• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

Hi Redress,

Thanks for such a wonderfully honest response.

Do you share with me, however, the sense of sadness of it all? Here we are forty five years after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and still neither you (a liberal) nor I (a conservative) can point to a "race neutral" test.

What do you suppose that tells us?

Do you suppose that perhaps the epitaph used so frequent by those on the left in reference to those of us on the right as "racist" might be misplaced or at least ill-advised?

After 45 years and billions of dollars and the intellectual capacity of the finest elites of the nation isn't it possible that the wrong question is being asked or the wrong approach to the problem is being taken? After 45 years of effort at EEO, is it yet time to ask if there is a "better way"? Or do you continue to support the idea that we should continue milking this same old cow? If the latter, then to what end? 85% support in the general election, perhaps?

In your response you said "Your assumption is that a whole group of people of one ethnicity chose not to prepare properly for an exam, while another ethnicity prepared properly." which is not quite accurate. What I asked was for the data that supports the contention that the results obtained can only be the consequence of a faulty test. I am not sure I saw in your response where you addressed that question.

Continuing to look forward to your response.
Simple atoms in the great void.

Absolutely I share your sadness, and I think my party tends to attack the wrong problems, only slightly mitigated by what I see as the other party either not attacking the problem at all, or pointing fingers as a solution. To my mind, the biggest race problem we have now is not race, but poverty. Black people and hispanics tend to be clustered together in poor urban areas, where, being poor, the schools are not as good, crime is higher, and there are not enough good role models. Until we fix that problem(probably with education), there will always be issues with race like this.

For your other question, I did admit there are other possible reasons for the results, I just find them unlikely.
 
That is actually the goal as I understand it. What the law tries to prevent, and that caused all this, is that due to cultural differences, blacks do better on some types of tests, less well on others. The idea is to create race neutral tests. The city was worried that the results where an indication that the test was not race neutral.

WTF? This doesn't make any sense and seems racist in itself.

There is not a single test that a black man cannot perform as well as a white man if he studied equally and knows his ****.
 
I dunno if I got any real good answers here.

1) The test the city did use was thought to be race neutral before it was administered as I remember it. Part of the problem that the city faced, as I understand it(note I am not a lawyer), was that results can be used to decide if a test is race neutral. In other words, if a test passes more whites than blacks who are otherwise equally qualified, it suggests that the test is the problem. I am not sure if I exactly agree with that idea, but that is what I understand the city interpreted the law as meaning.
This is utter nonsense. Just because by chance the white folks happened to outperform the black folks in this test, somehow the test is racist? Give me a friggin' break. Its a test, I don't understand how being tested on your proficiency and knowledge in the job you plan on recieiving a promotion in can be viewed as racist. Period. Its impossible.


2) You phrase the question poorly. It is equally possible to create a test that blacks do better on than whites. I think this will change, as society becomes more homogeneous. Right now there are large pockets of primarily white areas, primarily black areas, primarily hispanic areas. As such, these areas tend to have distinct cultures and dialects.
This isn't about culture and dialect. Every one of the individuals taking this test should have been well versed in the cultural knowledge necessary to perform well on this test: Firefighting.


4) Your assumption is that a whole group of people of one ethnicity chose not to prepare properly for an exam, while another ethnicity prepared properly. This seems more unlikely than that the test may have been flawed. In the absence of more evidence, I find the likelihood that blacks simply do not prepare as much for a test as whites unlikely, especially since I know of no complaints as to the black firefighters being less skilled. In either case, we are making assumptions and guesses.
....as well as painting all those who took the test as "whites" "blacks" "hispanics" instead of realizing that real people are behind the test, and taking the test. In this case those who happened to be black, happened to not perform well. I'd be willing to bet there were whites who failed the test as well.


Note that this does not directly impact on the reason for the city throwing out the tests(they threw them out due to fear of a possible lawsuit by minority firefighters), nor actually on the ruling of SCOTUS.
Yeah, with the NAACP and folks like Al Shartpon around, who can blame them? :roll:
 
Until we fix that problem(probably with education), there will always be issues with race like this.

Yep. Fixing the problem requires people stepping up and being PARENTS as opposed to sperm donators and incubation tanks.
 
WTF? This doesn't make any sense and seems racist in itself.

There is not a single test that a black man cannot perform as well as a white man if he studied equally and knows his ****.

