As soon as the Ricci case came down, I knew which way the USSC was going to rule, and I even called the votes. It wasn't that hard, in fact it was obvious so I make no special claim.

And as soon as the vote came in I called what's happening right now, I knew that a black firefighter would eventually sue, and that the city was going to lose both cases, they lost the whit suite and the'll lose the black suit.

How fucked up is that? I mean, really, the language fits the insanity of it. It's just plain fucked up.

This USSC is the worst court in my lifetime, I'm in my mid forties. The conservative side of the court is so openly conservative they don't even pretend anymore. Kennedy, sadly, is probably the worst because the dude seems to rule depending on what side of the frickin' bed he gets out of in the morning. The man doesn't know what he believes.

This outcome was clear from the day the Ricci case hit the news. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this shit coming, and in fact I did see it coming. That a majority of the justices on the United States Supreme Court didn't see it coming when even I did worries the shit out of me.

And we're stuck with these raving assholes for decades.

Heh, heh. Well, just pray for some early onset sickness and death I guess ;- ).

I think Roberts is both younger and health conscious. But Thomas and Scalia are both rather tubby...

The question you're not addressing is whether "disparate impact" is actually a legitimate standard with regards to equal protection. Imagine for a moment that we applied "disparate impact" to the NBA. What we'd discover is that judging players on their physical abilities and teamwork overly favored black players. So should we attempt to address this imbalance by requiring a written exam?

How do you see the case on its MERITS, quite apart from how you view the USSC? Ricci decision looks like a correct one to me and I'd venture to say, most people.

Why should the Court not have ruled as it did?

reJoinder:

How do you see the case on its MERITS, quite apart from how you view the USSC? Ricci decision looks like a correct one to me and I'd venture to say, most people.

Why should the Court not have ruled as it did?

I could live with the ruling if they hadn't of left the larger question unanswered, in that the city was screwed either way. How do you think the ruling on the new case should go?

The chances of the city being found liable in this suit are essentially 0%.

The question is not who was or wasn't discriminated against, The question should be who is the most qualified, who would be the fire captain who would be the best bet to insure the safety of the people of New Haven.

Just about all the firefighting depts in the country use the sort of oral test given in this case and don't use any written multiple choice tests because they are considered non predictive of future behavior under the enormous pressure firefighters face. So a solution that would satisfy all parties would be to have the candidates for promotion be interviewed and given an oral exam by some fire dept in some other city.

PS: do you think the person who did the best on the driving license written test will actually be the best driver?

kati:

The question is not who was or wasn't discriminated against, The question should be who is the most qualified, who would be the fire captain who would be the best bet to insure the safety of the people of New Haven.

You've made this point over and over, but you're wrong: who was or was not discriminated against is EXACTLY the point. It's not the job of the courts to determine the best way to select which is the best method to select which firefighters get promoted.

However, it IS the concern of the courts to hear complaints that the method used violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If the court finds that the method violates the law, it is unacceptable. If the court finds that it does not violate the law, then it is permissible. Whether or not a selection method which does not violate the law is the most effective way of determining the best candidates for promotion is not the business of the court.

Maybe you're right that a written test is a poor determinant of a better fire captain or lieutenant. I suspect that you are. However, while New Haven does not have the right to be discriminatory, they do have the legal right to be stupid.

Vegemighty:

However, while New Haven does not have the right to be discriminatory, they do have the legal right to be stupid.

They also have the right to scrap a test and not promote anyone. Which is what they did to Ricci.

They also have the right to scrap a test and not promote anyone. Which is what they did to Ricci.

Actually, I think you'll find that they don't have that right!

I'm wondering how crapping the test and not promoting white people was wrong, but scrapping the test and not promoting a black person is right.

Prior to the case, they did have that right. It was only through the court going against years of precedent that New Haven actually did not have that right. That is fine. It is not the first time that the court has done so. Had the poster used the past tense, he would have been correct.

stateoflove_N_Trust:

Prior to the case, they did have that right. It was only through the court going against years of precedent that New Haven actually did not have that right. That is fine. It is not the first time that the court has done so. Had the poster used the past tense, he would have been correct.

Finally, someone that gets it.