• 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

jamesrage said:
Oh wise and all knowing poster who knows so much can you please give us a summary of what the four judges said so that we may be better educated about the facts as to why some one would support racial discrimination.(sarcasm)
Click to expand...




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".....
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well my "98 percentile" mind, realized that moment walking out that door, that, no, not with "68 percentile" idiots having my back, that I no longer wanted to be nypd. :lol:
Click to expand...

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.
 
jamesrage said:
Oh wise and all knowing poster who knows so much can you please give us a summary of what the four judges said so that we may be better educated about the facts as to why some one would support racial discrimination.(sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Read it, I am not doing your homework for you. Besides, I am not a lawyer, so I am at least willing to admit I don't know enough to fully follow. What I am not doing is shooting my mouth off looking foolish.
 
Caine said:
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.
Click to expand...



I was the latter, with a long line of Irish NYPD in my family.
 
Redress said:
Read it, I am not doing your homework for you. Besides, I am not a lawyer, so I am at least willing to admit I don't know enough to fully follow. What I am not doing is shooting my mouth off looking foolish.
Click to expand...

There is nothing foolish about supporting fair employment practices, something the 4 judges who dissented were not doing.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I was the latter, with a long line of Irish NYPD in my family.
Click to expand...

The department Im working for is not in my hometown.

But I chose it because its the highest paying law enforcement agency in my state. (Yes even better than our SBI).

As of late though, I've been working on applying to my hometown, much smaller department with slightly lower pay, but I'll be more comfortable at home, providing services for a community I care about, with real NC people, instead of this yankee transplant ****hole I live in.
 
Caine said:
The department Im working for is not in my hometown.

But I chose it because its the highest paying law enforcement agency in my state. (Yes even better than our SBI).

As of late though, I've been working on applying to my hometown, much smaller department with slightly lower pay, but I'll be more comfortable at home, providing services for a community I care about, with real NC people, instead of this yankee transplant ****hole I live in.
Click to expand...




I was young, and wanted to see some action in Dinkins' New york..... :lol:
 
Supreme Court Firefighter: U.S. Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of New Haven Firefighters - Courant.com

Employment experts said the high court's decision in Ricci v DeStefano likely would cause public and private employers to more carefully search for bias free means of measuring suitability for promotion.
Click to expand...

Ok, seriously, how can a promotion exam be biased? The only way it is biased is if it asks your race. HOW ARE TESTS BIASED TO ONE RACE OR ANOTHER!!!!! It is driving me crazy.
 
Zyphlin said:
So are you saying that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are unquestionably racist simply because of their decision on this?
Click to expand...

Why is that such a far-fetched assessment? Is it really so hard to believe that "progressivism" is actually racism, even if they don't know it themselves?

The biggest thing Orwell warned against in 1984 was the utter distortion of language. That is what these PC thugs have done. They've taken racist ideology and changed its name into "progressivism" or "affirmative action". The Orwellian contortions these people use to justify what is OBVIOIUSLY racism is stunning to me.

Common sense no longer prevails in our society. We cannot bring ourselves to call a spade a spade anymore because it isn't pleasant or civil. PC language is destroying intellectual honesty in this country.

When a white man cannot get promoted simply because black men couldn't do as well on a test as him THAT IS RACIST, anyway you slice it, it is racist.
 
Ethereal said:
Why is that such a far-fetched assessment? Is it really so hard to believe that "progressivism" is actually racism, even if they don't know it themselves?

The biggest thing Orwell warned against in 1984 was the utter distortion of language. That is what these PC thugs have done. They've taken racist ideology and changed its name into "progressivism" or "affirmative action". The Orwellian contortions these people use to justify what is OBVIOIUSLY racism is stunning to me.

Common sense no longer prevails in our society. We cannot bring ourselves to call a spade a spade anymore because it isn't pleasant or civil. PC language is destroying intellectual honesty in this country.

