NY Times continues to mislead on Ricci
SUMMARY: The New York Times uncritically quoted the allegation that Sonia Sotomayor's position in Ricci v. DeStefano "brought racial quotas back as a national issue." The Times did not note that the 2nd Circuit ruled -- in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues -- that precedent in interpreting an employment discrimination statute compelled the decision.
In a May 29 article titled, "Sotomayor's Focus on Race Issues May Be Hurdle," The New York Times reported that "[i]n one of the few cases dealing with" affirmative action that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor "helped decide on the federal appeals court, Ricci v. New Haven, she ruled in favor of the city's 's [sic] decision to discard the results of an exam to select firefighters for promotion because too few minority firefighters scored high enough to advance." The article went on to uncritically quote the assertion by Gary Marx, executive director of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, that Sotomayor's "nomination and the Ricci case have brought racial quotas back as a national issue." The article did not note, however, that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues and joined by Sotomayor and three other judges, that precedent in interpreting Title VII's employment discrimination prohibitions compelled the decision in the Ricci case.
The city of New Haven, Connecticut, has argued that it was not implementing "racial quotas," but rather was, in the words of SCOTUSblog contributor and H&R partner Kevin Russell, "simply trying to avoid a violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision." In addition to the 2nd Circuit ruling, Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- made comments during oral argument in which he identified what he said was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" faced by the city of New Haven in its efforts to comply with Title VII's prohibitions on employment discrimination.
As Media Matters for America documented, a May 28 Times article similarly uncritically quoted Committee for Justice executive director Curt Levey's claim that Sotomayor "had a very specific agenda" in the Ricci case without providing these facts which undermine that claim.
From the May 29 Times article:
As a lawyer, she joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, two Hispanic civil rights groups that advocate for vigorous affirmative action. As a judge, she has repeatedly argued for diversity on the bench by alluding to the insights she gleaned from her Latina background.
In one of the few cases dealing with the subject that she helped decide on the federal appeals court, Ricci v. New Haven, she ruled in favor of the city's 's decision to discard the results of an exam to select firefighters for promotion because too few minority firefighters scored high enough to advance. White firefighters who had scored well on the discarded test sued, and the Supreme Court heard arguments on the case in April.
"Her nomination and the Ricci case have brought racial quotas back as a national issue," said Mr. Marx of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
The public response, however, is hard to foresee. Few groups conducted public polls on the issue as it faded in recent years, and the results from those that did reveal a consistent ambivalence, said Michael Dimock, a pollster with the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
When asked a question about "affirmative action or preferential treatment for minorities," the public has consistently opposed the idea by a margin of two to one. But when asked about "affirmative action programs designed to help women and minorities," an even bigger majority has supported them.
Employers who do not hire the most qualified candidates do so to their own detriment
In your zeal to pretend I was missing the point you again made a fool out of yourself. The fact is you apparantly arent bright enough to know what a point IS.
Meanwhile, you ignore her full record on discrimination cases, which show her to be completely uncontroversial. Out of the 96 race-related cases she's heard, the right has found just one to complain about. Dishonestly.
Just as a feeler what do the words, well regulated militia, mean to you.
Do you apply for your conclealed weapons permit with the FedGov?
Mention any State and I'll bet I can find a whole section of their state ordinances concerning the regulation, sale, and use of guns.
I think your an overpaid straussian. Whatever your real job is.
-- doesn't understand the Griggs v. Duke Power 1971 SC case or the Civil Rights Act of 1991 solidifying Congress' intent in support of it, and
--doesn't know that "amendment" would not be abbreviated as "ammend." (in another post)
is paid to work as an attorney or to instruct law students, at any price.
That's not the point. The Court said the decision should be left up to New Haven.
The case has nothing to do with quotas. The test had flaws and New Haven is correcting it. Everyone will then take the test again and the most qualified will get promotions.
The Supreme Court is a red herring. The firefighters could clearly have appealed their case to the Supreme Court, and if they granted it certiori, they could have examined precedent, and various laws that may conflict, and in fact, have made precedent. That's their role. That's not the job of a judge on the Federal circuit.
The only conclusion that can be reached, is "pointofview" didn't bother to read anything, and simply decided to weigh in with a statement based wholly on his ignorant "point of view" of the issue...lol
Businesses and government should hire people who are qualified, yes.
But always hiring the qualified applicants who test best on some subjective exam might not get the best team of people for the job. There are other factors that should be taken into consideration, like the makeup of the city's population. It's a good thing to have a representative sampling of qualified people from the city's minorities. They don't have to be the best qualified to be qualified, you know.
And that's the issue here - the test was likely biased towards white men, since those are who did best.
So, I ask you - why would you object to a reformulation of a test so that the city can hire qualified applicants who better represent the city's population?
