Being a people-pleaser is a personal characteristic that you wouldn't observe in an objective test on foreign policy. Again, you're talking about leadership, not objective knowledge.
One more point, if the last 7 presidential candidates had to take a test to be president: knowledge of economics, history, foreign affairs, science, etc. Every objective thinking person would one who agree (even the candidates themselves) that the top scorers would all be democrats: Clinton, Obama (Obama/Clinton), Gore, Kerry, Dole, McCain, Bush.
Bush and Obama didn't run against each other. In any event, you're actually making my point. No one would say that Bush is smarter than Obama. I doubt Bush himself would say that he's smarter than Obama. But he and his supporters would say that he has better instincts, better leadership abilities. And that's my point.
The problem is that management jobs require a command presence. People keep saying I don't care about race of the firefighter as long as they can put out a fire. I don't care about race of a leader in fire department as long as he/she can lead. Studying for an exam and scoring well doesn't mean you can lead in a complex bureaucracy. You can't prepare for the contingencies of leadership. So, in this instance, I prefer command presence over knowledge.
Here's a scenario: There's your leadership test and a written exam. There are ten applicants 2 black 2 Hispanic and 6 white, and 5 management positions. Everyone passes the written exam. The two Hispanic applicants receive the highest scores on the leadership test. But the whites receive the 5 highest composite scores. Who should get the jobs?
That's RIGHT!!! Most laws are flawed. That's why judges frequently make policy (law): they are frequently forced to fill gaps in the law created by lawmakers.
I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. I would only say that these jobs were management jobs, and any good hiring process should test basic knowledge and assess leadership ability. It's the second part create legal problems. How do you test leadership? Is diversity in the management of a fire department a worthy and useful goal? These are hard questions
Yes, but most laws create pockets of perverse incentives and can't use a rare potential to judge an entire law. Furthermore, I believe you can make a compelling argument against Title VII without relying on a small group of egregious cases.
Because it is not just disparate impact. A test could have a disparate impact but be permissible under the Title VII if the test is job related and consistent with business necessity. The difficulty comes when employers use nonscored (testing) objective criteria or subjective criteria.
We disagree on your first point. In regards to your second point, you can say that Title VII creates incentives for members of protected classes to sue when they don't get jobs or receive promotions without phrasing it the way you did. I don't believe people purposely do poorly on exams. But I do believe that the law probably prompts more lawsuits than necessary.
1) Your first argument is compelling and the reason for over decades of litigation on this issue.
2) The second sentence is a bit much. First, there are several protected classes including white women and variety of racial minorities.
3) The third claim is false. This case didn't require flagging. You assume that if Cabranes didn't "flag" this case, the firefighters would not have appealed, and that's just wrong.
sinisteaElb :There is an interesting element;She expressed alarm that the Fire department wouldn't have minorities in it's command structure when the city is 60% minority; not the normal concern of a person; "Help! My house is burning down:and I don't like the racial composition of the people fighting it! it's not only crazy,but elitist; you see,firefighting isn't so tough;they don't need the best running it;it's NOT LIKE BEING A JUDGE.
To be fair, you've been arguing forcefully that she and 2nd court didn't offer a serious explanation-just a paragraph. Now you're ascribing a reasoning to her that didn't even appear in the paragraph.
Thanks for keeping everybody on their toes,, drpeaches;I don't agree with you,but you make honest arguments;.rarely the case in passionate youtube debates.
The problem with your arguments is a majority of the 2nd circuit vote to affirm Judge Arterton's opinion. Furthermore, any smart observer realized where this case was going, regardless of the opinion or its length. This case was destined to go before the court, everyone knew that.
It doesn't stop here;Remember what Judge Ginsberg said:The Firefighters have no vested right to promotion; think about the arrogance of that statement. Maybe Sottomayor has no vested right to promotion,either.Call your Senators.For the next generation.
Anybody with any sense of fairness could see that there were serious issues of fairness here;issuing a paragraph was a slap in the face to people who risk their lives for a living and just want fairness;she tipped her hand there as an arrogant elitist;I only hope her ass will be fried in the confirmation process;Using working class Whites as sacrificial lambs so Liberals can feel better about themselves is going out of fashion.
This commercial is rubbish. "She allowed her personal feelings and political agenda to deny equal protection of the law." That's laughable. She's a great judge that will be confirmed by the Senate. I hope you didn't spend too much money on this ad (from the looks of it you didn't).
Fuck her;she and the rest of the judges didn't even give the firefighters the respect of writing a written opinion;I'm not an expert,but obviously there WERE issues worthy of consideration;she showed arrogance and elitism in how she handled it;and now she looks like a CLOWN.
First, it wasn't just her. There were two other judges who originally thought that a written opinion wasn't necessary. Second, the majority of the 2nd Circuit thought a paragraph was sufficient. Three, the lower court ruling was actually detailed and, in the opinion of the 2nd Circuit, correct. So they simply affirmed the lower court ruling. If this extremely educated and experienced woman who will soon sit on the SCOTUS is a clown, please give me my big red nose!!!
