Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

what a load of crap:

Quote:

---

BY JESSE JACKSON
New Haven, Conn., is a city in which African Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population; yet, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, the city must be served --"as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination -- by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions."
Today's ruling is deeply flawed and should not be the law of the land.

---

If my house is on fire, I want the best firemen coming to help, not a bunch of underperforming quota-fillers and affirmative action firefighters. And no, I don't care if they are green, yellow, black or white. The best ones regardless is what I want.

link to load of crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC, two questions, one procedural, one philosophical:

1) Can private companies legally discriminate when hiring, aka the handicapped scenario above?

2) Should private companies be able to discriminate when hiring?

---

I'm not WC, and I'm not going to answer the 1st point, because I don't know about the legality other than to say that hire the best man available for the job, regardless of race or physical attributes.

As for the second point, I absolutely think that private companies should be able to discriminate when hiring. I don't agree that it is morally right, but they are private companies, and should be able to do what they want like that. If they prove to be racist, then the people that offends (which should be everyone) shouldn't purchase from them. But it shouldn't be illegal, the government should stay out of private organizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC, two questions, one procedural, one philosophical:

1) Can private companies legally discriminate when hiring, aka the handicapped scenario above?

---

I don't know the nuances for the handicapped hiring. I know there are practical limits involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

2) Should private companies be able to discriminate when hiring?

---

In short, yes. But you left the question wide open. The hiring process is nothing but discrimination. The question becomes what you can and cannot discriminate against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

Reductionist. She's dissenting because of what she sees as an entrenched prejudicial environment in municipalities like firefighting, combined with a test that has a starkly disparate impact on minorities. It's a closer call than you're making it out to be.

---

No, she's dissenting because of her ACLU membership. She is an activist judge and should have never been considered for any federal or state bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC, two questions, one procedural, one philosophical:

1) Can private companies legally discriminate when hiring, aka the handicapped scenario above?

2) Should private companies be able to discriminate when hiring?

---

Sure you can. Lets say you own a gym and you need to hire a kick boxing instructor. Lets say Bob, the paralyzed applicant applies for the job. It would be physically impossible for him to instruct the class so the employer rejects his application. Perfectly legal.

God forbid that companies are just allowed to hire the most qualified applicants... without worrying about being sued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

what a load of crap:

Quote:

---

BY JESSE JACKSON
New Haven, Conn., is a city in which African Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population; yet, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, the city must be served --"as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination -- by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions."
Today's ruling is deeply flawed and should not be the law of the land.

---

If my house is on fire, I want the best firemen coming to help, not a bunch of underperforming quota-fillers and affirmative action firefighters. And no, I don't care if they are green, yellow, black or white. The best ones regardless is what I want.

link to load of crap

---

Wow. I just got around to reading that link. I hope people realize just how wrong Jesse Jackson is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

For instance, what if I own a company, and I hate seeing handicapped people. Should I have the right not to hire them?

---

I would say you should have that right. At the same time, if one of them turned out to be the best candidate for the position, wouldn't you want to hire him or her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I would say you should have that right. At the same time, if one of them turned out to be the best candidate for the position, wouldn't you want to hire him or her?

---

Well, if I was racist, I doubt I would come to that conclusion, n'est-ce pas? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Sure you can. Lets say you own a gym and you need to hire a kick boxing instructor. Lets say Bob, the paralyzed applicant applies for the job. It would be physically impossible for him to instruct the class so the employer rejects his application. Perfectly legal.

---

No, I meant, if the handicapped person could otherwise perform the job the same a regular person could.

(I know there are laws allowing people who cast TV to keep attractiveness in mind, etc etc. There was also a case where a bar was allowed to discriminate when hiring on basis of attractiveness, due to a real effect on profits.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

In short, yes. But you left the question wide open. The hiring process is nothing but discrimination. The question becomes what you can and cannot discriminate against.

---

That was kinda the point. If I own a business, why can't I discriminate however I want? Should I have the right as an owner to discriminate however I wish to discriminate?

After all, if I am racist, and will only hire whites, should we let the free market settle the issue, or should we write a law to prevent me from doing so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That was kinda the point. If I own a business, why can't I discriminate however I want? Should I have the right as an owner to discriminate however I wish to discriminate?