Yes, things like history, geography, and the Appalachian Mountains are important. But that’s why we have sections that test this knowledge. The texts in reading comprehension should either be truly random across cultures, class, religions, and backgrounds, or they should be community specific.

In New York, for example, this would mean test texts that focus on things like reggeaton, Chris Brown, the Yankees, what’s the hottest show on BET, the cooking of popular Puerto Rican meals, what happens in Prospect Park at night, and the elements of MySpace. In other words, if what we’re trying to do is test reading comprehsion, we can’t also be confusing our students about subjects they might never have encountered before. Right off the bat, reading the long, strange name of some random mountain range tells our students, “No, you don’t know about this.” And, “Yes, this test was not made with you in mind.”

I say that these tests are racist because anyone who has administered a standardized test knows that the subject matter tends to be very educated-middle-class. And anything educated-middle-class focused is going to necessarily be biased toward whites. It’s simply how it is.
Standardized Tests: Inadvertently Or Not, They Are Racist Teacher, Revised
 
WTF? This doesn't make any sense and seems racist in itself.

There is not a single test that a black man cannot perform as well as a white man if he studied equally and knows his ****.

It's not biological, it's cultural. When you grow up around people who speak a bastardized form of the english language as an example, you will have a harder time following a standard english question.

Interestingly, in my hometown, which is both small and rural and does not have black/hispanic areas, race issues are much smaller than in urban areas with black and hispanic neighborhoods. When I grew up here, there was one black family in town, and I still know the kid from that family who was in my class in school. He feels way uncomfortable around black people from urban areas, he just does not fit in with them.
 
Yep. Fixing the problem requires people stepping up and being PARENTS as opposed to sperm donators and incubation tanks.

I do not argue this at all. It is also(as an aside) one of the areas that Obama finds important. This is something that we as white people cannot do much to help the black community out. I think what we can do is help improve education in poor areas, which helps every one living in those areas, and improves options for the people in those areas as adults.

We are getting way off topic though I fear.
 
It's not biological, it's cultural. When you grow up around people who speak a bastardized form of the english language as an example, you will have a harder time following a standard english question.
OMFG now we have to print tests in ebonics? You have got to be ****ting me this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Its called high school english class, if they refused to participate, its their own damned fault, and our professional workplaces shouldn't be dumbed down because of it.


Interestingly, in my hometown, which is both small and rural and does not have black/hispanic areas, race issues are much smaller than in urban areas with black and hispanic neighborhoods. When I grew up here, there was one black family in town, and I still know the kid from that family who was in my class in school. He feels way uncomfortable around black people from urban areas, he just does not fit in with them.

No ****, because black people in urban areas are racist mother ****ers.
 
Read an article about this in my local paper.

I heard about it here first, and noted that my local paper also used the term "reverse discrimination". Which IMO is total BS.

As to the potential (and likely) new member of the supreme court, I personally, after seeing the little bit regarding her that I have, would prefer that she not become a member of it.
 
It's not biological, it's cultural. When you grow up around people who speak a bastardized form of the english language as an example, you will have a harder time following a standard english question.

So?

If they can't speak the language properly, they fail tests that expect them to speak the language properly.

Ain't a damn thing racist here.

If they cannot do the task expected as it is expected to be performed, then they're not the right people to be doing the task.

Since Fire Chiefs have to speak, in English, to firemen, then proper spoken English and proper understanding of properly written questions in the English language is a job requirement, and people who cannot or will not learn to fulfill the job requirements are not qualified for the job and no racism is involved, merely someone's laziness to study adequately.

End of story.
 
Unfortunately Redress, it getting to be past this ol' man's bedtime so I am a'feered that this will be my last response tonight.

To remain as up-front and honest as possible, I have very little, if any, interest in the presumed "position" of any "party", but I am most interested in your own personal opinions and judgments. The SOLE purpose of a party (IMHO) is to achieve and remain in power by whatever means. Their so called "positions" on issues have little relevance to the impovement of society.

Now back to the points you raise. You identify the clustering of the "opressed groups", poverty, poor education, high crime and lack of role models. OK, let's take a look at these challenges.

