Your excuse making is sickening really. Indicative of the kind of sad morass that is the left. The fact is that your anti-White agenda took a hit today, deal with it.

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

Actually I think you're wrong there.

I think all of the hateful ideologies and racism has now moved to the left. The scary thing is that the left is better at covering it up and even labelling the other side as such. They're far better at lying and manipulating.

They've made a science of it.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Interesting. I'm surprised this was as close as it was. Seemed to me to be a pretty clear cut case of racial discrimination. The City even admited to such. The city government flately admited to descriminating against the aplicants due to their race, in order to avoid a possible lawsuit.

I suppose you have a point O'Sullivan, that the issue before SCOTUS was not whether it was racist, but whether it was unconstitutional. But I'm under the impression that a government racially descriminating against a group, especially for employment has been legally settled as unconstitutional. I'd be interested in any recent cases demonstrating this not to be true, or at least demonstrating racial descrimination by government against a group is deamed legal, so long as those harmed are white. Keep in mind here this is not a case of preference, these prospective Leuitenants and Captains were unquestionably harmed by being denied promotion, solely based on race.

And here we see why the Right is nothing but hot air. The vast majority of the right wing blowhards in this thread believe patently racist shit like this. You aren't fooling anyone, but your own delusional like-minded cool aid drinkers.

That pretty well sums up my feelings on the subject.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

I see. so in typical leftist fashion instead of dealing with what I said, you label it RACIST and thereby think it warrants no further discussion. This is the tactic of weak minded cowards. Or you can step up like a big boy and tell me exactly where you think I am wrong?

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

the trouble is that you want to insist that they did anything but.She was already getting pounded on her percentage of reversals. 60% vs 66.6% its still terrible. and as you pointed out before they have shifted work when there wa reason, no reason here.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

This ruling is good for Blacks everywhere. The city decided that Blacks were intellectually inferior and needed and easier test. I'm glad that the Supreme Court disagreed.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I insisted on nothing of the sort. Actually I assume good faith. But others may not, and the court is responsible for that to some degree in how they acted. I said they left an appearance of possible impropriety and that was the issue. Whether they did have any improper motivations is irrelevant--they are supposed to be on the lookout for giving off any appearance that they might or do. It will now be questioned by some that the conservative jurists had such motivations for the reason I said, and that was avoidable and preventable. That is where the SCOTUS in my view made an error.

She has never been and never will be in trouble on account of her reversal rate. It's an utterly bogus stat and hit job by those predisposed to not want her on the court for political and/or ideological reasons. It will have zero effect on her chances of appointment given the numbers in Congress, and I think the GOP and/or conservatives should stop injuring their credibility on a lost cause by making clearly false claims against her, and ones that are hypocritical too given those they desired on the bench were just as bad on that 'stat.'

It's a meaningless and misleading statistic. It has to be measured against her total sum of decisions. She has decided thousands altogether and has in the area of 380 precedential published ones on the appeal court. That makes her reversal statistic utterly negligible.

And that 'stat' is actually better than average. The SCOTUS reverses a higher percentage of the cases it elects to hear than affirms them. During its 2006-2007 term, it reversed or vacated 68% of the cases it reviewed and the rate was 73.6% the previous term.

Nor was the record of others on the SCOTUS much better, including the recent appointments, e.g.,

USATODAY.com - Supreme Court justices have already acted on some Alito decisions

I am professionally familiar with Alito because I had cases before him in the Third Circuit. He's a very congenial, competent and intelligent jurist and was easily qualified for his SCOTUS appointment. But his story is no different than hers. And conservatives in Congress and the street weren't decrying his 'reversal stat' there for a good reason...it's a bullshit statistic.

Such a 'stat' also take no account of 'might makes right' in the appeals process. A District court can decide a case sitting en banc (the entire set of jurists deciding rather than just a panel of some of them with panels assigned to cases) and so can the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, and the SCOTUS can then reverse it all in a 5-4 decision. Such a 'reversal' says nothing about the competence of the reversed jurists--they well outnumbered those who were empowered to make the final call. It doesn't mean the majority of 5 are smarter or even right in the general consensus of the legal profession. They just had the ultimate power to trump everyone.

