Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of New Haven Firefighter Frank Ricci
The Supreme Court just issued its eagerly anticipated ruling in Ricci v. Destefano, ruling that New Haven, Connecticut violated the rights of white firefighter Frank Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs by throwing out the results of an officer test where African American applicants scored poorly. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision, with the Court splitting along conservative-liberal lines.
Xeones|6.29.09 @ 10:21AM|#
That's what you get for using up all your Ps typing your username, Brooks.
Chet Lewis|6.29.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Folks here might get a kick out of this Onion-style newspaper parody, which makes fun of Sotomayor's lower court decision, which the Supreme Court just reversed: "Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/lawyers-advise-fire-departments-to.html
|6.29.09 @ 10:28AM|#
"In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white
firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But
they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons
received promotions in preference to them."
Just because you work hard and play by the rules doesn't give you a
right to anything if you have the wrong skin color.
|6.29.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Of course some may see this ruling as evidence that we need a more racially diverse SCOTUS. A wise latina is exactly what we need.
|6.29.09 @ 10:34AM|#
But they had no vested right to promotion.
Just fucking die, Ginsberg.
The "vested right" lies in demonstrated
competence, not skin color or judicially defined
"fairness".
|6.29.09 @ 10:35AM|#
What the hell bizarro world have we entered where the SCOTUS gets it right twice in the span of a week?
|6.29.09 @ 10:37AM|#
What is so disturbing about Ginsberg's dissent is that you know she never would have written it if the plaintiffs were not white males.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 10:37AM|#
wait a minute, if Ginsburg wrote that about a private
corporation, you guys would be all over that.
they weren't entitled to a promotion. full stop. anyone here think
they were?
|6.29.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Nick,
It sort of feels like they are buttering us up for something really
freedom-killing. Probably a refuse to incorporate the individual
right of the 2nd.
Joe|6.29.09 @ 10:42AM|#
This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized descrimination. It is not fair that more whites passed the test.
|6.29.09 @ 10:45AM|#
As much as I think New Haven is retarded, I don't see the constitutional mandate here. If the town doesn't want to promote based on competence, it's stupid, but what right has been violated?
|6.29.09 @ 10:47AM|#
@TheAngryOptimist
They were entitled to a promotion by virtue of the merit of their
work, and by virtue of the scores they achieved on the tests put
out before them by the agency offering the promotion. They passed
the test. If they had been ethnic minorities who all passed, and
the testing criteria were changed because no whites had passed, the
inherent racism would be painfully clear.
The firefighters did not have inherent entitlement, they had
meritorious entitlement, which is legitimate, and what we all
strive for. Ginsberg is 100% wrong.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 10:50AM|#
"meritorious entitlement"? you're telling me that you believe
that people are entitled to a job? that they have a right to it
that forces the employer to hire them?
Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of federalism,
negative rights and home rule in the interest of sticking it to
affirmative action. come on now.
|6.29.09 @ 10:53AM|#
This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized descrimination (sic) ..... at least against underperforming black men.
creech|6.29.09 @ 10:53AM|#
What good are our laws when they are so ambiguous that nine learned judges keep splitting 5-4 over the constitutionality of said laws? How the hell is the layman supposed to know how to follow laws that can't be easily interpreted?
|6.29.09 @ 10:55AM|#
TAO,
I think the issue is not whether they had a vested right to
promotion, but the reasons for which the decision not to promote
were made. That reason was racially discriminatory. Ginsburg's
argument is a dangerous red herring which distracts from the core
issue of discrimination.
|6.29.09 @ 10:56AM|#
The only solution to this thorny issue is to hold a lottery. No job-specific qualifications necessary.
|6.29.09 @ 10:56AM|#
I would say their right to promotion vested when they fulfilled all of the requirements set forth for promotion
Peter|6.29.09 @ 10:57AM|#
"[T]he Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as
simply components of a racial, reli-gious, sexual or national
class." Miller v. Johnson, 515
U. S. 900, 911 (1995)
|6.29.09 @ 10:58AM|#
"nine learned judges "
Ya know, I am not nearly as educated or smart as most posters here
and that made me giggle.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 10:59AM|#
The only solution to this thorny issue is to hold a lottery.
