Discussing the 5-4 Supreme Court decision today in the firefighter case, conservatives somehow made 5 become 9. They’re still pretty bad at math.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Ms. Malkin picked this up also. However, she failed to note the error.
Watch as silliness ensues. Conservatives will insist this decision is evidence of Ms. Sotomayor’s lack of qualification. Nevermind that four of the court’s justices were in agreement with her.
I find that case very interesting.
Interestingly, there is the “colour” issue and the “disabled” issue (one of the white guys has dyslexia and has a very difficult time learning the material – apparently he does very well considering his impediment).
On the general issue of “affirmative action” I’m 110% FOR IT – PARTICULARLY when dealing with the Government. I think it is absolutely NECESSARY that the employees of the functions of the state represent the ethnic make-up of society. Latinos, blacks, whites, asians – I think it is very important that they be represented in “public employment” in more or less the same proportions as they are in society.
It’s part of the role of civilized government – probably why it never causght on in the US.
Amused Observer
June 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Fafaroo,
Unless Ollie is even more intellectually dishonest than normal, this topic will get it’s own posting and thread.
At that time and place I will gladly dissect the minutia of the case. In the meanwhile you can bone up on what equal protection means and search for missing astericks. While as I note earlier the court did not kill this abomination once and for all with a strong and wide ruling based upon the 14th Amendment, it is a step in the right direction.
I so can’t wait for Amused Observer to demonstrate his masterful legal knowledge.
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
It is a sad day in america when the lefties refuse to help Martin Luther King realize his dream for his children.
It’s Republican Math, the error always falls in their faovo.
faovo ?-) = favor
[reposted from the health care thread]
So in order to change the subject from health care [thread] and the right wing enabled looting of our health care system that has put US behind dozens of other countries on multiple health-metrics, the right wing white supremacist “Amused Observer” “note[s] with pleasure the ruling this morning” where the right wing activist Justices ruled on behalf of the white males.
It’s a shame that the right wing activist Justices decided to make law instead of following the law.
But it’s a bigger shame that the right wing whiners about ‘judicial activism’ don’t have the consistency of conscience to call out the right wing activist Justices who are ‘making law’.
But then cognitive dissonance is the cornerstone of right winger’s psychology.
After all, right wingers have a hard time calling out domestic terrorists blowing up clinics but at the same time right wingers won’t support a public option for the health of infants.
Nuts.
heh, with the same /end italics error
I don’t know the facts about this case, so I’m not saying it applies here specifically, but rulings can be upheld while also disagreeing with the reasoning of the lower courts. Sotomayor did have another decision where that happened.
Just saying, it isn’t absurd on its face to claim that votes to uphold don’t also disagree with the reasoning of the lower courts.
Buzz, even if you aren’t familiar with the facts of the case, your argument applies precisely.
Let’s go not to Oliver’s obviously biased reporting, but to the actual opinion:
In Ginburg’s dissent, she argues “Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.10″
In other words, if the lower court (that’s Sotomayor and the rest of the Appeals Court) had done its job correctly, the resulting would have been the same as what they concluded originally – that New Haven was justified in its action.
However, Ginsburg (in footnote 10 immediately below) also states:
10The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Courtis indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.
In small words, this means that the lower courts (again, this is Justice Sotomayor, who voted in the Appeals majority) used the wrong reasoning to achieve what Ginsburg and her co-dissenters believe was the correct result.
In this point of judicial reasoning, no one in the minority was willing to argue in favor of Sotomayor’s reasoning in a separate dissent.
5 is not 9.
9 is 9. The number of justices who argue that Sotomayor got it wrong.
QED.
So add right winger “matt621″ to the list of right wingers willing to be completely dishonest.
The ruling was 5 to 4.
4 Justices AGREED with Sotomayor’s ruling.
In right wingers world, 5 to 4 magically becomes 9 to 0.
And instead of just admitting it was a profoundly stupid error, right wingers like “matt621″ decide to dig in their heels and argue that in right wingers world 5 really is 9 (they just use math footnotes to get there).
Nuts.
‘5 is not 9.
9 is 9. The number of justices who argue that Sotomayor got it wrong.
QED.’
Right wingers are inherently dishonest.
Ipso facto.
Wait, wasn’t Thomas the only dissenting voice on the 8-to-1 decision that strip searching 13 year olds for Advil might be a little out of the question:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html?hp
So, even if the Republicans’ complete misreading of this decision was true are they essentially arguing that there can never being a single dissenting voice in a supreme court case? What kind of moronic argument is that?
What matt621 did was explain the reasoning behind how the people who were making the 9-0 claim arrived at their conclusion, that the four dissenters may have agreed with Sotomayor’s decision, but not with how she arrived at that conclusion. Huge difference. None of those people were saying the Supreme Court decision handed down today was a unanimous 9-0 decision, and it’s dishonest for you to portray them as having done that.
