There are objective facts in this case, Amused, and you have gotten almost all of them entirely wrong.

What exactly should we call that?

Whether fafaroo can or cannot, the Supreme Court can and does allow for race to be a factor (sans quotas), so the question is moot. Quite simply, AO, there are subtleties which you either do not understand or are ignoring; although your passion for “all our rights” is duly noted and highly amusing following the past 8 years of unconstitutional mayhem.

I always enjoy that conservatives find only two acceptable uses for the equal protection clause, Bush v Gore and destroying affirmative action. For future reference, the purpose of the constitution is not to mandate white privilege.

“No it doesn’t. The entire case resolves around the concept of not administering, knowingly or unknowingly, a discriminatory test for employment purposes”

When the metric for discrimination is measured by how a specific group of citizens performs not as individuals but as members of a group you have a situation where the law can not be known before an act is committed. That is contrary to the rule of law and is in opposition to the 14th Amendment.

A panel of “experts” making subjective calls is a farce.
You refuse to square affirmative action with the 14th Amendment because you can’t. They are 180 degrees out from each other. When you erode any of your rights you erode all of your rights. Not that you care.

Gabba gabba hey

At least he would have demonstrated good taste in music.

I keep re-reading your last comment because it so full of stupid it’s impossible to catch it all in one reading.

Amused, you completely misunderstood whatever it was you read or your source completely mislead you, when you came up with this bit of nonsense:

The test was considered legally indefensible in the eyes of the city because minority candidates did not qualify in sufficent numbers to be considered for promotion, which contradicts a federal law which presumes that a test that does not generate significant numbers of minorities eligible for consideration of employment or promotion to be flawed.

There is no “federal law” that says or “presumes” any such thing.

I point this glaring error out to you and you come back with “The 80/20 rule is a generalization that predates all of this. An example is that typically 20% of a sales force generates 80% of the sales.”?

That’s what you have in response? And you think that’s an adequate reply? It’s a total non sequitur, man. Completely unconnected to the specifics of the discussion at hand.

Hell, man the first two sentences of your comment don’t have any relation to anything that follows. None. Zero. Zip.

You could have just written:

Gabba gabba hey. Bloop bloop bloop. Your link merely shows the guidelines used to thwart the equal protection clause.

And you would have made as much sense.

Again, the link shows the guidelines used to test for discriminatory hiring practices.

Amsued, you’re an utter and complete hack.

No it doesn’t. The entire case resolves around the concept of not administering, knowingly or unknowingly, a discriminatory test for employment purposes.

That you keep arguing otherwise is indication that you still have no idea what the facts of the case are and that even when presented with them, you simply ignore them and rehash the same shit you started with.

You are a tenacious one though, gotta give you credit for that.

You neglected to paste my quote in context.

“You are blowing smoke again. The devil is in the details. The law is crafted in one way and policy is determined by regulators interpretation and often desire in another way. Affirmative Action when first crafted was specifically not supposed to have quotas, but in the end it did.”

You seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that affirmative action is a political creation that stands in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment.
All of the justification you can muster can’t change the fact that affirmative action is legalized discrimination.

This entire case revolves around the concept of attempting to equalize outcomes not opportunities. Our rights flow to us as individuals not as members of a group. We are equal under the eyes of the law which is bound by the Constitution to afford us equal protection of the law. Why do you think the lady with the scales is wearing a blindfold?

In the next week or so we shall see whether or not the Supreme Court upholds it’s oath to preserve the Constitution.

Oh mercy. Here you are in another thread on the same subject:

You are blowing smoke again. The devil is in the details.

Listen, AO, it’s clear you still have no idea what the large or small facts of the case are. Nor have you bothered to read or understand the operative laws. It’s getting a little ridiculous at this point.

The test was considered legally indefensible in the eyes of the city because minority candidates did not qualify in sufficent numbers to be considered for promotion, which contradicts a federal law which presumes that a test that does not generate significant numbers of minorities eligible for consideration of employment or promotion to be flawed.

There is no federal law that “presumes” anything about the results of any test for employment. You’ve got it all fucked up and backwards.