These kinds of bunk stats simply have no merit and are intended to libel jurists for political mischief. Someone might as well claim Alito or Sotomayor sucks because they have a 'high rate' of being dissenters in cases and that means they are incompetent, but that would also be a bunk mischievous statistic intended for a poorly thought out conclusion.

__________________

touche

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Where are you getting the notion that the promotions involved only qualifications to "fight a fire more effectively"? It has clearly never occured to you that EVERY firefighter is trained to fight a fire as effectively as another, but that the higher your place in the department that there are OTHER responsibilities, administrative, logistical, managerial, which require broader knowledge than merely fighting a fire effectively.

That statement is as stupid as saying that you shouldn't need an MBA as a qualification to work in Sr. Management for an Automobile manufacturer because none of the courses are "at all relevant to" being able to build a car better.

Guess what Einstein, the Fire Chief--for example--has duties and responsibilities that have nothing to do with directly fighting a fire, and as such, the qualifications for that position (and many other higher level positions above entry-level firefighters) are more than merely knowing how to fight a fire effectively.

Actually, there were sufficient materials available freely to permit anyone to do well on the test. That does not mean that ALL materials that might enhance their performance on the test are free of charge, merely that sufficient materials are.

If you are taking a math test, all the problems of which are derived from lessons in a textbook, it is not "cheating" or "discrimination" if in addition to that textbook, you higher a tutor to help you understand the contents of that book more effectively

And again, you are demonstrating your basic ignorance of the issue, as the exam is for promotions to positions which include duties and responsibilities outside of merely fighting fires.

Really? What about the amount of time? Consider that one of the firefighters who "cheated" according to you managed to overcome a learning disability to outscore most of the other people taking it?

Furthermore, not everyone who passed the test spent money, many of them did. But, spending wasn't what gave them the ability to pass the test, it was the TIME they invested STUDYING the materials that they bought in order to do better on the test than they otherwise would have.

I deal with plenty of pathetic people who are always looking to blame others for their own lack of success or failure. I was in a meeting recently at work discussing promotion guidelines. While we require a Bachelor's degree to advance beyond a certain point, my employer is incredibly generous in providing tuition reimbursement for us to pursue degrees, requiring only that we get a B in a course to maintain our reimbursement. Several people complained that this was unfair to "people with families and other commitments that made it tough for them to find the time to go to school". Bullshit. Those are all personal choices, and I have known people with families and other commitments who nonetheless go to school part-time while working full-time WITHOUT their employer picking up the tab. AND, it just so happens that the person who was complaining had a chip on their shoulder because they had recently had to refund our employer for a course they got a "C" in.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I agree with this.

__________________

Isn't that pretty basic? Like which way to turn your wheels or whether or not to leave the vehicle in gear?

That question seems pretty relevant, since they cold readily be in a situation where even if their truck would not be affected another truck at the scene would, and in their new position they'd need to know that and to take it into consideration when coordinating the teams under their command.

I've done well on tests I haven't studied for, I could have done better on it if I had. Their not mutually exclusive.

Dunno about this, my university usually had at least one copy on reserve.

I'm curious how they could have upheld the decision without creating a de facto quota.

From the original ruling the 'safe' way to conduct such tests would be to throw out any test which did not return a perfect or near perfect distribution.

Blacks have accepted this fact. The SCOTUS did not disagree with that, they disagreed that it could be the basis for discrimination against Whites.

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

Wrong.
Management skills, command skills, etc., are only important because they allow fire fighting officers to fight fires better.
So all test should be relative to improving fire fighting capabilities, regardless of whether they are bureaucratic or not.

This test is acknowledged as not doing that.
It had stupid questions with wrong answers, such as which way to face a fire truck on a hill.

The applicants were told there was no need to buy the additional material in order to do well on the test. So it was then wrong to include questions only covered in the purchased material.
All material should have been provided for free, at the station houses.
Why would you ever want to include questions that were no in avaiable material?
What are people supposed to do in real life, if they have a question?
Are they supposed to go out and buy books every time they have a question about their job?

Obvoiusly the test was badly done, and the results useless.
A better test should have been designed.

And yes, a person with dyslexia hiring a tutor is cheating, because they will not be able to rely on a tutor in real life, and will likely fail.