If you disagree with their reasoning as to why they make the case that all judges disagreed with Sotomayor’s flawed reasoning to come to the decision she did, then explain why you think they weren’t doing that and argue the point they are making, as matt621 spelled out for you and everyone here. But claiming they were falsely stating that the 5-4 decision handed down today was 9-0 is just flat out false in itself, and dishonest on your part.
But dishonesty coming from you is something there is undeniable unanimity on here, News Idiot. From both sides of the aisle.
Let’s see… 5 justices disagreed with Sotomayor’s RULING.
Four justices backed her RULING, but disagreed with her casual dismissal of the matter, determining that the case did indeed deserve significantly more consideration than an unsigned, contemptuous dismissal. They committed many pages to discussing the case, the issues it raised, and the ramifications thereof — whereas Sotomayor just shrugged and tried to bury it.
Sounds like a pretty decent rejection by all Justices of their would-be colleague (or successor)…
One might even bring up Strowbridge’s statement once that “the only way you could ever be right is by accident.”
J.
but disagreed with her casual dismissal of the matter, determining that the case did indeed deserve significantly more consideration than an unsigned, contemptuous dismissal.
Inventing again, Mr. Tea?
The minority dissent was in disagreement with the majority, not with the lower courts.
Dennis, you presented a clear and logical path from point A to point B and that clearly does not fit within the framework of the thought process of many on the left, particularly those who comment on this blog.
Dennis is 100% right. Yes, 4 justices ultimately came to the same conclusion as Sotomayer, but what is also true is that they basically told her, “The way you reached your decision stinks.”
The process does matter.
“The way you reached your decision stinks.”
Or rather that they slightly disagreed with her and thought that one element of her opinion needed to be slightly changed.
Interesting use of quotation marks to validate your point, when I’ve never seen the word ’stinks’ in a supreme court opinion.
but what is also true is that they basically told her, “The way you reached your decision stinks.
If the dissenting minority had any problems with the lower court reasoning, it was with the District Court judge who wrote the original opinion. It was there, and not in the Appeals Court affirmation of the decision, that there was any discussion of the city’s intent.
It is with great pleasure that I note that the majority struck a blow for our nation, our Constitution, and the rule of law this morning. I am disappointed that they did not issue a broad ruling based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and kill legalized discrimination once and for all but we have made a great stride towards a color blind society today.
Liberals need to realize that they need to support the Constitution as it is written and be as defensive of the parts that don’t fit thier agenda as they are rabidly defensive over the parts that do favor thier agenda. An erosion of one right is an erosion of all rights.
Blacks in particular need to realize that it is the Constitution that bailed thier asses out. If they are successful in thier attempts to weaken the Constitution
as has happened with the casual dismissal of the 14th. they could again find themselves at the mercy of the whims of a temporary tyranny of the majority.
But sadly for our nation, liberals in general prefer judicial activism where a judge with the stroke of a hammer takes the place of a lengthy tussle of give and take, or compromise that is the genius of our founding fathers system of checks and balances. Judicial activists bypass the legistlative process and erode our liberty and freedom in the process.
Ollie of course puts as big a partisan spin on this as possible, but hey that’s his day job. He is part of a professional propaganda outfit after all. You can’t expect him to undo the habits of his profession.
Blacks in particular need to realize that it is the Constitution that bailed thier asses out
You write these things in the manner of a stupid person, which using Occam’s Razor…
Oh yes, fair and balanced one. I don’t expect your disapproval on the subject of legalized discrimination as long as it is in your favor. That’s not the liberal way.
It is with great pleasure that I note that the majority struck a blow for our nation, our Constitution, and the rule of law this morning…
they [blacks] could again find themselves at the mercy of the whims of a temporary tyranny of the majority.
Seriously, who talks like this?
I do Mikey, when I so choose.
I do Mikey, when I so choose.
Hell, who talks like this?
The minority dissent was in disagreement with the majority, not with the lower courts.
Indeed.
So, the majority is making law from the bench now. Funny, I thought that wasn’t their job.
Hell, who talks like this?
LARP geeks.
but disagreed with her casual dismissal of the matter, determining that the case did indeed deserve significantly more consideration than an unsigned, contemptuous dismissal.
Casual dismissal? Um,it was a unanimous ruling by a 3-panel appeals court affirming a lower court judge’s ruling. You make it sound like Sotomayor made the ruling all by her little self.
So, lou, she succumbed to peer pressure on this decision? That’s a GREAT argument on her behalf…
J.
So, lou, she succumbed to peer pressure on this decision?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
She agreed with the other two.
