18 firefighters, 17 white and 1 Hispanic, have brought a lawsuit versus the city of New Haven for discrimination. The city fire department administered civil service tests for promotions. 27 blacks took the test, but none of them scored high enough to be considered for promotion. The city decided to throw out the test and instead not promote anyone. The plaintiffs are claiming that they were discriminated against so they sued the city.
The federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the city. The case is now before the Supreme Court. This is so ridiculous that it boggles my mind. So the town happens to not have any highly qualified black people. How can you just throw out the results because they don’t fit what you want to happen? This is the definition of discrimination. Basing results on the color of skin instead of the merit of the person. This is exactly what we have supposedly been fighting against.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Mr. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Mr. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. His hard work at studying resulted in him getting the 6th highest score among 77 people who took the test. The city of New Haven scrapped the test results for fear of a would-be Title VII disparate impact lawsuit brought by minority firefighters.
This is the type of hard work that should be rewarded. Maybe if some of the 27 black firefighters had put in this type of effort they could have passed the test. Why in the world does this man lose his promotion because a black man wasn’t able to do as well on the test as he did?
As a side note, Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s selection for the Supreme Court, is the judge that ruled for the city. This is also the woman who said the “court of appeals is where policy is made.”
This case is ridiculous and her selection to the Supreme Court doesn’t sit well with me. She clearly doesn’t follow the Constitution and that scares me. Unfortunately, because she is a woman and a Hispanic, she will be confirmed easily. The Republicans will be too scared to fight the pick for fear of losing even more women and Hispanic voters.
Democrats in the House blocked the investigation of Speaker Pelosi for her recent comments saying the CIA misled Congress by a vote of 252-172.
Bipartisan? Hardly. “The most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” Right. Sure. Whatever you say hopefully soon to be former Speaker. The direction you’ve taken the country since taking power in 2006 has been a little less than wonderful. I won’t be sad to see you go, hopefully that blessed day is sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, the Democrats have blocked this attempt at the truth, but that doesn’t mean she is completely in the clear. If all else fails, we can always take back Congress in 2010.
Thank you so much! Because of your support, the show Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Freedom WatchĂ˘â‚¬Âť is finally being considered for an open time slot on Fox news. You know what that means? A Libertarian television show would be on mainstream media! Finally a show that reflects the attitudes and opinions of people like you and I who care about personalĂ‚Â and economic liberties.
Right now there is an open time slot and Judge Andrew NapolitanoĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s show, Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Freedom WatchĂ˘â‚¬Âť has been put forth as a possible filler for it. But, thereĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s one stipulation. I just got off the phone with the producer and I heard they will make the decision so we need to bump up the number of views on the show as much as we can, AND we need as many people as possible to write an email to Fox to request it get on air. Can you please help?
Full disclosure: I think torture is wrong. Derek and I disagree, and argue, about this weekly. My problems with torture are entirely an ethical one, however, and have nothing to do with the legality of the issue. Would you like to know why? Because, I’m Am Not A Lawyer. The internet, with an uncountable number of different communities has somehow, despite the I.Q. of the average internet citizen being dangerously close to that of a new born chimp, figured out that lawyers are qualified to have legal opinions on issues involving the law. I know, it’s crazy to think that years of schooling and $150,000 in loan debt make you qualified to have an opinion on issues that arise within your specialty. Some groups, however, have decided that this just isn’t so. In fact, they believe that if an attorney’s interpretation of the law disagrees with their own that the attourney should be punished for the actions taken based on their advice.
One Way Ticket To Thought-Crimes-Ville Please.
It’s an absurd proposition to think that these attorneys should be punished for their interpretation of the law. Whether or not what was done, torture in this instance, was truly illegal is really a matter for the supreme court. In the case that it is decided it is illegal the guilty parties would be the ones that carried out the action. Assuming that the attorneys were completely wrong the only people they should be accountable to are their clients, in this case the Bush officials, who would be going to prison for committing torture, probably in the form of a lawsuit.Ă‚Â If the liberals really believe that wrong doing took place they need to try the members of the Bush administration they believe to be guilty, allow the supreme court to make a decision, and allow those same Bush officials to then sue their incompetent attorneys. But suing them because you disagree with their interpretation, without even showing that it’s false, is a new level of stupid.
The news world was buzzing today with the information that President Obama would be toughening up on fuel emissions and vehicle mileage requirements. I’m not one to support government regulation of business, but I understand this. In fact, most republicans understand this. It isn’t new - the plans were already put in place by President Bush. Obama, however, has, as usual, taken something that almost every American supported and turned it into something slimy and grotesque.
Obama has increased the fuel economy required in new vehicles by 2016 to 35 mpg. More importantly, however, is the addition of the CO2 emissions guidelines, something the federal government has never regulated before, hopefully they won’t spread the regulation of CO2 emissions to other items… I’m a big guy and sometimes I find myself out of breadth and breathing pretty hard.. I wouldn’t want to hold my breadth for fear that I may emit to much CO2 for the massive number of trees to handle.
The Dems Keep California In The Bag
All of this, however, is to ‘help automakers’ by establishing a single federal guideline. In reality, according to even the most liberal news source, these changes are all about appeasing the California Air Resources Board that has badgered the federal government endlessly to make their regulations apply across the board. I suspect this action should net Obama and all the liberals a substantial amount of money and quite a bit of votes during the next election cycle.
2. Geek Politics is now available for download on the Kindle. To get it, go here.
For those that don’t know, the Kindle is an e-book reader. Amazon sells many books in electronic format that you can download straight to it using the built in wireless connection. It also has the ability to get newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. It now also offers the ability to subscribe to blogs. I do not have one so I can’t say if it is worth it or not, but I have heard mostly good reviews and as much as I read I would probably get one if I had the extra cash laying around. If anybody has any experience with it let me know what you think of it.
If, in an imaginary world, we were to legalize - or even just make it a misdemeanor to use - illegal drugs (Pot, Cocaine, Meth, etc.) what would we do with the people already in jail for those crimes? It seems we, by we I mean legislators, would be faced with choosing between two options. They could keep them imprisoned, what they did was illegal when they did it. Or, they could write the laws such that they were retroactive - essentially freeing people currently incarcerated. Derek’s recent post about the “Unintended Consequences of Congress’s Actions” got me thinking. Previously, I might have said that the only fair thing would be to free them, now I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.
The prison system has some serious problems. One of the problems is that prison to often serves as a way for criminals to make criminal contacts and grow in their chosen ‘trade’. I worry that, perhaps, the criminals locked up for drug related charges will not be the same people who get released if a law like this were to be retroactive. Would we find a group of people with chips on their shoulders and new skills learned in jail or a group of people ready to accept responsibility for their past actions and move on to become productive members of society. I’m not sure… but Derek’s post has certainly made me take a second look at this.