Really, do you really want to compare Obama sayings with Bush sayings. :) I don't know if I want my president to take an exam.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Well, that's what some of the officials in New Haven believed.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
But these were management jobs. None of these guys were going to put out actual fires.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Being a people-pleaser is a personal characteristic that you wouldn't observe in an objective test on foreign policy. Again, you're talking about leadership, not objective knowledge.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
One more point, if the last 7 presidential candidates had to take a test to be president: knowledge of economics, history, foreign affairs, science, etc. Every objective thinking person would one who agree (even the candidates themselves) that the top scorers would all be democrats: Clinton, Obama (Obama/Clinton), Gore, Kerry, Dole, McCain, Bush.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Bush and Obama didn't run against each other. In any event, you're actually making my point. No one would say that Bush is smarter than Obama. I doubt Bush himself would say that he's smarter than Obama. But he and his supporters would say that he has better instincts, better leadership abilities. And that's my point.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Why is that scary? Do you vote for the smartest person? If you voted for Bush, then the answer is no.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
The problem is that management jobs require a command presence. People keep saying I don't care about race of the firefighter as long as they can put out a fire. I don't care about race of a leader in fire department as long as he/she can lead. Studying for an exam and scoring well doesn't mean you can lead in a complex bureaucracy. You can't prepare for the contingencies of leadership. So, in this instance, I prefer command presence over knowledge.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Sinistraelb and drpeaches Good Night;I'll just say whta I think is getting danced around is that Disparate Effect= Quotas.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Here's a scenario: There's your leadership test and a written exam. There are ten applicants 2 black 2 Hispanic and 6 white, and 5 management positions. Everyone passes the written exam. The two Hispanic applicants receive the highest scores on the leadership test. But the whites receive the 5 highest composite scores. Who should get the jobs?
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
That's RIGHT!!! Most laws are flawed. That's why judges frequently make policy (law): they are frequently forced to fill gaps in the law created by lawmakers.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. I would only say that these jobs were management jobs, and any good hiring process should test basic knowledge and assess leadership ability. It's the second part create legal problems. How do you test leadership? Is diversity in the management of a fire department a worthy and useful goal? These are hard questions
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Yes, but most laws create pockets of perverse incentives and can't use a rare potential to judge an entire law. Furthermore, I believe you can make a compelling argument against Title VII without relying on a small group of egregious cases.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
LOL!! I'm sorry I didn't mean to use the royal we. I must have started with "we disagree" and it turn into "You and I"
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Because it is not just disparate impact. A test could have a disparate impact but be permissible under the Title VII if the test is job related and consistent with business necessity. The difficulty comes when employers use nonscored (testing) objective criteria or subjective criteria.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
We disagree on your first point. In regards to your second point, you can say that Title VII creates incentives for members of protected classes to sue when they don't get jobs or receive promotions without phrasing it the way you did. I don't believe people purposely do poorly on exams. But I do believe that the law probably prompts more lawsuits than necessary.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
1) Your first argument is compelling and the reason for over decades of litigation on this issue.
2) The second sentence is a bit much. First, there are several protected classes including white women and variety of racial minorities.
3) The third claim is false. This case didn't require flagging. You assume that if Cabranes didn't "flag" this case, the firefighters would not have appealed, and that's just wrong.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
and two Republican appointees stood with those democrats. Using partisan categories to explain or describe the behavior of judges is silly.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
I know which is why the partisan element ("democrat justices") of your argument is silly
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
sinisteaElb :There is an interesting element;She expressed alarm that the Fire department wouldn't have minorities in it's command structure when the city is 60% minority; not the normal concern of a person; "Help! My house is burning down:and I don't like the racial composition of the people fighting it! it's not only crazy,but elitist; you see,firefighting isn't so tough;they don't need the best running it;it's NOT LIKE BEING A JUDGE.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
To be fair, you've been arguing forcefully that she and 2nd court didn't offer a serious explanation-just a paragraph. Now you're ascribing a reasoning to her that didn't even appear in the paragraph.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
My mistake;these were Justice Ginsburg"s remarks.I didn't make that clear. Sinistraelb and I were discussing her.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Gotcha...
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Thanks for keeping everybody on their toes,, drpeaches;I don't agree with you,but you make honest arguments;.rarely the case in passionate youtube debates.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Thanks, mrbriscoe2001, and feel free keep me honest.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
The problem with your arguments is a majority of the 2nd circuit vote to affirm Judge Arterton's opinion. Furthermore, any smart observer realized where this case was going, regardless of the opinion or its length. This case was destined to go before the court, everyone knew that.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
For the record, two of the four judges that voted against the majority were appointed by Republican presidents.
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
It doesn't stop here;Remember what Judge Ginsberg said:The Firefighters have no vested right to promotion; think about the arrogance of that statement. Maybe Sottomayor has no vested right to promotion,either.Call your Senators.For the next generation.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Anybody with any sense of fairness could see that there were serious issues of fairness here;issuing a paragraph was a slap in the face to people who risk their lives for a living and just want fairness;she tipped her hand there as an arrogant elitist;I only hope her ass will be fried in the confirmation process;Using working class Whites as sacrificial lambs so Liberals can feel better about themselves is going out of fashion.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
This commercial is rubbish. "She allowed her personal feelings and political agenda to deny equal protection of the law." That's laughable. She's a great judge that will be confirmed by the Senate. I hope you didn't spend too much money on this ad (from the looks of it you didn't).
drpeaches1979 2 years ago
Fuck her;she and the rest of the judges didn't even give the firefighters the respect of writing a written opinion;I'm not an expert,but obviously there WERE issues worthy of consideration;she showed arrogance and elitism in how she handled it;and now she looks like a CLOWN.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
First, it wasn't just her. There were two other judges who originally thought that a written opinion wasn't necessary. Second, the majority of the 2nd Circuit thought a paragraph was sufficient. Three, the lower court ruling was actually detailed and, in the opinion of the 2nd Circuit, correct. So they simply affirmed the lower court ruling. If this extremely educated and experienced woman who will soon sit on the SCOTUS is a clown, please give me my big red nose!!!
drpeaches1979 2 years ago