Right wingers say 2 + 2 = 5
FOX Headline: “2 + 2 = 5, Dissenters Counted as Zero, Therefore 100% Agree 2 + 2 =5″
Right wingers are increasingly unreasonable, irrational, and dishonest.
Math has a well known liberal bias.
Duros,
Enforcing the provisons of a law is not the same as making law. But the shame of it all is not falling back on the highest law of the land and gutting the legalized discrimination once and for all.
Why not let people compete on thier merits? Dumbing down tests to the lowest common denomitor is no way to get good people.
Why not let people compete on thier merits?
That’s what we say too. However, we’re willing to recognize that evaluation methods sometimes contain a hidden bias.
Up until this week, the law said that if there was evidence that an evaluation method was biased, it was up to the employer to demonstrate that the bias was necessary to get the job done.
In Ricci, the court turned that previous standard upside down. Now the employer must have “basis in evidence” that an evaluation is discriminatory before it can discard the evaluation.
Given this change of of the rules, Justice Ginsburg says the lower courts should have been given another crack at this decision. Do you disagree?
Actually Quaker,
You could probably write my retort as well as I could, not that you agree but that my position has been stated many times. The pragmatic viewpoint before was that if blacks couldn’t measure up, the test was discriminatory. It is seldom put so bluntly but that is the presumption. The idea of hidden bias appears very subjective to me.
I do disagree with Ginsburg’s opinion. Instead of agonizing over the details of title 7 I fervently wish that the Supreme Court had fallen back on the 14th Amendment and gutted the abomination of affirmative action once and for all. It is nothing but legalized discrimination.
Did you ever pick up on what I wrote on another thread about the mischievious little details regarding catastophic coverage?
The idea of hidden bias appears very subjective to me.
No more subjective than the idea that any given tool accurately measures what it purports to measure. Cultural bias in testing instruments isn’t imaginary.
Did you ever pick up on what I wrote on another thread about the mischievious little details regarding catastophic coverage?
I did, but I’m not contemplating any changes any time soon.
Instead of agonizing over the details of title 7 I fervently wish that the Supreme Court had fallen back on the 14th Amendment and gutted the abomination of affirmative action once and for all.
I wish it would rain barbecued ribs.
I wish it would rain barbecued ribs.
I wish Amused Observer would stop talking like Chuck Heston on barbiturates. Looks like none of us are going to get what we want.
“No more subjective than the idea that any given tool accurately measures what it purports to measure. Cultural bias in testing instruments isn’t imaginary.”
How do you figure? An essay question might be subjective but multiple choice? Questions of a scientific nature follow the laws of physics, no bias there. Math, no bias possible. Reading comprehension, where does this cultural bias come into play?
And how does cultural bias explain the success of the asian boat people, a kid lands here not knowing the language and does quite well academically.
asian boat people
That’s it! I’m outta here.
Oh my Mike seems a bit offended. I have nothing but admiration for those people. They are brave and courageous, smart and hardworking. They make fine Americans. They don’t whine or complain, they just go out there and make things happen for themselves.
Not offended. Amazed at your tone deaf self-parody.
Right wing white supremacist “Amused Observer”, please explain you racial hierarchy again.
And just for giggles, tell us all where you sit within your racial hierarchy.
Care to discuss the idea of cultural bias as it relates to the non subjective Mikey? That was the point in the reference to the success of first generation asians.
‘The pragmatic viewpoint before was that if blacks couldn’t measure up, the test was discriminatory. I’
Nonsense; the pragmatic viewpoint is that if certain practices, including evaluations, are found to be inherently discriminatory for WHATEVER reason, cultural bias, predisposed bias or purposeful bias, said bias is unfair.
Your view seems to be that no matter the ‘traditional’ adjudicatory system is found to contain inequalities, the system should remain intact and untouched, and those who are discriminated against as a result should just take their rightful place outside the system and not seek justice to right the wrong.
If those White candidates felt unfairly shut out, they have a legal recourse available to pursue their grievance.
By invoking the ‘Affirmative action is legal discrimination’ meme, you harken back the days when minorities were expected to be denied a fair shake, and keep their uppity mouths shut about it.
Now you claim that the safeguards in place to correct that systemic injustice are unfair to Whites; are we to expect you to keep your sense of injustice to yourself, are do you have the right to sound off and seek legal action?
Really, this sense of the poor White man downtrodden by society is pretty pathetic, but I notice no one suggesting you don’t have the means of pursuing what you consider a just legal challenge.
Or should we just bemoan the uppity nature of the White man’s burden?
‘And how does cultural bias explain the success of the asian boat people, a kid lands here not knowing the language and does quite well academically.’