I want the best hired period. If the test is about fire fighting skills, I dont want the best of a particular population or sub population hired, I want the best hired period. No one who can afford to, picks the best Black, Chinese, or female surgeon. They pick the best surgeon they can afford. Why is this any different, and why is it wrong to want the best period??
My feeling is that what drove the MMfa founder into politics, David Brock, was that one side of the political debate wasn't being allowed to express their views. They were being shouted down. True it was the republican/conservatives that were being shut up, on campus.
This is a place where, baring obscenities, you can say your piece what ever it might be, and be dooly abused for it on occasion. The conversations are of the type that have been surpressed with the rise of Limbic&Son's. There are few enough places that allow the freedom for the leftwing, rightwing, and confusedwing, to have at each other on a level playing field. I've pretty much enjoyed my time here and I think most of the regulars do as well.
MMfa puts the ball in play. The trolls respond as plaintifs to (very badly) tear down MMfa's evidence. The majority here respond to them for a varity of reasons in a varity of ways.
Yes sometimes a troll can be a repeat offender, his post left, as if cast in bronze as an example of some truly bizzare mental process, un- answered.
STRAUSSIAN!
Thing is, a mayor or a city council, I would hope, would get professional and expert opinions on how to run things that they don't, or might not understand, such as fire departments. The same as Presidents who have a military leadership, the Chiefs, to rely on for military information and how to run that.
It's called knowing that you don't know everything, and getting people that you trust to point you in the right direction.
As others have said, this case is about if the test were fair, or unfair. And her, and the majority ruling, was based on previous laws and precedents, and their understanding and interpretation of the laws. Nobody got hired, or fired because of this ruling, but it was put under review, and a lawsuit brought. And hence, we have the circuit court ruling, and a potential Supreme Court ruling in the near future.
Indeed - pulling the test to get a better one is the rule for everyone - so again no racism - unless that is - you are into "results" based decisions like Judge Scalia, the fellow that reads the blogs of the 18th century to find reasons to get to the right wing, rich and corporate and establishment protecting result he wants.
A mayor is elected to deal with such problems, delegate qualified people to investigate and report, democracy y'know what you fear and hate straussian.
Read the case files instead of relying on Rush to tell you what to think. Interestingly, this test was New Haven's first effort to move away from political patronage, which until now has governed hiring and promotion within their fire department. This uncontroversial case broke no new ground, and is only controversial because repubs can find no real basis to oppose the nominee.
She was a member of the three-judge panel of the federal Appeals Court which upheld the Ricci v. DeStefano ruling of the federal District Court that the City did not violate Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act and the Equal Treatment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. She was also a member of the full Appeals Court that voted 7 to 6 to deny Ricci and other plaintiffs a rehearing of their case.
Of the plaintiffs, 17 are white Americans and one, like Judge Sotomayor, is a Hispanic American. The other panel judges who upheld the District Court's decision are white Americans, as are the six Appeals Court judges who denied a rehearing.
In other words, she's a Hispanic American who effectively upheld the City's decision to comply with Title VII and the Equal Treatment Clause by discarding its promotion exam, delaying its Fire Department promotions, and developing a more "racial neutral" exam. Six white Americans concurred with her.
See more on "Ricci v. DeStefano" at
http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC02%5C2008%5C20080612_0001355.C02.htm/qx>.
--Richard Lee Dechert
Sotomayor sided with those that believe in racial quotas by ducking the issue in ruling narrowly about the culpability and chances of the city of New Haven being sued...when the real issue is racial quotas.
The city of New Haven went to great lengths and expense to develop a racial neutral test...abiding by Title VII requirements of equal "opportunity". When the results didn't come out as they had hoped...meaning blacks and minorities would score high enough to be promoted...they took the easy way out.
Strange bedfellows...the NAACP and New Haven. The NAACP supports the decision of New Haven. Their arguments are all about past racial injustices and the need for racial quotas to correct those offenses...not about the inability of minorities to pass a merit test.
The ACRU comes down staunchly on the side of Ricciin their testimony before the SC.
-- Petitioners were denied promotions due to their race. Respondents articulated no other grounds and availed themselves of not other claims that their decision to refuse to certify promotions was based on any factor other than race.
Respondent's attempt to characterize their actions as an attempt to comply with Title VII does not shield their action from scrutiny.
New Haven officials acted on racial identification of the promotion candidates as the primary motivation for their actions. Respondents action to block Petitioner's promotions was motivated exclusively by race...They were not promoted because the civil service board had a race based goal in mind.
The test's racial nuetrality has been qustioned. Its results certainly failed to support nuetrality.
Proof that minorities are unable to pass merit tests is where? Besides this case please.
The SC tends to like focussed arguements vs triapsing accross the legal landscape in court.
That goal being somewhere closer to the population variety that represents the city itself perhaps.
Nah, as a Straussian you can never accept that.