• 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!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

I call b.s. on two counts. Firstly fire fighters work with children all the f-ing time both on the job via schools and community programs AND via actual firefighting where understanding some child psychology definitely could come in handy. Remember this isn't a standard fire fighting test. It was a test for promotions to higher level positions such as Lieutenant within the dept.

Second, THEY WERE F-ING TOLD WHAT TO STUDY. As in, "study this book, these chapters."




Stop that you racist! :2razz:
 
The problem is affirmative action and quotas messed the works up in the first place. Probably initially to even become a fire fighter white folks had to perform to a certain bar to get "in." Black folks probably had to perform to a lower bar to make the cut. Now take that group and give them all a Lieutenants test and it's common sense that the whites are going to do better because they performed better back in the day when they became firemen. It's not rocket science. But aiming to justify, rationalize, and embrace these policies does take a bit of mind-bending gymnastics I'm sure.
 
OMG that reads like the most wrong headed ass backwards bunch of dribble I've ever read in my life. Jeeezus. No wonder we're so screwed up.

Dinner on the oven, so got time to say: for once we agree 100 %. There is so much stupidity in all this, I hardly know where to begin.
 
They fault is in the way she dismissivley ruled here.

Given her racist anti-white comments, a pattern develops.

How did she rule against the law? I am reading in amongst making dinner at the moment, but so far, it does look like the law is at fault. Thanks again for the link.
 
Second, THEY WERE F-ING TOLD WHAT TO STUDY. As in, "study this book, these chapters."

that would make sense but again, show me where it says the New Haven test answers were in a study guide?
 
1) The ability to read is not important to a child's successful learning.

True. All they have to do is recognize the word "DEMOCRAT" and vote accordingly and the teacher's unions are happy.

2) A child's level of emotional intelligence is highly related to how well she can control her impulses.

The standard pronoun to be used in English when referring to both male and females as individuals in a mixed group is "his". Therefore this question demonstrates a sexual bias and is WRONG.

3) Emotional intelligence is learned early in life and does not change once adulthood is reached.

That does explain Obama's popularity among the masses. Certainly reason had nothing to do with it.

4) A child's level of emotional intelligence is independent of the child's ability to learn in school.

False. They're only required to hate Goldstein and the teacher's unions and Democrat party leadership will be happy.
 
Last edited:
Other firefighters, who
believed the tests were fair, also spoke in support of the
certifying the results. See, e.g., Testimony of Michael
Blatchley, id. at 75 (“[N]one of those questions were not in that
study material. Every one of those questions came from the
material.”).

and later in the document from someone else....


However, he generally “felt the questions were
relevant for both exams,” and believed that the New Haven
applicants were advantaged over examinees in other locations because they were instructed exactly which chapters from the
study materials would be on the tests. Id. at 36.

http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/Judge Arterton re Summary Judgment 09-28-06.pdf
 
What does her sex and race have to do with her qualifications? You are making an assumption that her character was not an important factor.

Well, it was her character that prompted her to say that a female hispanic judge will judge better than a white male judge. So her character is inherently racist and chauvinist.

Yet she was nominated anyway.

What's that say for the character than nominated her?
 
As I understand the argument(and I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt), the rules in place where that the tests had to be race neutral. Since the result of the test suggest that it was not race neutral(ie, whites did better), the results had to be thrown out. I think this is one of those cases where what is right is going to be subservient to the law as written. If the law is written that results indicate whether a test is race neutral or not, then this case ends with justice for no one.

So, the test was "race neutral". I can't claim to having any kind of special "white knowlege", so I can't see anyone writing a test to exploit it.
 
Heh, I was almost there:

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a
selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex,
or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty
percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will
generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as
evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as
evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).

Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant’s exam
the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6%
and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other
words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the
pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio
(“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is
presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC
Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a)
Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain’s exam pass
rate for African-Americans and Hispanics (see supra note 7), the
pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that
of minorities and thus by either party’s statistic an AIR far
below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.
 
The question for a judge is what the law reads. We do not want "activist judges" who make the law themselves do we?

"We" don't. "We" didn't vote for any Messiah, either.

However, "they" do, and they voted for their Messiah. Now their Messiah is appointing bigoted activist judges, as expected. Fortunately, this broad is replacing someone just like her, so nothing will change on the USSC. It's really a shame that a so-called Constitutional law perfessor could nominate a thing like her, but it's what we all expect from the Messiah.

"We" expect is because we know the Messiah is a fraud and a enemy.

"They" expect it because they are easily led and fairly stupid when it comes to the uses of the power they've granted their Messiah.
 
Again, this is as I understand it, and I may be mistaken(though I don't think I am).

The way the law is written, whether the test is race neutral is determined by the result, ie if blacks do not do well on the test, the law says it is not race neutral.

The whole case is stupid. I worry that no one is going to get what they should, and justice is not going to be served. I just am not sure that this is Sotomayer's fault.

So you're saying that if a test is given on basic arithmetic, and too many blacks fail the test, it's the test that's the problem and not the fact that the blacks can't do arithmetic?
 
So you're saying that if a test is given on basic arithmetic, and too many blacks fail the test, it's the test that's the problem and not the fact that the blacks can't do arithmetic?

That is entirely unlike what I wrote. You are intentionally bating, and I am not interested.
 
More from the ruling:

Plaintiffs’ argument boils down to the assertion that if
defendants cannot prove that the disparities on the Lieutenant
and Captain exams were due to a particular flaw inherent in those
exams, then they should have certified the results because there
was no other alternative in place. Notwithstanding the shortcomings in the evidence on existing, effective alternatives,
it is not the case that defendants must certify a test where they
cannot pinpoint its deficiency explaining its disparate impact
under the four-fifths rule simply because they have not yet
formulated a better selection method.