Lack of role models. Clearly there are "non-oppressed" role models out there. Why do you suppose their examples are not acceptable? Is it "cultural differences"? OK, let's suppose that it is, then where shall the role models come from? Do you feel that there is a lack of "support" agency at every level of government from village to town to city to county to state to national? Do we need even more support agencies to help the "oppressed" find their role models and begin to take some small modicum of responsibility for themselves?

High crime. OK, can you make two meaningful suggestions as to how to address this issue? Quite honestly, I am at a loss. In the absence of a common culture, in the absence of a common ethic, in the absence of a common bond, in a society that glorifies "victimhood" and a concern for rights over responsibility, I honestly don't know where to start. The "oppressed" seem to show precious little interest in developing their own sense of community and completely reject any and all efforts to accept concepts from beyond the bounds of their own oppression so where would you suggest we begin to tackle this problem?

Poor education, indeed. To begin, as you have so effectively argued in this thread, we can't measure because we can't test (OH Bush (and Kennedy), what folly your no child left behind!). We have an incredibly well funded education system (compared to other countries) managed and administered by a self-interested labor union (how is that working out?) which for 55 years (Brown vs Board of Ed 1954) continues to fall back on the same old whines. Forget political parties for a moment, what would you suggest any caring citizen advocate so that we don't have to carry this burden for yet another 55 years?

And yes, you are right, poverty is a real downer. Today it is topical to recall the 1930's. Can you appreciate how many poor people there were in the country at that time? What happened to them? How might they be considered meaningful role-models? Listen, I understand that when I go on a job interview, I don't carry the badge of my racial identity in my skin color. I accept this as reality. But I must say that I remain to be convinced that more laws and more law suits and more brow-beatings of those that sit across the aisle is going to change this situation. At some point, an "oppressed people" must find the internal strength to say "OK, today I am going to start to look after myself". Trust me, anyone who does that and stumbles, for whatever reason, will find many of us "conservatives" rushing to their sides to help them back to their feet so that they can continue on their own way! That is who we are and what we believe in.
 
Hi Redress,

Thanks for such a wonderfully honest response.

Do you share with me, however, the sense of sadness of it all? Here we are forty five years after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and still neither you (a liberal) nor I (a conservative) can point to a "race neutral" test.

The SAT's were race neutral when I took them. Not one single question about life in da hood, no ebonics spelling, nothing but the straight English every student was expected to learn regardless of who their daddy was. If they were American citizens, they were expected, on that test, to have a minimum understanding of English, and that was that.

If a given race failed to perform on a statistically equivalent basis with other races, it wasn't the test's fault.

Jeez, hang it up people. The assumption that the TEST is racist if a certain demographic group does significantly worse on a language or math section of the test just defies logic. Certainly, it's possible to write a test that could play on the racial stereotypes and deliberately generate score disparities. But it does not logically follow that all tests with racial disparities in outcome are necessarily racially biased, but that is the argument the EEOC put forth, that is the argument the bigoted Latina Vagina concurred with, and that is the argument the USSC disposed of.

The men who failed the New Haven Fire Chiefs exam failed for one reason.

The dumb ****s didn't study enough.

There will be another test for Chief some day again. If they study, maybe they can pass it.

Any of you foolish enough to want to have the Fire Chief's test in your city dumbed down so people who don't study can pass it?

After 45 years and billions of dollars and the intellectual capacity of the finest elites of the nation isn't it possible that the wrong question is being asked or the wrong approach to the problem is being taken? After 45 years of effort at EEO, is it yet time to ask if there is a "better way"? Or do you continue to support the idea that we should continue milking this same old cow? If the latter, then to what end? 85% support in the general election, perhaps?

Racism is over in America. Can't we finally just tell the brothers that failed that THEY failed because they didn't do enough to pass, or are we going to be forced forever to make excuses for the failures of others and accept fourth rate as the only rate allowed?
 
Unfortunately Redress, it getting to be past this ol' man's bedtime so I am a'feered that this will be my last response tonight.

To remain as up-front and honest as possible, I have very little, if any, interest in the presumed "position" of any "party", but I am most interested in your own personal opinions and judgments. The SOLE purpose of a party (IMHO) is to achieve and remain in power by whatever means. Their so called "positions" on issues have little relevance to the impovement of society.

Now back to the points you raise. You identify the clustering of the "opressed groups", poverty, poor education, high crime and lack of role models. OK, let's take a look at these challenges.