Government agencies and courts are guided by what is called the “80 percent rule.” This is not a law, federal or otherwise, and it is not enforceable in and of itself. If a certain test result doesn’t pass the 80 percent test, it is considered a “presumptive” violation of Title VII, which is not in any way, evidence of a violation itself, it is merely an indicator that further investigation is necessary.

Scored tests There are several methods of measuring adverse impact. One method is the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria, which finds an adverse impact if members of a protected class are selected at a rates less than four fifths (80 percent) of that of another group. For example, if 50 percent of white applicants receive a passing score on a test, but only 30 percent of African-Americans pass, the relevant ratio would be 30/50, or 60 percent, which would violate the 80 percent rule. 29 C.F.R. �� 1607.4 (D) and 1607.16 (R). The 80 percent rule is more of a rule of thumb for administrative convenience, and has been criticized by courts.

http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm

Somehow or other while you shifting your focus to the “bigger facts of the case” you jumbled all this up and came up with the stupid nonsense that this was “a federal a federal law” that somehow “presumes” something.

Now in the Ricci case, the city used the 80 percent rule to question their own test and the resulting investigation proved to them that the test was problematic for a number of reasons and so it could not be able to defend itself against any kind of disparate impact lawsuit.

There is a possibility that the city might have found that the test was perfectly fine and the results simply were what they were. In that case, the city could have defended itself against any discrimination lawsuits because it would not have been in violation of the law.

Again, Amused, let me spell this out for you: Racial disparity in test results is not in and of itself a violation of Title VII. That is not why the test results were thrown out. The test results were thrown out because the test itself was found to be flawed.

Of course, it’s clear now that even when you do some modicum of research you are incapable of understanding what you read.

You really should just quit while you’re behind.

What sort of test would produce such a result?

The test was considered legally indefensible in the eyes of the city because minority candidates did not qualify in sufficent numbers to be considered for promotion, which contradicts a federal law which presumes that a test that does not generate significant numbers of minorities eligible for consideration of employment or promotion to be flawed.

By this reasoning if there had been sufficient openings to dip far enough on the list, no harm no foul. Or had suffient numbers of minorities scored high enough, no harm no foul. Furthermore an identical score in one year that fit the racial metric in that year would be acceptable but presumed to be discriminatory in another year based upon minority scoring.

All of which is in opposition to the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution would be easier for you to understand if you would read it. Search for the asterick in the 14th Amendment, let me know if you find it.

Sheesh.

The assumption of benefits conferred by affirmative action exists because affirmative action exists. This case does nothing to dispell that assumption.

In other words, you will keep changing what it is you meant to say ad infinitum …

Indeed, that is the ugly aspect of affirmative action. It casts a shadow upon the achievements of all who benefit from it.

Again, you have no way of knowing that the black or hispanic fire fighters in the dept “benefited” from affirmative action when they were initially hired. Period. You’re just assuming they were because they are black or hispanic.

Now, if you personally assume that any black or hispanic in any job, anywhere got that job due to racial preference and not on merit alone, well, Amused, that’s your problem isn’t it? Why do you proceed from that assumption, I wonder?

What is incredible is how blind you are to the facts on the ground …

Says the guy who has gotten every basic facts of the case wrong from the beginning.

“And yet, here you are calling the hiring of the black firefighters into question ”

Indeed, that is the ugly aspect of affirmative action. It casts a shadow upon the achievements of all who benefit from it.

What is incredible is how blind you are to the facts on the ground about not only this case but the whole notion of affimative action and the 14th amendment. There is not an asterick next to the words equal protection under the law.

The phrase used by the legal expert on PBS last night re the voting rights case was ‘the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.’

Obviously not, Amused. You are leaping from one unsubtantiated assumption (no blacks passed the test) to another (all black firefighters in new haven were affirmative action hires) for no reason whatsoever.

You have no way of knowing the conditions or context under which ANY of the fire fighters were initially hired, white, black, hispanic.

And yet, here you are calling the hiring of the black firefighters into question because of a test for promotion that white fire fighters also took and failed or failed to pass with a high enough score to qualify for promotions.

It’s incredible just how far you seem willing to take this without a single supporting fact.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Seems like his dream is pretty straightforward and clear.