When a white man cannot get promoted simply because black men couldn't do as well on a test as him THAT IS RACIST, anyway you slice it, it is racist.
Click to expand...
[sarcasm]
Spades are black!

You sir must be RACIST!

RACIST RACIST RACIST! *jumps up and down pointing a finger*
[/sarcasm]
 
tlmorg02 said:
Ok, seriously, how can a promotion exam be biased? The only way it is biased is if it asks your race. HOW ARE TESTS BIASED TO ONE RACE OR ANOTHER!!!!! It is driving me crazy.
Click to expand...

"It's societies fault", is what we would hear as an answer to that one.
 
Redress said:
Read it, I am not doing your homework for you. Besides, I am not a lawyer, so I am at least willing to admit I don't know enough to fully follow. What I am not doing is shooting my mouth off looking foolish.
Click to expand...

What you are doing is speculating that the four justices didn't support racial discrimination while everyone else is using common sense and logic to figure out that since it is a racial discrimination case they ruled then apparently logic would dictate those four support racial discrimination.
 
jamesrage said:
What you are doing is speculating that the four justices didn't support racial discrimination while everyone else is using common sense and logic to figure out that since it is a racial discrimination case they ruled then apparently logic would dictate those four support racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

Here, I found this nice summary of the court ruling: Analysis: Ricci, without the rhetoric | SCOTUSblog

When applied in a case involving a job test that seems to favor whites over minorities, this standard will require the employer to accept the results and implement them unless it can offer “objective” and “strong” evidence that the test was illegal because it was skewed to work against minorities, and unless it can offer “objective” and “strong” evidence that implementing the results will almost certainly bring on a lawsuit by minorities and that is probably would lose that lawsuit.
Click to expand...

This is I think the key portion. The reason the city threw out the results is because they felt they could be sued if they implemented the results. SCOTUS is saying that they cannot throw out the results unless they think they would lose the suit.

The new standards the Court has imported into the Title VII legal equation are not really specific or well-defined, so it very likely will take future lawsuits to sort out just what the new requirements mean.
Click to expand...

Oh my god, activist judges!

In practical terms, it is very likely that employers will have to go to greater lengths to assure that testing protocols are race neutral, and will have to have sounder legal advice about the risks they take under Title VII if they apply test results that have a negative impact on minority workers.
Click to expand...
 
If Sotomayer is as fair as she is ugly we have nothing to worry about cuz man dat gurl be u-u-u-ugly.
 
Redress said:
Here, I found this nice summary of the court ruling: Analysis: Ricci, without the rhetoric | SCOTUSblog



This is I think the key portion. The reason the city threw out the results is because they felt they could be sued if they implemented the results. SCOTUS is saying that they cannot throw out the results unless they think they would lose the suit.



Oh my god, activist judges!
Click to expand...

Thats the problem I have though. Promotion and hiring standards should not be race based. Period. Race should play no factor in determining who gets a promotion and who does not. It should all be merit based.
Period.
 
Ethereal said:
Why is that such a far-fetched assessment? Is it really so hard to believe that "progressivism" is actually racism, even if they don't know it themselves?

The biggest thing Orwell warned against in 1984 was the utter distortion of language. That is what these PC thugs have done. They've taken racist ideology and changed its name into "progressivism" or "affirmative action". The Orwellian contortions these people use to justify what is OBVIOIUSLY racism is stunning to me.

Common sense no longer prevails in our society. We cannot bring ourselves to call a spade a spade anymore because it isn't pleasant or civil. PC language is destroying intellectual honesty in this country.

When a white man cannot get promoted simply because black men couldn't do as well on a test as him THAT IS RACIST, anyway you slice it, it is racist.
Click to expand...

2+2=4

Unless you are a minority. :2razz:
 
Caine said:
Thats the problem I have though. Promotion and hiring standards should not be race based. Period. Race should play no factor in determining who gets a promotion and who does not. It should all be merit based.
Period.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ethereal said:
Why is that such a far-fetched assessment? Is it really so hard to believe that "progressivism" is actually racism, even if they don't know it themselves?