In other words, in this part, the plaintiffs case was weak.
 
I cannot find specific examples from the New Haven test but, if a firefighter test asked for the chemical breakdown of a specific type of plastic, that answer would favor applicants with an education in college level chemistry, which might favor white applicants.

No. It will favor people who can answer the question.

If people need to go to college to answer the questions and the questions need to be answered to get promoted to fire chief, then it's the people who choose to go to college who get the jobs. If people choose not to go to college then they have no standing to argue that the test was at fault. All that can be shown is that they made bad choices and lost out. Tough for them, but they made the choice.

The purpose of the test is to find those candidates best trained for the job. The test is saying that Joe Black isn't trained enough, and instead of arguing that the test is unfair, the little whiny bastard should put his nose to the grindstone and get the education he needs to meet the standards.

Don't you clowns have the least shred of a bit of apprehension at the thought of the lives you're putting at risk when you continually lower standards to meet your unrealistic assumption that black men only fail because whites are out to get them?

Remember the Baake decision? The one where Baake sued that he was discriminated against because he was better qualified for that seat in med school than the black man the school seated because of Affirmative Action? Yeah, the black guy graduated and became a purveyor of vitally needed liposuction services in Compton. That career came to an end when he sent a patient home who later died of internal bleeding.

Lower standards, the natural comcomitant of always blaming the white guy.

Tests can be devised to weed out minorities, it's a remnant of Jim Crow that still exists.

What has to be demonstrated is that the test in question was deliberately arranged to that purpose. The mere fact that black people fail it in droves is not in itself evidence to that effect. That fact merely proves that blacks weren't qualified to be fire chief.
 
That is entirely unlike what I wrote. You are intentionally bating, and I am not interested.

No, I'm intentionally pointing out that the fact that just because a bunch of people fail a test isn't evidence that the test is racist.
 
Ok, I got to the appeal court ruling, and what a shock. here it is in full:

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

This is somewhat controversial for reasons this quote explains:

The panel was criticized by Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes for adopting in full the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton without any elaboration or affirmation, something that is usually reserved for clear-cut, uncomplicated cases.

Note that there is far from universal criticism of the ruling, with another judge saying that if they 3 judge panel agreed with the original ruling in all it's specifics, "why not affirm it".

Source for followup information: High court candidate’s ruling scrutinized
 
No, I'm intentionally pointing out that the fact that just because a bunch of people fail a test isn't evidence that the test is racist.

A claim I have never made, nor is it what the court ruled.
 
246. Thus, it is necessarily
undisputed that, had minority firefighters challenged the results
of the examinations, the City would have been in a position of
defending tests that, under applicable Guidelines, presumptively
had a disparate racial impact.

"presumptively"?

One can state explicitly that if blacks can't pass the fire chiefs test that it has a specific and demonstrated disparate racial impact.

Guess what?

So what? Who cares? The issue should be then why are blacks failing the test. Assuming that the test is at fault misses the real issue, doesn't it? The issue is that blacks are leading lives that leave them unprepared for promotion and advancement. Blaming the test or the test givers misses the real issue, namely that the blacks have to change their lifestyle if they want to compete.

The playing field is level. I mean, would it be racist to have a 10,000 meter race and all the blacks zoomed past the whites, because the blacks stayed in training for the race while the whites stayed home studying for the firechief's exam?

So, if the blacks don't stay in training for the firechief's exam, that's their problem, the playing field was level, they didn't bother to train for the event.
 
"presumptively"?

One can state explicitly that if blacks can't pass the fire chiefs test that it has a specific and demonstrated disparate racial impact.

Guess what?

So what? Who cares? The issue should be then why are blacks failing the test. Assuming that the test is at fault misses the real issue, doesn't it? The issue is that blacks are leading lives that leave them unprepared for promotion and advancement. Blaming the test or the test givers misses the real issue, namely that the blacks have to change their lifestyle if they want to compete.

The playing field is level. I mean, would it be racist to have a 10,000 meter race and all the blacks zoomed past the whites, because the blacks stayed in training for the race while the whites stayed home studying for the firechief's exam?

So, if the blacks don't stay in training for the firechief's exam, that's their problem, the playing field was level, they didn't bother to train for the event.

Judges cannot rule on that, they have to rule on what is in front of them, and the law. I do not like the ruling, but from reading it, I understand why he ruled that way, and why the appeals court agreed. By the way, that is 4 judges all agreeing that the case did not have merit from a legal standpoint.
 
A claim I have never made, nor is it what the court ruled.

Yeah, the court ruled that because there was a disparate racial impact that something had to be wrong with the test.

That's the assumption being made when groups of people fail tests these days.

Why isn't the assumption being made that the failed group of people didn't study enough?
 
Yeah, the court ruled that because there was a disparate racial impact that something had to be wrong with the test.

That's the assumption being made when groups of people fail tests these days.

Why isn't the assumption being made that the failed group of people didn't study enough?

Please prove that claim with quotes from the ruling. Note that I quoted several parts from the ruling, and the entire court of appeals ruling here in this very thread. If you are going to argue, you can at least do the same. It's not bad, the original ruling is only 46 pages.
 
By the way, that is 4 judges all agreeing that the case did not have merit from a legal standpoint.

That's called "argument from authority".

Guess what? It doesn't support anyone's claim, it means that the four judges were wrong.

The assumption that a test with a disparate racial impact is racially biased and should thus be discarded is illogical and should not be accepted as law by any court. That's not "judicial activism", that's the courts telling the legislators they 're not making any sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom