acceptable beforehand, but throwing the test away
afterwards based soley on test scores wasn't.

B. Jackson wrote:

> It's really a shame

Plonk!

Interestingly enough, I have a friend who stated that
this same kinda shit went on at FedEx because hispanics/latinos
couldn't score very high on FedEx's standardized test.


"?" <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5de6ed6d-2596-4056-8d9b-60a88f1aa4e9@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901608_pf.html
>
> High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
> Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia
> Sotomayor
>
> The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters
> in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of
> their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others
> that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
> nomination for the high court.
>
> The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
> African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
> promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal
> laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used
> to show discrimination.
>
> In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
> discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination
> against another.
>
> The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what
> happened in New Haven.
>
> "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on
> race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
> qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
>
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and
> said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights
> Act.
>
> She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored
> to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she
> said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
>
> On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the
> court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of
> the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute
> film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a
> long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign
> finance reform act.
>
> Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments
> on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next
> October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to
> the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally
> called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
>
> The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to
> have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before
> the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement
> of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.
>
> Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.
>
> The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that
> Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her
> background influence her decisions, even though her role has been
> somewhat inflated.
>
>
> The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and
> government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it
> certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good
> case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines
> presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on
> minorities.
>
> The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those
> who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be
> flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions
> have not been made public.)
>
> The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been
> violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due
> process.
>
> District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went
> to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified
> under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its
> flaws.
>
> The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
> where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard
> the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the
> questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed
> and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although
> it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it
> unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in
> the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."
>
> Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other
> judges only by noting the short opinion.
>
> Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test
> is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that
> the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not
> just by looking at the results.
>
> In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required
> strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they
> were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less
> discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.
>
> The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of
> Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim
> brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against
> simply because of the color of their skin.
>
> The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in
> sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and
> studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had
> tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute
> to work.
>
>

On Jul 3, 4:03*pm, "ÇDoügßT" <n...@muerto.com> wrote:

> Interestingly enough, I have a friend who stated that
> this same kinda shit went on at FedEx because hispanics/latinos
> couldn't score very high on FedEx's standardized test.

Usenet has a standardized test too; top-posting being one of the
criteria.

TFB!

"Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5288a2e-0b07-4c8a-9e14-31449c84c453@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 4:03 pm, "ÇDoügßT" <n...@muerto.com> wrote:

> Interestingly enough, I have a friend who stated that
> this same kinda shit went on at FedEx because hispanics/latinos
> couldn't score very high on FedEx's standardized test.

Usenet has a standardized test too; top-posting being one of the
criteria.