Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court -- bye bye Republican Party

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's a bit more complex than that. Here is the trial court opinion:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Here is the per curium opinion that Sotomayer was a part of affirming the trial court opinion:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...b5aaa21-0fd4-4607-882a-5ff364aea30b/4/hilite/


The short version is that the City of New Haven tossed out the test results because it properly determined that if it certified the results it would violate Title VII because the test has a discriminatory impact. The trial court opinion explains why the City acted properly and its reason for tossing out the results was not a pretext for intentional discrimination against white people. The appeals court opinion basically says that the City had no good options and, as unfortunate it may be for Ricci and the others, its actions did not violate Title VII.

1) Thanks for the links. The first was informative.

2) How do you come to the conclusion that the city 'properly determined that if certified it would violate Title VII?? From what I read, the city did not provide any evidence that the test was biased. Their only claim was 'well, not enough minorities would have gotten the promotions, therefore it must have been biased'.

 

[Socrtease]

It is valid in that you are indeed pulling out one portion of her comments and pretending there were no others.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. "


Now I know you want to see racism in that bolded portion, but given her comments prior to that portion I would disagree. I think she is trying to say that people are not going to be as clear cut as O'Connor stated. That they are going to be effected by what has occured over the course of their lives. That she hopes she would be better at dealing with issues that were a part of her life and not a part of a white mans. My guess is that she is alluding to the fact that she is hispanic and obviously female. That issues of discrimination/racism most likely are not going to be viewed the same by a person who has lived it vs. a person who typically has only read about it or experienced it second hand.

Thus endeth Asshat's lesson!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Thus endeth Asshat's lesson!

As a liar (I mean lawyer) what is your take on the CT firefighters case???

do you think the City was justified in their actions, which were subsequently upheld by the two courts?

 

[Socrtease]

She's saying it's basically impossible to separate onesself from one's heritage, and that additionally, IT"S OK NOT TO. Then she goes on to unambiguously and inexplicably assert that a latina women would somehow reach a better conclusion than a white man. It's still racism, dip.

Bullshit! you have a reading comprehension problem. She said that she would hope that a wise latina woman with much more experience would reach a better conclusion than a white man without it. Truth is, hard to be wise without experience, but accepting arguendo that two people can be wise and one without experience, the one with experience is going to reach a better conclusion.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Thanks for the links. The first was informative.

2) How do you come to the conclusion that the city 'properly determined that if certified it would violate Title VII?? From what I read, the city did not provide any evidence that the test was biased. Their only claim was 'well, not enough minorities would have gotten the promotions, therefore it must have been biased'.

The test need not be biased to have a discriminatory impact giving rise to a valid claim under Title VII. You are conflating discriminatory intent (bias) with discriminatory impact (not enough minorities would have gotten promotions). In discriminatory impact/disparate impact cases you do not have to show intent to support a claim under Title VII.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

2) How do you come to the conclusion that the city 'properly determined that if certified it would violate Title VII?? From what I read, the city did not provide any evidence that the test was biased. Their only claim was 'well, not enough minorities would have gotten the promotions, therefore it must have been biased'.

The test need not be biased to have a discriminatory impact giving rise to a valid claim under Title VII. You are conflating discriminatory intent (bias) with discriminatory impact (not enough minorities would have gotten promotions). In discriminatory impact/disparate impact cases you do not have to show intent to support a claim under Title VII.

so my original contention was correct? that she blindly accepted the cities statement that the tests were biased with no evidence needed?

 

[Cancel7]

The test need not be biased to have a discriminatory impact giving rise to a valid claim under Title VII. You are conflating discriminatory intent (bias) with discriminatory impact (not enough minorities would have gotten promotions). In discriminatory impact/disparate impact cases you do not have to show intent to support a claim under Title VII.

That's interesting, and this makes sense.

Have you been schooled enough for one day SF? It's interesting that through your unabashed ignorance I learned something too. I will admit to being ignorant of these legal matters...of course my ignorance is much narrower than yours.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The test need not be biased to have a discriminatory impact giving rise to a valid claim under Title VII. You are conflating discriminatory intent (bias) with discriminatory impact (not enough minorities would have gotten promotions). In discriminatory impact/disparate impact cases you do not have to show intent to support a claim under Title VII.

Then I do not understand Title VII well enough. Because if that is the case it is complete bullshit. Though if it is the case, then Sotomayer made the correct call in upholding the decision. Though it is still bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's interesting, and this makes sense.

Have you been schooled enough for one day SF? It's interesting that through your unabashed ignorance I learned something too. I will admit to being ignorant of these legal matters...of course my ignorance is much narrower than yours.

If you will note dearest little nut... there is a reason I asked questions of Soc and Dung on this one. I also do not understand the particulars of title VII.