Lack of role models. Clearly there are "non-oppressed" role models out there. Why do you suppose their examples are not acceptable? Is it "cultural differences"? OK, let's suppose that it is, then where shall the role models come from? Do you feel that there is a lack of "support" agency at every level of government from village to town to city to county to state to national? Do we need even more support agencies to help the "oppressed" find their role models and begin to take some small modicum of responsibility for themselves?

High crime. OK, can you make two meaningful suggestions as to how to address this issue? Quite honestly, I am at a loss. In the absence of a common culture, in the absence of a common ethic, in the absence of a common bond, in a society that glorifies "victimhood" and a concern for rights over responsibility, I honestly don't know where to start. The "oppressed" seem to show precious little interest in developing their own sense of community and completely reject any and all efforts to accept concepts from beyond the bounds of their own oppression so where would you suggest we begin to tackle this problem?

Poor education, indeed. To begin, as you have so effectively argued in this thread, we can't measure because we can't test (OH Bush (and Kennedy), what folly your no child left behind!). We have an incredibly well funded education system (compared to other countries) managed and administered by a self-interested labor union (how is that working out?) which for 55 years (Brown vs Board of Ed 1954) continues to fall back on the same old whines. Forget political parties for a moment, what would you suggest any caring citizen advocate so that we don't have to carry this burden for yet another 55 years?

And yes, you are right, poverty is a real downer. Today it is topical to recall the 1930's. Can you appreciate how many poor people there were in the country at that time? What happened to them? How might they be considered meaningful role-models? Listen, I understand that when I go on a job interview, I don't carry the badge of my racial identity in my skin color. I accept this as reality. But I must say that I remain to be convinced that more laws and more law suits and more brow-beatings of those that sit across the aisle is going to change this situation. At some point, an "oppressed people" must find the internal strength to say "OK, today I am going to start to look after myself". Trust me, anyone who does that and stumbles, for whatever reason, will find many of us "conservatives" rushing to their sides to help them back to their feet so that they can continue on their own way! That is who we are and what we believe in.

We are getting way off topic. Start another thread and point me to it and I will happily talk you to death on this topic.
 
We are getting way off topic. Start another thread and point me to it and I will happily talk you to death on this topic.

How is your discussion with atomsNvoid off topic?

It is a related side issue, true, but it is related to the topic of discussion in this thread. At least IMO.
 
Now back to the points you raise. You identify the clustering of the "opressed groups", poverty, poor education, high crime and lack of role models. OK, let's take a look at these challenges.

Lack of role models. Clearly there are "non-oppressed" role models out there. Why do you suppose their examples are not acceptable? Is it "cultural differences"?

Must be. Clarence Thomas is derided as an "Uncle Tom" (by people who haven't read Uncle Tom's Cabin. Steroid shooting athletes are lauded, as well as former athletes who've turned to murder as a new career.

OK, let's suppose that it is, then where shall the role models come from?

A family has to choose who the child's role models will be, up to a certain age, anyway. The ideal role models are ....Mommy and Daddy, living TOGETHER in the same house, without abuse of any sort. Then there are the outside RM's. Athletes and musicians and gangsters aren't, shall we say, ideal. But it's up the family and the child. Can't be imposed by no honkey.

High crime. OK, can you make two meaningful suggestions as to how to address this issue? Quite honestly, I am at a loss.

Easy. End the ridiculous citywide bans on firearm ownership and concealed carry, and quit demoninzing the so-called "Saturday Night Specials". A woman with a cheap .22 handgun in her pocket is a thousand times safer than a woman with a $500 Blackberry. For some reason muggers and rapists aren't afraid of cell phones, but an angry woman with a gun? Watchout.

Poor education, indeed. To begin, as you have so effectively argued in this thread, we can't measure because we can't test (OH Bush (and Kennedy), what folly your no child left behind!). We have an incredibly well funded education system (compared to other countries) managed and administered by a self-interested labor union (how is that working out?) which for 55 years (Brown vs Board of Ed 1954) continues to fall back on the same old whines. Forget political parties for a moment, what would you suggest any caring citizen advocate so that we don't have to carry this burden for yet another 55 years?

Gee, how many people know that Thomas Sowell was a public school graduate from a poor black neighborhood? You see, that was before the elites started fixing education, so teachers actually taught and students were expected to learn.