After all, if I am racist, and will only hire whites, should we let the free market settle the issue, or should we write a law to prevent me from doing so?

---

As much as I would disagree with your personal feeling, I would agree you should be able to. The law says otherwise, that if race can be shown to be the discriminating factor, there are grounds for a lawsuit. Would you cast a White or Hispanic to play the role of MLK in a movie? Would you cast a Black or Hispanic to play the roll of Hitler?

It depends on the necessity of the discrimination I think. Then again, when you try to run a quota system, or the 80% rule, all other things must be equal. If an employer has a good reason other than skin color, then numbers should be thrown out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

No, I meant, if the handicapped person could otherwise perform the job the same a regular person could.

(I know there are laws allowing people who cast TV to keep attractiveness in mind, etc etc. There was also a case where a bar was allowed to discriminate when hiring on basis of attractiveness, due to a real effect on profits.)

---

Yes, there is no right to employment at any private or public institution. Now will someone actually say, I am not hiring you because you are black, white, handicapped or muslim...probably not so it is really a moot point.

You rarely see cases that are so cut and dry. Usually employment discrimination cases are wrongful termination cases as oppossed to actual failing to hire cases.

The other issue to examine is what the hiring polciy is of a private company. Lets say I own a small business of 200 employees in Omaha Nebraska, (I do not know Nebraska equal employment opportunity laws) and I issue a policy that my company will not discriminate in our hiring through race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc... Then I deny a gay applicant a job based on his sexual orientation, the applicant now has a cause of action against me. Now if I deny him the job and do not give him an explanation, he really doesn't have a case, not that people don't still try and sue.

Ironic.

Indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Ironic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Indeed

---

Why?

It's a non-story to me unless there are enough facts to make an assessment over. Besides, the Disabilities Act does not make race based decisions, or use quota's. Without knowing if he was the most qualified applicant or not, how can we decide? Let's say he scored in the top 5 for a dozen positions, but was not considered because of dyslexia. Now there has to be an honest question as to if dyslexia affects the job or not.

Because he was discriminated against twice. First, by the results of an unfair test that didn't break his way. If Ricci hadn't sued he not have been hired as a fireman to begin with.

And in the eponymous case, he wouldn't have gotten a promotion without suing when the retesting didn't go his way.

*Without civil rights law, Mr. Ricci can't get anywhere in the New Haven fire department.*

If hypocracy were capable of baring law suits, there would be a lot of empty dockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Ironic.

---

Ironic? Maybe. Hypocritical? Definitely not.

Equivalent circumstances? No.

Ricci's original suit claimed the test unfairly discriminated because, in order to pass it, it required him to possess skills not required to do the job of firefighter.

Ricci's second suit claimed he and the other firefighters, not promoted, were discriminated against, by the city of New Haven, because of their race.

This case was about whether or not the court had the right to step in and tell a city government how to conduct its hiring decisions. To claim her upholding the lower court ruling makes her activist is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

This case was about whether or not the court had the right to step in and tell a city government how to conduct its hiring decisions. To claim her upholding the lower court ruling makes her activist is ridiculous.

---

The city violated its own promotional standards, that is what the case was about. This case does not make her an activist. She had legitimate law to support her claim and anyone who says otherwise would be mistaken.

What makes her an activist, are the comments that she has made in several different speeches to law students throughout the nation. The Supreme Court is not the place to make policy, it is the venue to decide on whether policy is constitutional or not, and a smart judge would be wise to be more judicial in the words she uses to describe her role.

For the record, I do not like the term activist when it comes to judges. Most judges have been activists since Marshall took over as cheif judge.

Wow. What an absolute circle jerk session that occurred today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

Wow. What an absolute circle jerk session that occurred today.

---

I caught part of it on C-Span, and I was so sickened, I turned it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

Wow. What an absolute circle jerk session that occurred today.

---

It's typical of the first day of any confirmation process. Go back and read the transcripts of the Roberts confirmation hearing or the Alito hearing and you'll find exactly the same thing. Lots of talk and speechmaking, almost all of it partisan.