No job-specific qualifications necessary.
The only solution is to give tests that are unquestionably
job-related and then go with the results no matter who passed. Did
that happen here? Who knows, noboy has seen the test questions.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:00AM|#
RBS - if you fulfill all of the requirements for a promotion at
your private job, and you don't get it, do you believe you should
have government recourse?
The real issue here is in the legislature: Under Title VII, New
Haven was fucked coming and going. Bitching about either decision
the SCOTUS made is the true red herring here. The problem is Title
VII, not tiny little New Haven's attempt to comply with the
law.
|6.29.09 @ 11:00AM|#
TAO,
There is some contract issues due to good faith, right? They were
told "If you do A then B," not "if you do A and are the right
color, Then B."
But it shouldn't be on a federal level.
|6.29.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Jeepers creepers, did any of you actually read the opinion? The
Court didn't even consider any constitutional claims.
It's based pretty narrowly on Title 7 disparate impact law, the
wisdom or legality of which was not discussed.
Under the law, which again was not up before the court for review,
if there's a disparate impact in govt jobs, there has to a good
job-related reason for it, or it gets thrown out.
Today's decision: The Plaintiffs showed that the test was
job-related, and the City failed to show any good reasons why it
wasn't.
The dissent saw the evidence another way.
Both the majority and the dissent, however, operated under the
disparate impact framework, which is what most of you are bitching
about and WHICH ISN'T DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE.
|6.29.09 @ 11:03AM|#
But they had no vested right to promotion.
So, if a fire department never promoted any blacks, that would be
OK because they had no vested right to promotions, either?
Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to
them.
Clearly, though, the intent was to deny some of the qualifying
whites their promotions in order to give those slots to minorities.
Arguably, there is a ripeness issue here, but c'mon, would anyone
say this case wasn't ripe if the people who passed the test and
were denied promotion were black?
|6.29.09 @ 11:03AM|#
TAO,
"Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of
federalism, negative rights and home rule in the interest of
sticking it to affirmative action."
Agree entirely with your assessment, but since we can't have it
both ways, what would you prefer?
Seems like this is the lesser of two evils (at least in the short
run).
|6.29.09 @ 11:03AM|#
TAO,
I see your point that New Haven got the shaft - that said this is a
substantive issue. The fed's broke it with Title VII, now they own
the problem.
booya|6.29.09 @ 11:05AM|#
This is a tough one ... on one hand, the New Haven case
demonstrates how stupidly affirmitave action is applied. It was
patently unfair and discriminatory. On the other hand . . . we are
talking, loosely, about federalism and negative rights.
Here is where I draw a line . . . equal protection under the law
that extends to all Americans. Even though laws may be senseless or
stupid, every American should have a reasonable expectation that he
will be protected under them along with every other citizen. Ergo,
discrimination is discrimination, be it against black or white.
|6.29.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Both the majority and the dissent, however, operated under
the disparate impact framework, which is what most of you are
bitching about and WHICH ISN'T DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE.
Could you expand a bit? I don't get it... Not a legal eagle
here...
|6.29.09 @ 11:06AM|#
If you are told promotions will be made from members of a
"qualified" pool of candidates, and promotions are made from a
completely different group of people, there is justification for
dissatisfaction.
Should every single dissatisfied person seek recourse in the
federal courts? I'll let you decide.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:07AM|#
domo - he's basically saying Title VII is the problem. And he's being dickish about it.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:08AM|#
Seems like this is the lesser of two evils (at least in the
short run).
That's the way I see it too. If it went the other way, where all
that mattered in claims such as this are the results, then what is
to stop a city from just asking what race every applicant
associates with, and then picking an even number of each? The
results aren't racially biased but the methods are. Personally I
would rather worry about the methods than the results.
|6.29.09 @ 11:09AM|#
yeah got that - just wondered if someone could provide a quick summary of the disparate impact framework and what the problem is...
|6.29.09 @ 11:10AM|#
I guess the majority was just showing its empathy with the
firefighters who were denied promotion, and the minority didn't
show any empathy at all.
