Posted on 06/29/2009 7:06:51 AM PDT by Abathar
COURT OVERTURNS SOTOMAYOR; SIDES WITH WHITE FIREFIGHTERS
This is an extremely wise observation. This SCOTUS is not even remotely close to the center in American politics.
Judging a test fairness by the color of the test-takers is absurd. This was satire a few years ago, now it's leftist sacred dogma. What happened to my America?
Somehow, only blacks and Hispanics are the "correct" minorities who are taken into account in this phone arguments. This is just insane.
Since White skinned people of European ancestry are the only people who can be racist. Reverse Racism is when somebody unfairly treats a White person because of their race. They can't be just plain racist, because that's just us Whites.
It makes good sense if you accept that only us white people can be hateful racists and when other people do it, it is well intentioned to make up for the unpayable debt we White people will always owe to every other race on the planet.
Needs to be posted again.
The "Reverse" is there to signify that all real racism comes from White people. Every democrat knows Blacks can't be racist. And even a self proclaimed "wise Latina" can't be a racist. If she said things that would be racist, then she simply 'misspoke' because by definition she cannot be racist like a White.
no, that would be racist to verify the race.
Does that not sound more racist than expecting all firemen to pass the same test, because presupposing equality, all should be expected to do equally as well to get a promotion?
Well since Newsweak thinks we’re all socialists now, I’ve decided we’re all racists now. Makes the msm so happy!
I don’t think I will be able to survive this horror show without FR.
What do you mean? Whether they were overturned right before being confirmed? Obviously they were almost all overturned at some point before being confirmed.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
Alito's concurring opinion rebuts the dissenting opinion of Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens. It concludes:The least employee-friendly standard asks only whether “the actual decisionmaker” acted with discriminatory intent, see Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc., 354 F. 3d 277, 291 (CA4 2004) (en banc), and it is telling that, even under this standard, summary judgment for respondents would not be proper. This is so because a reasonable jury could certainly find that in New Haven, the Mayor—not the CSB—wielded the final decisionmak- ing power. After all, the Mayor claimed that authority and was poised to use it in the event that the CSB decided to accept the test results. See supra, at 9. If the Mayor had the authority to overrule a CSB decision accepting the test results, the Mayor also presumably had the authority to overrule the CSB’s decision rejecting the test results. In light of the Mayor’s conduct, it would be quite wrong to throw out petitioners’ case on the ground that the CSB was the ultimate decisionmaker.IOW, whether or not its motives were discriminatory the CSB board which set aside the test (refusing to promote the plaintiff firefighters) was just window dressing. The real authority lay with the mayor - and his decision not to override the board was discriminatory because he had no intention of crossing the community organizer who helped him get reelected.
noted. 
Conservatives *MUST* not, pat-themselves-on-the-back over this
this shouldn't have been even close.
we must "encourage" your like-minded Congress-critters,
to stand against all these "destructive actions"
This should have been a 9-0 ruling no matter your political views ...
***
From the syallabus of theRICCI v. DESTEFANO decision:
” ... (a) Title VII prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) (disparate treatment), as well as policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities, §2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i) (disparate impact). Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate impact, the employer may defend by demonstrating that itspolicy or practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” Ibid. If the employer meets that burden, the plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs. §§2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(ii) and (C). Pp. 17–19.
(b) Under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action. The Court’s analysis begins with the premise that the City’s actions would violate Title VII’s disparate treatment prohibition absent somevalid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white. Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making is prohibited. The question, therefore, is whether the purpose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate treatment discrimination ...
Thus, the Court adopts the strong-basis-in-evidence standard as a matter of statutory construction in order to resolve any conflict between Title VII’s disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. Pp. 19–26.
(c) The City’s race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the strong-basis-in-evidence standard. Pp. 26–34.
(i) The racial adverse impact in this litigation was significant, and petitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with a primafacie case of disparate impact liability. The problem for respondentsis that such a prima facie case—essentially, a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity, Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U. S. 440, 446, and nothing more is far from a strong basis in evidence thatthe City would have been liable under Title VII had it certified thetest results. That is because the City could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs but that the City refused to adopt. §§2000e–2(k)(1)(A), (C). Based on the record the parties developed through discovery, there is no substan-tial basis in evidence that the test was deficient in either respect. Pp. 26–28.
(ii) The City’s assertions that the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity are blatantly contradicted by the record, which demonstrates the detailed steps taken to develop and administer the tests and the painstaking analyses of the questions asked to assure their relevance to the captain and lieutenant positions. The testimony also shows that complaints that certain examination questions were contradictory or did not specifically apply to firefighting practices in the City were fully addressed, and that the City turned a blind eye to evidence supporting the exams’ validity. Pp. 28–29.
(iii) Respondents also lack a strong basis in evidence showing an equally valid, less discriminatory testing alternative that the City, by certifying the test results, would necessarily have refused to adopt. Respondents’ three arguments to the contrary all fail. First, respondents refer to testimony that a different composite score calculation would have allowed the City to consider black candidates for then-open positions, but they have produced no evidence to show that the candidate weighting actually used was indeed arbitrary, or that the different weighting would be an equally valid way to determine whether candidates are qualified for promotions. Second, respondents argue that the City could have adopted a different interpretation of its charter provision limiting promotions to the highest scoring applicants, and that the interpretation would have produced less dis-criminatory results; but respondents’ approach would have violated Title VII’s prohibition of race-based adjustment of test results,§2000e–2(l). Third, testimony asserting that the use of an assessment center to evaluate candidates’ behavior in typical job tasks would have had less adverse impact than written exams does not aid respondents, as it is contradicted by other statements in the recordindicating that the City could not have used assessment centers for the exams at issue. Especially when it is noted that the strong-basis-in-evidence standard applies to this case, respondents cannot create a genuine issue of fact based on a few stray (and contradictory) statements in the record. Pp. 29–33.
(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations andqualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate impact liability based on the strong-basis-in-evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34.
530 F. 3d 87, reversed and remanded ...”
If you were to read the petition for cert and the merits brief filed by the firefighters, it is a lot worse than that; much, much worse.
YES!!! Indeed!
It’s good to see you back. ;o)
Hope you are feeling well.
Omigosh!
ROTFLOL!
That’s great!
Ya’ done good work, potlatch.
I love “Light My Fire”, too.
Thank you.
Very happy for the Firemen and this has been going on for years. Proud of the men that took it to the max.
Yes. I'm just sorry that we have (and will still have, when Souter's replacement is seated) four justices who would dissent from this ruling - let alone from the Scalia (joined by Thomas) concurrence which suggests considering pulling the plug on affirmative action. As I understood it, Alito would have gone along with Scalia as well, and Roberts was silent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.