I went by what I had been reading in the papers (via the internet) on the case. Dung's links laid it out in much more detail, but I still do not understand how Title VII can exist if it allows bullshit like this to occur.

 

[Socrtease]

As a liar (I mean lawyer) what is your take on the CT firefighters case???

do you think the City was justified in their actions, which were subsequently upheld by the two courts?

I really don't see how. The promotion exam was constructed by one of the best organizations for construction racially neutral exams. This is what should happen. The best of the best should be promoted and it sounds like they did everything they could make sure that there was no racial bias. My bet is the SCOTUS over turns the decision.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The test need not be biased to have a discriminatory impact giving rise to a valid claim under Title VII. You are conflating discriminatory intent (bias) with discriminatory impact (not enough minorities would have gotten promotions). In discriminatory impact/disparate impact cases you do not have to show intent to support a claim under Title VII.

are you telling me intent is not part of title vii?


nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Defendants’ motivation to avoid making promotions
based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a
political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute 12
for the decision”).
40
discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is
insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim.


from the case dungheap

 

[Bonestorm]

are you telling me intent is not part of title vii?


nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

I am telling you that you need not show discriminatory intent in disparate impact cases.

 

[Bonestorm]

Defendants’ motivation to avoid making promotions
based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a
political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute 12
for the decision”).
40
discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is
insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim.


from the case dungheap

Because the plaintiffs were not and could not advance a disparate impact theory. Their claim was a disparate treatment claim requiring evidence of discriminatory intent.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because the plaintiffs were not and could not advance a disparate impact theory. Their claim was a disparate treatment claim requiring evidence of discriminatory intent.

in other words, since they couldn't promote a black guy, they just didn't promote anyone at all, therefore there was no discrimination, since one person wasn't promoted over another more qualified?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I am telling you that you need not show discriminatory intent in disparate impact cases.

if you think the tests would fail based on discriminatory impact, you're dead wrong. the test was necessary and no one offered any other tests that were allegedly less discriminatory. you forget who the BOP would be on, the plaintiff.

in this case, the white fire fighters and the hispanic firefighter clearly have a legitimate case under title vii. the whole intent of not certifying the scores was solely because of race. the test did not violate any law. this decision will be overturned by the supreme court and then you and sotomayor can weep in your respective beers.....

 

[Bonestorm]

if you think the tests would fail based on discriminatory impact, you're dead wrong. the test was necessary and no one offered any other tests that were allegedly less discriminatory. you forget who the BOP would be on, the plaintiff.

in this case, the white fire fighters and the hispanic firefighter clearly have a legitimate case under title vii. the whole intent of not certifying the scores was solely because of race. the test did not violate any law. this decision will be overturned by the supreme court and then you and sotomayor can weep in your respective beers.....

1) Apparently, you haven't really read the trial court opinion because it details quite specifically how the test has a disparate impact and how the disparate impact rose to such a level as to meet the EEOC guidelines for disparate impact case. The issue is whether the City of New Haven's asserted reason for throwing out the results was pretextual. Given the above, the Plaintiffs could not prove otherwise.

2) I won't cry at all if the decision gets overturned. In fact, I'd be surprised if the court didn't overturn the lower court opinion in a 5-4 decision.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I really don't see how. The promotion exam was constructed by one of the best organizations for construction racially neutral exams. This is what should happen. The best of the best should be promoted and it sounds like they did everything they could make sure that there was no racial bias. My bet is the SCOTUS over turns the decision.

Thanks.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

1) Apparently, you haven't really read the trial court opinion because it details quite specifically how the test has a disparate impact and how the disparate impact rose to such a level as to meet the EEOC guidelines for disparate impact case. The issue is whether the City of New Haven's asserted reason for throwing out the results was pretextual. Given the above, the Plaintiffs could not prove otherwise.

2) I won't cry at all if the decision gets overturned. In fact, I'd be surprised if the court didn't overturn the lower court opinion in a 5-4 decision.

considering the court was not trying the disparate impact of the test, rather discussing only in dicta IF the city had to defend the test, its humorous you would rely solely on their opinion. notably absent are any other less discriminatory tests offered by defendants....hmmm...thus, the test will be upheld. or did you forget that "little" factor....

they proved discriminatory intent, the court erroneously concluded that there would be disparate impact, this was all dicta, or should have been, as the city was not defending a disparate impact case and the defendants did not offer even one altenative test....the court willy nilly decided that the city's desire to avoid a potential discriminatory impact was reason enough to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. IMO, that is an erroneous application of the law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

rallying gun owners now.

Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

I don't see this as being a contentious issue during the hearings, depending upon her answers, but it will rally the less informed gun owners.