I found a Great webmemo at the Heritage Foundation that compiles a list of thorough & important questions that should be asked to judge Sotomayor during her Senate confirmation hearings. These are just a few of them:
“Do you still believe tha…

The current SCOTUS sends the newest nominee a welcome note and a little common sense.
The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because [on] their race, reversing a decision that high court…

A) “Gee, I hope my first responders are racially diverse!”

OR

B) “I sure hope my first responders are physically and mentally competent to do their jobs!”

If you answered A, you might be a liberal.

If you answered B, you are sane.

In a pathetic sense, one can almost feel sympathy for New Haven. Now, all cities everywhere will pre-emptively fear a lawsuit by whichever group is the racial victim-class of the day.

Identity politics devours itself in its malicious, bitter, unyielding hunger for “justice”. How sweet.

PS to all race-baiting grievance-mongers: Mother Nature herself is a “Disparate Impacter”. Are ya gonna sue her too?

How is this for a money statement:

Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure
to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.
When you read the argument, you’ll see that she vehemently opposes the “strong basis in evidence” standard. This is not a procedural disagreement.

Yes, money statement proving that her understanding of the law is that when white’s are discriminated against, it’s not a violation of Title VII.

If you read the concurring and dissenting opinions, you will see that New Haven NEVER had an alternative testing method and had NO reason whatsoever to deny Ricci et al senior positions other than not enough minorities passed the test.

In order for this not to be a violation of Title VII, the department would have to find other reasons not to promote them based on performance, attitude, etc.

These guys didn’t get promoted because not enough minorities passed the test. It wasn’t about their job history and wasn’t about their abilities. It was all about race. Period.

“Strong basis in evidence?” The person that she quotes most often is the CEO of a competing company to the company who administered the test who admitted to not reading or studying the test before giving his testimony, but still recommended certifying the results because they were within the accepted range.

Ginsberg brings up other towns who use different testing methods, but this is irrelevant to this case, because, at the time, New Haven had no alternative method. Her reason for addressing this is to prove that alternative testing methods lead to more minorities in leadership positions, not to a more productive or effective firefighting brigade.

New Haven should choose a test that puts the best firefighters in place for senior leadership positions regardless of race.

Ginsberg says:

I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity.

Again, the process was flawed in her mind because not enough minorities passed the test. How does that equate to business necessity?