Coming from you, its quite a compliment :)

Kennedy wrote, "We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard."

You wrote, "There simply wasn't any discrimination. Nobody is entitled to a promotion. Nobody was promoted. No substitutions were made." Imagine if the United States has thrown out the election of 2008 because, as the record showed, the FEC in its discussions was concerned that a black man had been elected. No problem, right? There was no discrimination because no one is entitled to be elected president. Neither McCain nor Obama was promoted. No substitutions were made. We're just going to have a do-over. Does that make sense? How can you say there was no disparate treatment when you know perfectly well that if 20 black applicants and zero white applicants had passed that test, and the city had thrown it out becasue there were too many blacks passing, that they would have sued (successfully as it turns out, and should have) on grounds of disparate treatment. They CERTAINLY would use the record to show that they were denied their promotions because of their race, and rightly so. Title VII does NOT say that you can discriminate, as long as it's against white people. It says,

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

You apparently don't know the law. This was a great example of "judicial activism." Never before has it been a rule that a city needed to subject a test to a validation process, while also demonstrating that there were no other less restrictive means with legitimate business interests to not accept the results of a test. Rather, that is what was required if one wanted to defend their program against a lawsuit stating that the test had a disparate impact.

Kennedy ignored the fact that this had never before been required, while also ignoring the prior testimony and evidence that there were "equally valid, less discriminatory alternative[s] that served the City’s needs" used by other cities in the immediate area. Kennedy can company just engaged in judicial activism where the legislated from the bench in order to reach the objective they are comfortable with. Again, there was no discrimination here. Your analogy with the President is ludicrous and laughable.

I've finished reading the decision on the initial ruling. I agree that the judge ruled correctly based on the law. However, what this proves to me is that the law needs refinement when it comes to decertifying an exam. The same assessment process, required to certify an exam, should be followed if a motion is made to decertify it. I hope that is the result of all of this.

How angry you liberals get when you are not allowed to discriminate against white people!

I am pleased that you chose this moment of electoral supremacy to bring affirmative action back into the forefront, reminding independents and swing voters exactly what it is you stand for - tribalism, identity politics, and a thorough going nastiness that must be seen to be believed.

Good stuff!

My recollection, as well as the record, is that you decided to stop talking as soon as you were finnally asked some questions. The main one being to document what horrible discrimination was going on today that would prompt you to sacrifice the lives of innocents who had never done any harm.

Why, Paul, does the 18 year old today have to pay with the destruction of his dreams for something that happened to people long, long ago and far, far away? Why do leftists always demand the innocent pay?

Once upon a time, the goal in America was that every individual would be equal before the law --- now all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I explained to you, in your blog comments, why I thought further communication was pointless. The fact that you didn't even bother to read my justification - whether or not you agree with it - is aperfect example why I will not help you pretend that you have any interest in dialogue.

You are, as I have said before, the iPod Shuffle of UT. You are a one-way rant machine. Our only purpose in your world is to click "next," so you can write another screed.

If you ever want to know why the political climate in this country is so poisoned, you need look no further than your previous reply. Rather than reply substantively, as I did to your post, you asserted - without knowing me - that I did not know the law (ignoring the fact that I quoted directly from it), and concluded that my analogy was "ludicrous and laughable." You are, of course, entitled to those opinions. But your ad hominem cannot persuade - it only seeks to demean. I post a little, and read a lot, because I'm interested in other points of view, and also in testing my own theories against others knowledge and insights. How much more helpful it would be if you could have responded, directly, to my thought experiment of switching the race of the fire fighters. How much more interesting, if you could explain why awarding no one with promotions does not violate paragraph 2, which as I cited below, reads: It is unlawful "to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee", when that is precisely what New Haven did.