How many Asian firemen have you seen?
Care to discuss the idea of cultural bias as it relates to the non subjective Mikey?
Nope, I’m done with you. Your posts have devolved in to an incoherent mishmash of talking points and knee jerk reactions, and for some reason they’re being written in the rhetorical style of a 1920s carnival hawker. You’re either trolling or worse…
I have nothing but admiration for those people. They are brave and courageous, smart and hardworking.
A credit to their race, AO?
Good heavens, you’re spilling racial stereotypes all over the place, mister. Well, I’m not cleaning up this mess.
They seem to have set thier sights a little higher than eating till you’re tired and sleeping til you’re hungry.
I’ll take a wager they wouldn’t have a problem with the test if they studied up on it.
No Jrfunk, the problem with legalized discrimination is it is directly opposed to the 14th Amendment. Would you care to explain how you can square affirmative action with the 14th?
There have been several legal challenges as you well know Jrfunk. In fact the latest is the topic of this posting by Oliver, strangely enough. Your views on what happens to tests in the real world is a bit myopic. Standards are dropped to a lowest common denominator and then judged unbiased if blacks are able to pass in sufficient numbers. With luck we’ll see less of that.
The solution should have been actually studying and learning the material, not dumbing down the test.
Quaker,
You are being just a wee bit disengenous.
They seem to have set thier sights a little higher than eating till you’re tired and sleeping til you’re hungry.
You call me disingenuous after you haul out “eat n sleep”? Shame!
LOL,
I know plenty of firemen, that’s a pretty common motto nationwide. Some of those guys can have some pretty dangerous moments, many don’t. The standard trick is to claim a disability just before retirement. You like google detective work, check it out.
Dumbing down tests to the lowest common denomitor is no way to get good people.
Dude, stop with this shit. It’s not what the case was about, it’s not what Title VII requires, it’s not what anyone is asking for.
AO, if you’re really not familiar with the racial connotations of “sleep n eat” I recommend Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled.”
Right winger “Amused Observer’s” racist language isn’t an accident.
And Republicans wonder why minorities are increasingly alienated by the right wing.
sheesh
‘They seem to have set thier sights a little higher than eating till you’re tired and sleeping til you’re hungry.’
It’s attitudes such as these that prompted AA in the first place; the fact you can’t see that is very telling.
I suppose you’d have no issue if I suggested that ALL White people are racist apologists, longing for the days when the back of the bus was good enough for minorities?
‘AO, if you’re really not familiar with the racial connotations of “sleep n eat” I recommend Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled.’
You’re wasting your time Quake; AO wouldn’t lower himself to see a Spike Lee joint, as he’s just another AA recipient getting by on his lack of merit and reliance on a system skewed against White people.
Now offer him a Stepinfectchit film fest and see how fast he gets his popcorn.
Well it appears from the context of the comments here that firemen are indeed racists. Where did Spike get his inspiration?
Farfaroo,
This case was narrow in it’s scope and relied on the provisions of title 7 that prohibit racial discrimination. You’ve been wrong all along about this case, note the recent ruling. The idea of disproportionate impact is the key to your befuddlement.
The pragmatic way to measure disproportionate impact is to count the winners and losers after the fact. If the results are not racially correct then the test is altered until racially correct outcomes are able to be recorded. This is seldom achieved by making the test harder.
You’ve been wrong all along about this case, note the recent ruling.
congratulations, amused. You’ve achieved the “I know you are but what am I” level of hackery.
Title VII requires that tests not be disriminatory, not that they be easy. And the supreme court decision doesn’t change a single thing I’ve said about the facts of this case. The cirut established a higher burden for proving disparate impact and then said that the city didn’t meet that burden in this case.
Simple as that.
Fafaroo,
You certainly left the impression that New Haven had acted correctly and that Ricci didn’t have a case. While title 7 does not allow discrimination based on race, it does leave room for subjectivity. The fact that a test can be deemed unworthy simply by tracking the ethnicity of the successful candidates after the fact is quite telling.
Not only were you wrong but the experts that New Haven hired to say that the test was discriminatory that you were so fond of mentioning time and time again were wrong. And again while title 7 does not mandate that a test be made easier, that is the simplest way to get the politically correct number of successful candidates.
The real world purpose of title 7 is not to make things more fair, a level playing field that is color blind. It is to compensate for competitive shortcomings. Much like a handicap in horseracing or golf. But that is a hard harsh thing to have to admit which is why some people go to such elaborate lengths to deny the obvious.
JrFunk,
To the best of my knowledge Spike Lee succeeds on his own merits in the free market. He may play the race card a bit at the studio level but people either go see his movie or they don’t.
Even with the 14th AND AA, you still can’t get a cab in NYC if you’re Black.