At some point, an "oppressed people" must find the internal strength to say "OK, today I am going to start to look after myself". Trust me, anyone who does that and stumbles, for whatever reason, will find many of us "conservatives" rushing to their sides to help them back to their feet so that they can continue on their own way! That is who we are and what we believe in.

Well, the answer to your question is that the Oppressed elected their Messiah, and they're waiting to be Saved. DIY is simply not in their vocabulary. Most of them probably never even heard the song.
 
It's not biological, it's cultural. When you grow up around people who speak a bastardized form of the english language as an example, you will have a harder time following a standard english question.

I grew up speaking a bastardized form of English; "yorn", and, "chunder" and terms such as that. I never had a problem passing standard English tests, unless the tests were above my level of education, of course.
 
....

Yeah ... that is sort of a valid point.

Even I have to admit you're making sense there.

Oh well.

Sotomayor got slapped across the face by the SCOTUS. I suppose that is enough.... for now!

She really didn't get slapped across the face. Both sides went out of their way to avoid commenting on the panel's opinion.

those who are insisting the pending appointee is racist because the sc, by the narrowist of margins, refused to uphold a ruling in which she relied on legal precedent, would seem to instead prefer a judge who legislates from the bench. sotomayer refused to do that

the lower court rulings, the decisions upheld by sotomayer, hinged on adhering to the concept of "disparate impact"

the sc has now moved us away from that standard, creating new precedent to be followed

new haven did all of the right things
it made sure it did not discriminate by hiring a specialist to construct the exams in a way which would not confer a preference on minorities
but when it found that the test results still fell outside the "disparate impact" standards, new haven found that it could not (then) lawfully rely on the test results to effect the promotions. had it moved forward and done so, new haven would have been subject to a discrimination lawsuit by the minorities, who were not promoted because they did not score high enough on the tests to merit consideration. the concept of "disparate impact", however much the disparate impact could be found unintended, offered a (then) sound premise for a discrimination suit by the low scoring minority applicants, should the promotions been awarded to the high scoring majority applicants
new haven was caught in a classic catch 22
the law prevented the city from doing the right thing
and the sc has now revised the presedent so that reason can now prevail over "disparate impact"
in no way does that sc decision indicate that sotomayer was, or is, biased
what this matter does show is that sotomayer subscribes to the law when making her decisions

This is because "disparate impact" and by proxy most of Title VII are a load of ****.

I agree. Sotomayor is a pathetic choice for a Supreme Court Justice. Her only qualification is her latina vagina.

No, she's quite plainly qualified. Sorry.

One of the judges ginsberg I think stated in her dissent that the firemen "had the courts sympathy"....

Courts are not suppsed to have "sympathy".....

She was referring to the white firefighters, and was pointing out their position to make a point.

Their ****ty starting pay and "one of the highest costs of living in the nation" should have been a hint.

Seriously, who wants to be a cop in New York?

..... TV fans...thats who.

Or people who grew up in new york I guess.

LTs in the NYPD make $120k and retire after 20 years with a half pension.

It's not biological, it's cultural. When you grow up around people who speak a bastardized form of the english language as an example, you will have a harder time following a standard english question.

Interestingly, in my hometown, which is both small and rural and does not have black/hispanic areas, race issues are much smaller than in urban areas with black and hispanic neighborhoods. When I grew up here, there was one black family in town, and I still know the kid from that family who was in my class in school. He feels way uncomfortable around black people from urban areas, he just does not fit in with them.

As true as this may be, I believe that the proper way to deal with this is to do everything possible to increase early education and change the culture.

What helps the community more: increased funding for elementary reading programs, or taking some 18 year old who should be attending Penn State and sending him to U Penn instead?
 
As true as this may be, I believe that the proper way to deal with this is to do everything possible to increase early education and change the culture.

What helps the community more: increased funding for elementary reading programs, or taking some 18 year old who should be attending Penn State and sending him to U Penn instead?

Yes, I think that was what I was trying to say. Education to give the next generation more options to get out of the ghetto kinda thing.
 
This is because "disparate impact" and by proxy most of Title VII are a load of ****.

This is the usual rhetoric passed by dishonest business owners who do not want to be held responsible for their actions.

No, she's quite plainly qualified. Sorry.

Ummm... no.

Her racist statments disqualify her.

She was referring to the white firefighters, and was pointing out their position to make a point.

