Sotomayor Overturned

[TomAiello 25]

Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm not seeing where she says the test was biased. Can you point that out, specifically?

Thanks.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

HOW is a test biased towards a skin color?

The big problem in this case is that it's not clear if/how the test was biased towards skin color. New Haven asked a company to create a test. They used it for the first time and saw that white candidates were passing at a rate twice that of black ones. They assumed that this was going to get them sued based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so they dumped the test. This resulted in them getting sued by the white candidates for violation of the same Title.
Was the test biased due to race in some way? Undetermined. It could be biased or it could have just been a statistical anomaly. New Haven probably should have looked a bit closer at why there was such a variance in scores before they scrapped the whole test.
All that being said, it's not a cut and dry case, so I don't think it's easy to say Sotomayor was wrong to rule the way she did when the case was before her.

Yes, it is clear and it was cut and dried. The test is one based on the most used (nationally) fire fighter training material. If that is race based then fire has a mind of it own.

Add to that, one of the fire commissioners when to the city council and threaded them with law suits to promote those he supported. The commissioner was a minority and was support his cronies.

This is a case of good old boy politics using race to push an agenda to promote those who were not as qualified as another candidate. This ass of a public servant used his position and threat of racist base law suit to make a council cower to him so he could reward those who supported him .. Ginsburg speaks to this in her ruling as do all of the other writing.

This should have been a 9 to 0 vote. period

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm not seeing where she says the test was biased. Can you point that out, specifically?

Thanks.

I'm not saying the test was biased. In fact, it's irrelevant if the test was biased or not. What's relevant is what the city's lawyer stated, which I bolded and which Ginsburg apparently agreed with. Specifically, again:

Statistical imbalances alone, Ude correctly recognized, do not give rise to liability. Instead, presented with a disparity, an employer “has the opportunity and the burden of proving that the test is job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

It was on the city of New Haven to prove that the test was job-related. They had a vote to determine if they could do that. The vote split 2-2 after hearing from a slew of experts, so the test that was held wasn't certified, because they weren't sure they could prove that the test was job-related.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I'm not saying the test was biased. In fact, it's irrelevant if the test was biased or not.

Which is exactly the minority position, and what the debate is about.

Does it matter if the test was biased?

Majority says "yes." If the test was unbiased, that matters.

Minority says "no." It doesn't matter if the test was biased or not--all that matters is that it gave a result "we don't like" (i.e. that is not consistent with our social engineering goals).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

Did you know that there were two other judges with Sotomayor who agreed with her summary ruling and the per curiae which followed it? Did you know that 7 out of 13 judges voted to not send this case to a jury trial? Do you know what this has to do with the legal arguments of this trial, because I sure don't?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

Did you know that there were two other judges with Sotomayor who agreed with her summary ruling and the per curiae which followed it? Did you know that 7 out of 13 judges voted to not send this case to a jury trial? Do you know what this has to do with the legal arguments of this trial, because I sure don't?

Well, I have a good feeling of how the SC felt about it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Minority says "no." It doesn't matter if the test was biased or not--all that matters is that it gave a result "we don't like" (i.e. that is not consistent with our social engineering goals).

No, all that matters is that the test returned a result with a racial disparity and that that disparity could be caused by an aspect of the test which doesn't directly test skills needed for the job. That finding is based on the precedent from Griggs v. Duke Power, a Supreme Court case from 1971. I don't know a whole lot about law, but it was my understanding the precedent is kinda important.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

It was not the "Sotamayor court." Summary judgment is only issued by a trial court - in this case, the US District Court. Then, the 3-judge Court of Appeals panel, of which Sotomayor was 1 member, unanimously affirmed that trial court's summary judgment.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

It was not the "Sotamayor court." Summary judgment is only issued by a trial court - in this case, the US District Court. Then, the 3-judge Court of Appeals panel, of which Sotomayor was 1 member, unanimously affirmed that trial court's summary judgment.

Again, it was all of the justices she worked with. And again, I will defer to all 9 of the SC justices opinions on what THAT court did.

AND it WAS the court she was on!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

It was not the "Sotamayor court." Summary judgment is only issued by a trial court - in this case, the US District Court. Then, the 3-judge Court of Appeals panel, of which Sotomayor was 1 member, unanimously affirmed that trial court's summary judgment.