Odd, then, that the empathy nominee got overturned by the empathy
majority, no?
alan|6.29.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of
federalism, negative rights and home rule in the interest of
sticking it to affirmative action. come on now.
It is a bit of a dodge to claim states rights when the reason for
the township to throw out the test was to be in compliance to
previous federal court coercion.
Entitled to a job? Of course not, but that is not a necessary
condition to establish that discrimination occurred in regard to
equal protection under the law. That too is a bit of a dodge from
our lovely honor Ginsberg who was so right in last week's
case.
Civil rights is one the most all encompassing areas of the Federal
government's mandate. If the original Civil Rights Act is
legitimate law than these fire fighters certainly have a case. It
would be liberals engaged in pretzel logic not to recognize this to
be the necessary outcome.
|6.29.09 @ 11:13AM|#
The only solution is to give tests that are unquestionably
job-related and then go with the results no matter who passed. Did
that happen here? Who knows, noboy has seen the test
questions.
34) After breaking down the front door of a burning building, you
see a bucket of delicious fried chicken on the counter. Which
action is most appropriate?
A) Ignore the tasty goodness
B) Look for the biscuits and mashed potatoes
C) Look in the refrigerator for a Mickey's Big Mouth
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:14AM|#
domo - think of it this way: adverse impact describes a hiring
practice that is facially neutral but substantively discriminatory.
Analogous to a poll tax or a literacy requirement like in Jim
Crow-days.
Both sides evaluated this case from that framework, and like I was
saying, New Haven was boned by adverse impact with either decision
it made (If it went with the test, the test has an adverse impact
on blacks. If it changes the requirements, the change has an
adverse impact on whites).
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:16AM|#
Might an alternative examination process have identified the
most qualified candidates without creating such significant racial
imbalances?
Maybe someone could explain this quote from Ginsberg to me, but how
can there be more than one set of "most qualified candidates"? If
you change the test to not have such a disparate impact, then some
of the candidates previously determined to be qualified will be
rejected won't they? The only solution I see would be to expand the
number of promotions so that everyone moved up a notch.
|6.29.09 @ 11:18AM|#
TAO,
given a certain number of promotion slots, its a zero-sum game.
therefore any action that would change the racial mix of promotions
has an adverse impact. Are the intentions of the action not taken
into account?
Rich|6.29.09 @ 11:18AM|#
> What good are our laws when they are so ambiguous that nine
learned judges keep splitting 5-4 over the constitutionality of
said laws? How the hell is the layman supposed to know how to
follow laws that can't be easily interpreted?
Ah HA!
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:18AM|#
34) After breaking down the front door of a burning
building, you see a bucket of delicious fried chicken on the
counter. Which action is most appropriate?
A) Ignore the tasty goodness
B) Look for the biscuits and mashed potatoes
C) Look in the refrigerator for a Mickey's Big Mouth
Exactly, if someone doesn't say ignore the tasty goodness they
don't deserve to be a captain or lieutenant.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to
them.
That is something all cities do when there is an open case against
them with regard to promotions. Filling the slot leaves them open
to more attacks therefore they assign some poor bastard to operate
in the position temporarily and never promote him. It's a pretty
common tactic.
kinnath|6.29.09 @ 11:18AM|#
There was a good summary of the test over at Slate last week.
The test was written by a consulting firm that had been hired to
ensure the creation of a race-neutral test.
Success on the test seemed to be driven in large part by detailed
understanding of vast quantities of fire-fighting manuals -- as
such it favored the "firebugs" -- the third and fourth generation
firefighters that spent their free time reading manuals.
The opponents of the test said that it had no direct relationship
to the ability of an individual to "lead" a group of firefighters
through a real emergency, particularly the 50% or better of
emergencies they get called to that have nothing to do with fires
(i.e., extracting people from car wrecks).
Overall, it was a clusterfuck, but that didn't make the results of
the test "racist" and there was no valid reason to throw out the
results.
The city of New Haven will have to start over and make a better
test next time around.
|6.29.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Of course some may see this ruling as evidence that we need
a more racially diverse SCOTUS. A wise latina is exactly what we
need.
Troll troll is troll.
|6.29.09 @ 11:19AM|#
The only solution I see would be to expand the number of
promotions so that everyone moved up a notch.