If her point is that she hates white people, she made it.

LTs in the NYPD make $120k and retire after 20 years with a half pension.

So? The exam is flawed and unfair. Throwing out the results was the cities way of avoiding a lawsuit by the minority candidates.

As true as this may be, I believe that the proper way to deal with this is to do everything possible to increase early education and change the culture.

Indeed. This is correct but I do not see it happening.

What helps the community more: increased funding for elementary reading programs, or taking some 18 year old who should be attending Penn State and sending him to U Penn instead?

Funding education is never a bad thing.

Being a racist, activist judge is a VERY bad thing.
 
LTs in the NYPD make $120k and retire after 20 years with a half pension.

Find me someone who starts out in the NYPD as an LT and you'll have a point.

I said starting pay.
 
RightinNYC View Post said:
She really didn't get slapped across the face. Both sides went out of their way to avoid commenting on the panel's opinion.

No matter how the left tries to spin it, she did get slapped in the face. Sotomayor wrote a single paragraph upholding the lower court's ruling. That was it. She did little to discuss the law or her reasoning in her summary paragraph.

The dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS on the other hand would have sent it back to the lower court to consider a facet of the law that neither them nor Sotomayor took into consideration.

SCOTUS's dissenting opinion did not agree with Sotomayor at all. She agreed with the lower court's rulilng, SCOTUS did not.
 
This is the usual rhetoric passed by dishonest business owners who do not want to be held responsible for their actions.

So you support Title VII and disparate impact?


Ummm... no.

Her racist statments disqualify her.

If her point is that she hates white people, she made it.

Oh, nevermind, I see that you think Title VII and disparate impact are ridiculous.

So? The exam is flawed and unfair. Throwing out the results was the cities way of avoiding a lawsuit by the minority candidates.

Wait - nevermind, I see that you think Title VII and disparate impact are great.

Indeed. This is correct but I do not see it happening.

Funding education is never a bad thing.

Being a racist, activist judge is a VERY bad thing.

And now you're back to hating it again.

Hmm...with all those contradictions, one might almost get the impression that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Find me someone who starts out in the NYPD as an LT and you'll have a point.

I said starting pay.

Because there's low starting pay, that means that nobody would ever want to be a cop in NYC?

Medical residents make $40k for working 80 hour weeks - does that mean only a moron would want to become a doctor?

No matter how the left tries to spin it, she did get slapped in the face. Sotomayor wrote a single paragraph upholding the lower court's ruling. That was it. She did little to discuss the law or her reasoning in her summary paragraph.

Sotomayor didn't write ****. She was on a 3 judge panel that wrote everything.

The dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS on the other hand would have sent it back to the lower court to consider a facet of the law that neither them nor Sotomayor took into consideration.

SCOTUS's dissenting opinion did not agree with Sotomayor at all. She agreed with the lower court's rulilng, SCOTUS did not.

This is hardly a benchslap:

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in passing takes the view that the panel’s opinion followed prior Second Circuit precedent. Then the dissenters (in a footnote noted by Jonathan Adler that cites the district court’s discussion of existing Second Circuit precedent) elect not to remand — which would have made the reversal 9-0 — and instead explain why the city should prevail, albeit on a slightly different ground. But they avoid making their disagreement with the court of appeals particularly explicit (the difference is the thin one between whether the city reasonably believed it would be engaging in disparate impact discrimination and whether a court would agree with that belief), and they clearly agree with the bottom line of the Second Circuit, though they disagree with the standard seemingly set by prior Second Circuit precedent.

...

In the end, it seems to me that the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci is an outright rejection of the lower courts’ analysis of the case, including by Judge Sotomayor. But on the other hand, the Court recognizes that the issue was unsettled. The fact that the Court’s four more liberal members would affirm the Second Circuit shows that Judge Sotomayor’s views were far from outlandish and put her in line with Judge Souter, who she will replace.

What Ricci says about the Supreme Court’s views of Judge Sotomayor | SCOTUSblog
 
Because there's low starting pay, that means that nobody would ever want to be a cop in NYC?
No No No. You don't understand. Its my personal preference that keeps me from understanding why someone would want to work in that stinkin' city in the first place. The low pay is just the kicker. I personally prefer smaller cities and towns to ginormous cluster****s like NY.
 
Back
Top Bottom