Again, it was all of the justices she worked with. And again, I will defer to all 9 of the SC justices opinions on what THAT court did.

AND it WAS the court she was on!

So what? You haven't substantively advanced the discussion one iota.
All you want to do is pot-shot at Sotomayor for the sake of doing it. Yawn.

[redlegphi 0]

I'm missing where Ginsburg says that the summary findings should have gone to the jury in her dissent. Could you point it out for me?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Minority says "no." It doesn't matter if the test was biased or not--all that matters is that it gave a result "we don't like" (i.e. that is not consistent with our social engineering goals).

No, all that matters is that the test returned a result with a racial disparity and that that disparity could be caused by an aspect of the test which doesn't directly test skills needed for the job.

"Could be" or "was"? You're saying that if there was any chance at all that the test was biased, then we must assume it was? Even though the overwhelming evidence is that the test was unbiased?

Did the minority ever point out any "aspect of the test which doesn't directly test skills needed for the job?" Or can you point out such an aspect?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 18]

There is now so much on the web I cant find the article with quotes I am looking for. I did find this however

Quote

"This really was a unanimous opinion that the lower courts were in error. They just disagreed on what the error was," said Gail Heriot, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, speaking on a conference call hosted by the conservative Federalist Society.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090629-713183.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

It was not the "Sotamayor court." Summary judgment is only issued by a trial court - in this case, the US District Court. Then, the 3-judge Court of Appeals panel, of which Sotomayor was 1 member, unanimously affirmed that trial court's summary judgment.

Again, it was all of the justices she worked with. And again, I will defer to all 9 of the SC justices opinions on what THAT court did.

AND it WAS the court she was on!

So what? You haven't substantively advanced the discussion one iota.
All you want to do is pot-shot at Sotomayor for the sake of doing it. Yawn.

So What? Is this an admission you were wrong?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[grimmie 173]

I have been in the fire service for 30 years. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. In Washington, DC about 25 years ago a similar testing problem was encountered. A number of black FF's were promoted over qualified white FF's after a test was challenged. It was such a major problem that there were fist fights in the firehouse. A large number of white deputy chiefs retired at the same time in disgust, leaving the department in a serious "brain drain" because of their operational knowledge. Similar issues have been going on across the nation for years involving promotions and initial hirings. It will be interesting to watch how promotional tests will be written and administered in the future for public safety positions. Here in California we take a state issued test for promotions. There is also a city portion that our chiefs write. Then there is a practical portion on teaching, role playing for employee problems, a fire simulator and an interview. Years ago it was all fire and EMS related questions. Now it is all legal issue related, Incident Command System and employee issues, with a small amount of fire department knowledge thrown in.

[TheAnvil 0]

SCOTUS got it right on this one. Finally. After Kelo and the recent Chrysler ruling I was beginning to despair. This ruling will have the racists and bigots on the left just up in arms, I'm sure.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I have been in the fire service for 30 years. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. In Washington, DC about 25 years ago a similar testing problem was encountered. A number of black FF's were promoted over qualified white FF's after a test was challenged. It was such a major problem that there were fist fights in the firehouse. A large number of white deputy chiefs retired at the same time in disgust, leaving the department in a serious "brain drain" because of their operational knowledge. Similar issues have been going on across the nation for years involving promotions and initial hirings. It will be interesting to watch how promotional tests will be written and administered in the future for public safety positions. Here in California we take a state issued test for promotions. There is also a city portion that our chiefs write. Then there is a practical portion on teaching, role playing for employee problems, a fire simulator and an interview. Years ago it was all fire and EMS related questions. Now it is all legal issue related, Incident Command System and employee issues, with a small amount of fire department knowledge thrown in.

First off, thanks for what you do.

Second, I know if my house is on fire or my ass is about to get fried, the only thing I care about is having the best. Not just for me, but for those who throw it all out there FOR me!

Thanks again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[grimmie 173]

You are welcome, it has been a great career. I also wanted to add...
Every fire chief knows who he wants to promote before the applications are even handed out. The test is just the formality.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

You are welcome, it has been a great career. I also wanted to add...
Every fire chief knows who he wants to promote before the applications are even handed out. The test is just the formality.