If everyone is promoted, then no body is. then its just a pay
raise.
|6.29.09 @ 11:19AM|#
What, I'm being dickish to pontificating commenters who didn't
even read the couple page syllabus before hitting "post"? Pardon
me, I'm sick of the uninformed media, including this magazine,
making a big deal out of really narrow Supreme Court decisions, and
claiming they say things the most cursory glance will tell you they
do not.
The law--Title 7--says that disparate impacts are illegal without
good reason--you have to show that what causes them is job-related.
In essence, the court ruled that the test WAS job-related (by
saying that the city had failed to show that it wasn't). Thus,
their actions in trying to comply with civil rights law in fact
violated it, because those actions themselves were discriminatory
without good reason.
The law is unchanged and non-job-related disparate impacts are
still illegal. This case means that people challenging disparate
impacts will need better evidence that what they're challenging is
not job-related.
|6.29.09 @ 11:20AM|#
TAO- No I do not. I also would not have a problem if the firefighters were not promoted for reasons other than what actually happened. If the city had a better reason for denying promotion than not enough african americans passed so it must be unfair, then that would be fine. Anyway I was having some fun with Ginsburg's use of the term vest.
|6.29.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Bad cut n' paste, sorry guys. But that link is pretty funny in a WTF?!? sort of way.
|6.29.09 @ 11:24AM|#
The city of New Haven will have to start over and make a
better test next time around.
Unfortunately, the definition of a "better test" seems to be one
that somehow produces a Racially Appropriate outcome.
Because, what we are talking about here isn't making good
promotions, its making promotions that won't get challenged in
court.
|6.29.09 @ 11:27AM|#
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016366.html
How do you peruse that site without destroying your keyboard? I can
only find it funny in a weird, disturbing way.
Made it halfway through the comments and there wasn't one
"WTF, why would anybody do this?" sort of comment.
|6.29.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Can they just not give the test and say "OK, the top five whites, five Hispanics, and five blacks get the fifteen promotions." It's upfront, clearly establishes the parameters of the now undefined quota, and disallows any shenanigans after the test.
|6.29.09 @ 11:28AM|#
SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like dads and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in the near future.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Bad cut n' paste, sorry guys. But that link is pretty funny
in a WTF?!? sort of way.
That makes me think of The Boy Called It from high school
psychology. Their weird Swedish names make it hard for me to
determine if by "feminist parents" they mean lesbian?
kinnath|6.29.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Unfortunately, the definition of a "better test" seems to be
one that somehow produces a Racially Appropriate
outcome.
Another issue was the decision to promote the top 5 (or some
another number) based solely on the test score. So the black guy
that was a fraction of a percent behind the white guy above him was
automatically excluded.
Potential remedies include usin the test to identify the pool of
qualified candidate which are then narrowed down based upon other
factors . . .
The bottom line is they took decision-making out of the process by
using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the situation as bad
or worse than actually interviewing candidates and making value
judgements.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 11:30AM|#
At every stage of the job analyses, IOS,
by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to
ensure that the results-which IOS would use to develop
the examinations-would not unintentionally favor white
candidates.
I wonder why no other court even considered this.
alan|6.29.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Just a suggestion, Mr Root. Warn us when you are linking to pdf files. I'm back to using Firefox, and it handles them like Ziggy Stardust handles a fat chick.
|6.29.09 @ 11:31AM|#
RBS,
SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like dads
and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in the
near future.
The parents are from Sweden, so I assume it means something
non-gendered there.
Beside, why raise a kid without gender? Ryker's
going to fuck them either way.
|6.29.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Nooge, I wasn't trolling, just making a snarky prediction. After reading her "wise latina" comment, I don't know that any other info is necessary to disallow her from the court.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:33AM|#
given a certain number of promotion slots, its a zero-sum game. therefore any action that would change the racial mix of promotions has an adverse impact. Are the intentions of the action not taken into account?
The intentions are taken into account. I haven't read the decision,
but I would imagine that New Haven's version of Al Sharpton is what
swung the case this way.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Sixty-six percent of the
panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members.
Jesus it gets even more ridiculous. The only thing they didn't do
is hire all minorities to do the testing.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:34AM|#
SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like
dads and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in
the near future.
If it's a boy and they teach him to pee sitting down, or worse yet,
only take him in the women's bathroom with them way after he is too
old then all that says to me is future sexual predator. It's like a
"ticking-time-bomb", Obama should do something!
Maybe it's just me being sexist, but I don't see how "feminist"
parents could want to hide their daughter's gender since women are
obviously so much better than men, so it has to be a boy IMO.
alan|6.29.09 @ 11:36AM|#
How do you peruse that site without destroying your
keyboard? I can only find it funny in a weird, disturbing
way.
Made it halfway through the comments and there wasn't one "WTF, why
would anybody do this?" sort of comment.
My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of marriage
ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went about
describing the need for validation, and the people present,
especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their
bizarre fantasy.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 11:39AM|#
My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of
marriage ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went
about describing the need for validation, and the people present,
especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their
bizarre fantasy.
Link? Link?? LINK!
alan|6.29.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Like some cat from Japan?
Could have been describing a rather involved session of
masturbation, it is Ziggy we are talking about, after all. Yanked
his spine out after a post op, interesting twist.
|6.29.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Peter- My guess is the child is actually a boy or they probably would not be going to such great lengths to hide its gender. And yes this kid is on the fast track to a sex offender list.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Ude is a civil rights lawyer for a LBGT rights firm. Losing at that level has to a be a blow. I'm sure such views had no impact on his decision to persuade the civil board to toss out the tests.
|6.29.09 @ 12:12PM|#
they weren't entitled to a promotion. full stop. anyone here
think they were?
Their employer told them that certain actions on their part would
result in promotion. They performed those actions, and their
employer reneged on that commitment on racially discriminatory
grounds.
Sotomayor fucked up.
-jcr
|6.29.09 @ 12:19PM|#
The bottom line is they took decision-making out of the
process by using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the
situation as bad or worse than actually interviewing candidates and
making value judgements.
This is the new paradigm; evade qualitative judgements (and, hence,
responsibility) at all costs.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 12:20PM|#
They were not entitled to be promoted. They did follow all the
rules to acquire the top slots from which the promotions would be
determined.
This is one of the major problems with Title VII bullshit. There
will almost always be a disparate impact on a minority somewhere.
Such a standard is a ludicrous (not the rapper). The city was
fucked from the get go. The good part is they choose to fuck the
white guys and those guys fought back and finally someone made it
to the end of the line and showed how retarded such a standard
is.
|6.29.09 @ 12:20PM|#
This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized
descrimination.
Joe, were you trying to make a lame joke, or did you not understand
which side one?
The court struck down an attempt to discriminate on the basis of
race.
-jcr
Peter|6.29.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Sotomayor fucked up.
I still like to think that she BSed her decision in order to make
the SCOUTS decide it instead, call me an optimist, but I almost
want to like her, she reminds me of that South Park when Cartman
makes "Hennifer Lopez" out of his hand.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 12:23PM|#
he bottom line is they took decision-making out of the
process by using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the
situation as bad or worse than actually interviewing candidates and
making value judgements.
Cities do this because many have a history of discrimination based
on everything from nepotism to race.
|6.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
JCR,
I think the joke is that a simpleminded version of "racial
discrimination" is any outcome where the black person doesn't get a
leg up.
Bill|6.29.09 @ 12:28PM|#
"Entitled to promotion"?
In general terms, i.e., were they "entitled" because they has
served as firefighters for a certain number of years, or had
received good job reviews? No. Of course not.
But - they had been invited to apply, and given the opportunity to
take the requisite test, all based on the understanding that those
who met the criteria set forth - i.e., passing the test - would be
promoted.
They did what was required. It's very much like a contract by
performance. "If you meet these criteria and pass this test, we
will promote you to lieutenant." So you do everything they ask -
and in Ricci's case, making an extra effort and scoring much higher
than most other candidates - and they say, "oops, sorry, yes, you
passed, but too many of the wrong kind of people passed, so, sorry,
no promotion for you." Or - "oops, sorry - those guys DIDN'T pass,
so they don't get promoted - so even though you DID pass, you don't
get promoted either.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Such a standard is a ludicrous (not the rapper).
Speaking of Ludacris, it's racist that there aren't more white
rappers and black country singers. It's also racist that Adam
Morrison didn't get to play at all in the NBA finals while Kobe
played nearly the entire time.
|6.29.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Sotomayor fucked up.
Apparently, even the dissent agreed that it should not have been
summarily dismissed. So, it was a 9-0 vote that their next
colleague fucked up.
|6.29.09 @ 12:39PM|#
RC Dean - see, even so, it seems that 4 justices agreed with her conclusion, so it's not really that bad for her. You are the lawyer here, though - does it make her confirmation any less assured?
|6.29.09 @ 12:50PM|#
interviewing candidates and making value
judgements.
Come on, kinnath; in local government "value judgements" means "I
gotta promote four guys, it'll be 1)my boss's nephew, 2)that guy
the community organizers are pushing, 3)the son of the guy who
donated all that money to the mayor's election campaign, and
4)someone from the same ethnic group as the head of the city
council."
Sean W. Malone|6.29.09 @ 12:52PM|#
TAO:
The way I've always looked at it is that public entities *do* need
to be non-discriminatory.
Any government sponsored entity is paid by public money and
therefore must reflect neutral hiring & firing practices.
Private entities, on the other hand, which don't have the power to
obtain funds by force can do whatever they wish. But if the city
has a defined test used for hiring, they cannot be allowed to throw
out the results simply because the right racial mix didn't manifest
itself.
|6.29.09 @ 12:53PM|#
[5+] Bethany replied to bifemmefatale :
my cousin walked down the aisle herself and had her husband meet
her halfway. I thought that was really nice. They had other things
in the ceremony for all four of their parents to do. If I get
married, I think I'd like to do that.
Bethany could make the whole prospect that much more likely by
taking morning walks and eating fewer carbs.
|6.29.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Scalia's concurrence nails it. The problem is disparate-impact
analysis, which he notes is not an easy issue to address in
circumstances like this. That's why it was a 5-4 decision.
The solution is to get rid of "disparate impact" claims, and
require employees to prove intentional discrimination.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Peter,
Adventures in Feminist Wedding Planning
My day just got sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more
interesting.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 1:00PM|#
I think I said it here. When Sotomayor gets appointed she is going to be absolutely demolished in dissents by her fellow judges. I don't agree with what a lot of Scalia says, but I can't wait to see him wade into Sotomayor with the full force of an Italian with vocabulary and grammar skills. She is going to learn the meaning of baptism by fire.
|6.29.09 @ 1:06PM|#
You are the lawyer here, though - does it make her
confirmation any less assured?
Not at all. Her confirmation is wired in because she was nominated
by a popular President who has a large majority in the Senate. No
decision or course of decisions she could possibly have made (other
than voting to overturn Roe v. Wade) could possibly block her
confirmation.
Confirmation is about politics, not competence.
|6.29.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Peter,
And since it hasn't been linked in a while, here's my absolute
favorite thread ever from Feministing. Below is my favorite
comment from it:
Aerik Knapp-Loomis said:
My first thoughts about Knocked Up always go to when the star of the movie "misinterprets" a whine of "Hurry up and do it" to skip putting on a condom on altogether instead of hurrying up with putting it on. As far as I'm concern, rape by negligence. She didn't want unprotected sex and he purposely made it into unsafe sex.
Of course, the best part is what's not there. Not one commenter
disputes this comment. Not one.
kinnath|6.29.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Cities do this because many have a history of discrimination
based on everything from nepotism to race.
This is what I call the process of institutionzlized
stupidity.
The government hires someone and puts that person in a decision
making position (thinks judges, administrators, managers, so on,
and so forth). A pattern of undesireable decisions arise (due to
some combination ofdiscrimination, politics, incompentence, and in
some cases, criminal intent). The government then institutes a
rulebook that must be followed to the letter without interpretation
or variation by a replacement decision maker. Hilarity ensues.
JB|6.29.09 @ 1:18PM|#
I love all the racists who want easy tests for minorities. They think minorities are so stupid they can't get by on their merits. Awful racism.
JB|6.29.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Sugarfree,
Do you date women? Reading Feministing can't be helpful in that
regard.
hmm|6.29.09 @ 1:28PM|#
This is what I call the process of institutionzlized
stupidity.
Five minutes in civil service and you quickly realize that
stupidity crosses all boundaries and exists in all planes and
dimensions. Something that has struck me as odd is that I can
personally point to three local governments with entirely black
departments in municipalities that are at least 50/50 for race
composition, no one even bats an eye about it.
JB|6.29.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Date women? I'm married to one. [shudder]
Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your wife
look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the
grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?
Peter|6.29.09 @ 1:29PM|#
blatant, undisguised vagina hate
I seriously think I could make an entire tracklist for a CD out of
quotes from that site. I just need an album name...
Sean W. Malone|6.29.09 @ 1:38PM|#
"Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your
wife look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the
grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?"
ZING!
|6.29.09 @ 1:47PM|#
"Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your
wife look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the
grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?"
Yikes. Although I primarily read Feministing for the comedy. I've
nominated it several times for Best Humor Site to the Bloggys.
|6.29.09 @ 1:51PM|#
brotherben,
My bad.
My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of
marriage ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went
about describing the need for validation, and the people present,
especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their
bizarre fantasy.
I see that he posted the link to this, but I confess I just don't
have the courage to read it.
Curious that whackos like the people who write at Feministing are
one of the reasons my wife hesitates to call herself a "feminist."
Direct quote from my wife reading Feministing: "Are these people
insane, or are they retarded?"
Peter|6.29.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Are these people insane, or are they retarded?
D) Both B. and C.
SugarFree answered that a few hours ago.
JB|6.29.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Curious that whackos like the people who write at
Feministing are one of the reasons my wife hesitates to call
herself a "feminist."
I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one of my
early questions. That gets rid of a whole host of whackjobs.
Peter|6.29.09 @ 2:37PM|#
I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one
of my early questions. That gets rid of a whole host of
whackjobs.
Do you just walk away if they say yes? I think I would try to mess
with them a little. Go to a nice restaurant and then order for
them. "I'll have the 2 lb. stake, and a salad for the lady." Open
the door and then when they try to walk through just jump in in
front of them and drop it behind you. This sounds like an enjoyable
game to play, see how long they last through the night.
Jennifer|6.29.09 @ 2:56PM|#
There are a lot of horny and extremely lonely men on this comment thread.
|6.29.09 @ 3:17PM|#
JB,
I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one of
my early questions.
Where do you live? here in nyc, almost all girls identify
themselves thusly. The remaining question is whether they are from
the Camille Paglia I'll-fuck-who-i-want school, or the NOW school
of I'll-make-your-ears-bleed.
|6.29.09 @ 3:23PM|#
The disparate impact doctrine itself is racist. To equate disparate impact with Jim Crow era practices such as the poll tax is just idiotic.
wayne|6.29.09 @ 3:34PM|#
I followed the wedding link, and I have to say that reading about weddings is boring, even with the wacky feministing twists. I would rather talk about Ricci.
|6.29.09 @ 3:54PM|#
domo, is there an I'll-fuck-you-until-your-ears-bleed school of feminists? Because if there is, I may move to New York.
HBD|6.29.09 @ 4:21PM|#
At some point, as the facts come in, people are going to have to choose between treating people as individuals or ensuring equal outcomes for racial groups. Which will it be?
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 5:25PM|#
There are a lot of horny and extremely lonely men on this comment thread.
I can only assume that you're a frigid maneater.
Or do unwarranted, nasty assumptions only run one-way?
bizarro|6.29.09 @ 10:08PM|#
The fact that Blacks are so over-represented in professional sports shows the racist criteria used in hiring players for the NBA, NFL and MLB. These organizations must be prosecuted and "race-neutral" criteria must be employed to hire players.
|6.30.09 @ 1:50AM|#
here in nyc, almost all girls identify themselves
thusly
Not to the men they actually hope will call them after the
one-night stand. ;-)
Chicks in new york all act tough to their girlfriends with that
feminism crap. It's an act.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245