« Lowering Costs; Increasing Quality | Main | If He Weren't A Kennedy »



This is precisely why I wanted her nominated. I her nomination would expose the real truth what many feel about Latinos and other minorities. Unless you think just like us, you are not welcome or wanted. So much for the big tent you claim you are in favor of. You can cloak this anyway you like, but as the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig. I say this, because if you were to judge her on the work she has done, you would find all of this nonsense exactly what it is nonsense. Has she shown any bias in her rulings, well is she had, perhaps this silly line of attack might work, but we both know it does not. Even the Republican Senators admitted her record is moderate.

As I have previously pointed out, you cannot find any of this stuff you seem to worry about in her rulings. Let's refresh the memory shall we.

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set

"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

So what we have is the most qualified candidate for this position in the last 100 years, and she still is not good enough for you. So what you are saying you can finish top of your class at Princeton, go to Harvard and excel there, be the most qualified and your still not good enough. Wow, that is amazing.

One begins to wonder why it is only 86% of Hispanics view the GOP unfavorable.

Only 8% of Latinos View Republican Party Favorably


Guess you never heard of a case called "Ricci," Greg.


Yes I have heard of the Ricci, do you know anything about the case and why the ruling was as it was, or did you just get the Rush Limbaugh version?

Do you know what the term Disparate Impact means? If not let me clue you in.

"Disparate Impact was part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits overt and purposeful discrimination in employment. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Court held that the act "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation". As modified and restricted by Ward's Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989), the employee has the initial burden of proving that a facially neutral employment practice has a discriminatory effect. If the employer can furnish evidence of a valid business justification for the practice, the employee then bears the burden of showing that alternative practices, "without a similarly undesirable effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest".

Outside of the employment context, disparate impact (such as de facto school segregation or allegedly discriminatory voting districts) violates the Constitution only if it is shown to be intentional. However, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (as amended in 1982) permits a claim of discrimination without a showing of intent."

What Judge Sotomayor, and the rest of the court did was follow Supreme Court precedence in that case when it ruled in favor of New Haven. It was not the job of the Second Circuit Court to make new law, it was their job to follow Supreme Court precedence. That is why it is a Appeals Court. What the Supreme Court did later was overturn previous precedent and law, and rule against that part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So she and the rest of the Second Circuit of Appeals court did their job as it they were supposed todo. They looked at previous Supreme Court precedence and apply the law as the previous Supreme Court had ruled. It was the current Supreme Court that overruled the prior Court and changed the law. So you see, I seem to have a much better grasp of the Ricci case then you do,no surprise there.

But then again I ask, how much more qualified and more must this woman have done to be qualified in your eyes. Also, why is it that the majority of Hispanic community see's this in a different light then you. Let me guess, they are unable to fairly judge this woman, and their personal bias's cloud their view of this. I can see why the GOP is doing so well in that community.

PS: Before you start making Frank Ricci an hero, you need to examine how many times this man has been in court claiming he was wronged?

Fire Proof
The New Haven firefighter is no stranger to employment disputes.



Ricci sued New Haven saying he was discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he is dyslexic and cannot be expected to pass their unfair fire fighters exam. The city settles the lawsuit by accepting Ricci as a fire fighter even though he wasn't able to show that he was qualified.

You don't find it ironic that he then sued the city again claiming he should be promoted based on their exam?


Not at all.

The man argues that people should be hired and promoted according to their actual ability to do the job.

You know; kinda like Paul Wellstone (who also suffered from a learning disability.)


"The man argues that people should be hired and promoted according to their actual ability to do the job."

Oh really! Did Ricci show his ability to be a firefighter by flunking his entrance exam and then claiming that the test discriminated against him?

Hmm. I seem to remember several minorities
who also claimed that they could do the job if the promotional exam wasn't discriminatory against them.

Oh, I get it now. Ricci show his ability to be a firefighter by suing the city. Too bad the rejected minorities just wanted to be firefighters not litigants.


Hmm. I seem to remember several minorities
who also claimed that they could do the job if the promotional exam wasn't discriminatory against them.

Hmmmm. I seem to recall the Supreme Court examined the evidence, and judged that the test given to the firefighters for advancement was not discriminatory. Are you arguing, Jammen, that it was discriminatory for blacks - but not hispanics??


Wrong! The Court did not address the validity nor reliability of the test. There are good tests and bad tests in use today. We do not know about this particular test.

The Court simply ruled that the city could not invalidate a test after it had been administered based upon the results of that test. Which seems logical to me. The time to determine the usefulness of a test is before you use it not after.

So we know some tests are discriminatory. This one may or may not be. But we do agree that although Ricci flunked his entry test he since proved that he could be a firefighter. Others also claim that they could be good firefighters if given the chance, but they simply cannot pass the entry exam. So what do we do?

I fail to see why Dyslexia is considered an advantage over a poor education or illiteracy. Why have any job standards if all it takes is lawsuit to circumvent them?


Jammen; it is you who is incorrect.

From a New Haven news article about the case:

“Whatever the city’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the city made its employment decision because of race,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.”

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito LAW ’75, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas LAW ’74.

Throughout the ongoing court proceedings, the city argued that — fearing a lawsuit from black firefighters — it had no choice but to throw out the test results to comply with Title VII since the test had a disparate impact on firefighters of different races.

The Court ruled instead that New Haven’s actions violated Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. The Court said that since there was no “strong basis in evidence” that the test was discriminatory, not-job related, or that there were less discriminatory alternatives, the city could not throw out the results.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Kennedy wrote.

The plaintiffs — led by Frank Ricci, a dyslexic firefighter who says he studied 10 hours per day for the exam only to have his dreams of promotion shot down by the city — argued that it was a fair, non-discriminatory test and that he and his fellow plaintiffs scored higher because they studied harder.

The comments to this entry are closed.