Ya

Been there been screwed by that.......

That said however, I have seen promotions (not in the fire fighting world) where the company promoted some one whom everybody knew would fail any formal tests but, had a good feel that this person was well suited for the job.

One of the best two bosses I have ever had.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Did you know that the Sotomayor court issued a summary judgement. And in her ruling she stated a jury would most likely find for the complaintants?

Did you?

It is addressed in both opinions of the SC ruling. Not favorably either.

I have the opportunity to review the 90 or so pages of opinion, concurrences and dissent. A couple points:

(1) All opinions agreed that the summary judgment should not have been granted. By my math, it was 9-0 that she did it the wrong way.

(2) I think the concurrences and dissent are fascinating reads about race based politics. I was shocked. Not surprised, though.

(3) This case is an example of the 1964 Civil Rights Act leaving employers (even municipalities) in no win situations. New Haven was gonna get sued no matter what, no bad deed goes unpunished. When you are an employer, no good deed goes unpunished, either.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

(1) All opinions agreed that the summary judgment should not have been granted. By my math, it was 9-0 that she did it the wrong way.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this description.

First, as I discussed above, it was not Sotomayor who "did it" either the wrong or the right way. It was the trial judge which granted summary judgment to the City; then, by an un-signed, unanimous decision by a Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel that included Sotomayor and 2 other judges, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment.

I also respectfully disagree with the description of the 4-Justice dissenting opinion (of the SCOTUS). Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, joined-in by 3 other Justices, notes:
(a)The trial court had applied an existing standard, consistent with prior Second Circuit decisions, when it granted summary judgment to the City;
(b) The SCOTUS's majority opinion decision now sets a new standard;
(c) Instead of simply ruling for the firefighters outright and terminating the case there, the SCOTUS should have simply enunciated the new standard and then remanded the case back to the trial court to re-try the case, applying the new standard set by the SCOTUS in this case.

...but in any event...
(d) In her opinion, if the SCOTUS did issue a case-terminating decision, it should have ruled in favor of the City.

Also, Rushmc is wrong in his assertion that even Ginsburg said that "a jury would have most likely find for the complainants [firefighters]". Ginsburg noted that Justice Alito's concurring opinion states that a jury COULD have chosen to rule for the firefighters, and that she would not oppose a remand back to the trial court for further proceedings fair to both sides. In doing so, she was not saying that summary judgment had been unfair; rather, she was saying that IF the proper standard to apply was actually the new one set by the SCOTUS in this case, THEN it would be fair to both sides to remand the case back to the trial court to re-try the case, applying the new standard.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Minority says "no." It doesn't matter if the test was biased or not--all that matters is that it gave a result "we don't like" (i.e. that is not consistent with our social engineering goals).

No, all that matters is that the test returned a result with a racial disparity and that that disparity could be caused by an aspect of the test which doesn't directly test skills needed for the job.

"Could be" or "was"? You're saying that if there was any chance at all that the test was biased, then we must assume it was? Even though the overwhelming evidence is that the test was unbiased?

Did the minority ever point out any "aspect of the test which doesn't directly test skills needed for the job?" Or can you point out such an aspect?

"Could be". It's the duty of the city to validate that the test is, indeed, completely job-based. They didn't do that prior to administering it. Therefore, the test wasn't valid. Therefore, they'd have been sued by the African-American firefighters.
And yes, Ginsburg's dissent noted several ways that the test didn't directly test skills needed for the job and also noted better, less-discriminatory tests that are in use (in Bridgeport, for example).

[Ron 7]

Quote

"General" is the opposite of "specific."

You clearly didn't bother to read my reply.

Quote

No, because the test was biased against them, and they could not be fairly evaluated by the test.

Again, you clearly didn't bother to actually read my post. How is flashing a picture of a mal and expecting them to react correctly biased? They either know the material or they don't.

You wouldn't let them jump... Good for you!!! Now you are just as guilty as the rest.

Quote

If they had previous skydiving experience, and they could pass a test in Spanish concerning everything that was covered in the FJC - would you still claim that they're not good enough to skydive, based on their inability to pass a test in English or Japanese?

Nope, cause they would pass the test I suggested. Again, it is clear you didn't bother to read my post.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this description.

Upon reassessment, I agree with you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.