The biggest thing Orwell warned against in 1984 was the utter distortion of language. That is what these PC thugs have done. They've taken racist ideology and changed its name into "progressivism" or "affirmative action". The Orwellian contortions these people use to justify what is OBVIOIUSLY racism is stunning to me.

Common sense no longer prevails in our society. We cannot bring ourselves to call a spade a spade anymore because it isn't pleasant or civil. PC language is destroying intellectual honesty in this country.

When a white man cannot get promoted simply because black men couldn't do as well on a test as him THAT IS RACIST, anyway you slice it, it is racist.
Click to expand...

Yet let us be honest about "utter distortion of language" since government and/or those in power across all of the political spectrum can and have been guilty of that. Let us remember that anti-arbortion is called pro life and most pro lifers are strong supporters of capital punishment and anti-union laws are called right to work laws and child labor laws restrict the right of children to work and the worker paridise the USSR sent workers to gulags for asking for rights and the Democratic Republic of Gremany was neither a republic nor democratic and prostitutes are sex workers.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good evening Redress,

Allow me for the sake of argument to stipulate that all that you say above is true, accurate, valid and reasonable. Then allow me to ask several questions based on the position that you have stated.

1) In you opinion is it possible to "create" a race neutral test? Are you aware of any? If so, why didn't the city use those tests?

2) Will there ever come a time in which blacks do as well on some "created" test as other members of the society, so that all members of a society will be able to be tested with one test?

3) As long as the laws exist and are interpreted as you understand them, can you provide a rational for administering tests at all? Since it is only possible to determine whether a test is race neutral after the results are in, why not simply assign the desired results at random and forego the test? This would save everybody alot of effort and alot of money.

4) Can you provide a rational, intellectually sound basis for the assumption that if the results of a test turn out differently than desired by a sub-section of the society then the test must be faulty. In the absense of any data to the contrary how can an intellectually honest party not question if perhaps the testee did not adequately prepare for the exam?

I look forward to your responses.
 
celticlord said:
I am more interested in her explanation of why she sought to dispose of the matter with a perfunctory summary opinion that ignored every issue in the case.

That is her most grievous error in the Ricci case--that she utterly failed to do what appellate judges are supposed to do: interpret the law.
Click to expand...

How so?

Why do you believe she failed to interpret the law--what wording specifically in the summary opinion?
 
atomsNvoid said:
Good evening Redress,

Allow me for the sake of argument to stipulate that all that you say above is true, accurate, valid and reasonable. Then allow me to ask several questions based on the position that you have stated.

1) In you opinion is it possible to "create" a race neutral test? Are you aware of any? If so, why didn't the city use those tests?

2) Will there ever come a time in which blacks do as well on some "created" test as other members of the society, so that all members of a society will be able to be tested with one test?

3) As long as the laws exist and are interpreted as you understand them, can you provide a rational for administering tests at all? Since it is only possible to determine whether a test is race neutral after the results are in, why not simply assign the desired results at random and forego the test? This would save everybody alot of effort and alot of money.

4) Can you provide a rational, intellectually sound basis for the assumption that if the results of a test turn out differently than desired by a sub-section of the society then the test must be faulty. In the absense of any data to the contrary how can an intellectually honest party not question if perhaps the testee did not adequately prepare for the exam?

I look forward to your responses.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

3) The goal is race neutral, not quotas. As I remember it from reading the original judgment on this case, there is considerable room within "race neutral" as far how the results actually happen. In this case, only one minority passed(a hispanic interestingly enough, who was part of the lawsuit on the side of the "white" firefighters...in other words, it was white and latino firefighters who won this case), which was wildly unrepresentative of the makeup of those taking the test.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I dunno if I got any real good answers here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom