SOTOMAYOR's SMACKDOWN

[calfoxwc]

She should drop out of the nomination.

*********************************

EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's smackdown

 

A history of activism on behalf of jackpot justice

By | Wednesday, June 3, 2009

 

It's no secret that the U.S. Supreme Court often shows a deep philosophical divide, 5-to-4, on cases of the greatest magnitude. It thus should raise eyebrows to know that the high court's justices once voted unanimously to slap down an opinion written by the very judge, Sonia Sotomayor, who has been nominated to join their ranks.

 

In the 2006 case of Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, all eight voting justices ruled that Judge Sotomayor had ignored or misconstrued a whole line of cases, stretching all the way back to 1971. (The ninth seat was unfilled, awaiting the confirmation of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.) Judge Sotomayor erred in favor of what should be described as Jackpot Justice Inc., otherwise known as the group of plaintiffs' attorneys most prone to lawsuit abuse.

 

It wasn't one of the conservatives who wrote the decision overturning the ill-considered opinion that Judge Sotomayor had written for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; the author was a fellow liberal: Justice John Paul Stevens. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter all joined the more conservative Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy in what can only be described as a judicial version of a smackdown.

 

The case involved a rather dry analysis of securities laws rather than issues most of the public would recognize as crucially important. It's also true that fair examinations of Judge Sotomayor's whole record would show several cases in which she sided against the plaintiffs' bar so often favored by liberals. Nevertheless, her reading of this particular case was tendentious enough to suggest she was trying to make policy in favor of plaintiffs rather than dutifully follow precedent.

 

We need not get lost in the details of the case, which centered on an attempt to file a class-action suit in friendly state courts rather than federal court. Congress had acted wisely to pre-empt such misuse of state courts on cases involving the stock market because, as the Supreme Court noted, "the magnitude of the federal interest in protecting the integrity and efficient operation of the market for nationally traded securities cannot be overstated." The high court noted that Congress had clear authority to try to "deter or at least quickly dispose of those suits whose nuisance value outweighs their merits."

 

The court also wrote that on interpreting the key clauses of the law, any ambiguity had long been resolved. Further, the proper interpretation flows directly not from complicated legal precepts but from "ordinary principles of statutory construction."

 

In short, this was not a particularly difficult case. Judge Sotomayor was way out in left field on this one. Her decision was an example of judicial activism of the sort that led her to write in a 1996 Suffolk University Law Review article that only judges and juries, not legislators, have the right to place "limits on jury verdicts in personal injury cases." The assertion is ludicrous.

 

Given her history of activism, the Senate should question whether Judge Sotomayor can apply existing law faithfully and well. The Supreme Court already has ruled against her.

[calfoxwc]

Thanks, Ballpeen -

 

but something must be wrong with this thread...

 

I haven't been ridiculed for posting it via a personal attack

 

against me.

 

 

Kinda nice, but unexpected. @@

[Mr. T]

I think Obama sees a little bit of himself in Sotomayor since they both seem to be narcissistic here you have obama thinking of his likeness here. and then you Sotomayor making repetitive quotes like "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

[calfoxwc]

Poor Dan...

 

A personal attack has to be "fag" or it isn't a personal attack?

 

OH. Now I see why "Retarded" is slurred fast and furiously by the left...

 

it isn't slang, and it's "approved" to be used and isn't a personal attack.

 

Like, the definition of what "is" is, eh?

 

"we aren't lib hypocrites, we just change the meaning of words!"

 

And, Harriet Myers was a victim of vicious partisanship, that worked to destroy

 

her confirmation by ruining any chance she had to get a vote.

 

But, the only reason Sotomayor may get in, in because Republicans promised

 

her a fair hearing. Dems don't play fair, they'll destroy you to further their agenda.

 

And, Republicans will keep trying to play fair.... sigh.

 

But Harriet Myers DID deserve the fair hearing she never got by Dems, and Sotomayor

 

WILL get a fair hearing, because SHE is not a conservative.

 

Unless, EVEN enough Dems are worried about her lack of integrity concerning the Constitution

 

and justice for all. She doesn't believe in the latter, and Myers most certainly did.

 

Don't believe it, Dan? Doesn't matter.

 

(yay! I have never personally attacked anybody ever on his forum ,because I never said "fag" to them! Yippee!)

 

What a crock that is....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I started this thread, Dan. And show me where I've said I'm the class clown.

 

I just have my own sense of humor. Usually, I'm right often enough that Heck

 

just stays quiet, and I know that sometimes Steve agrees with me.

 

And I don't try to be the knowitall bigshot like you and Heck.

 

and, I try to stay on topic, and when I post, sometimes I'm very serious.

 

I rarely see you add anything of legit content, you and mz the pussy just jawflappy

 

with trying to ridicule anyone who doesn't drink your sugarfree tasteless koolaid.

 

This article I posted was so legit, that all you have is trying to screw around

 

and ignore the ISSUE, and no other lib can contest the legimacy of the reasoning.

 

You could easily find fault with Sotomayor as you do with conservatives, but

 

you go chickenlittle and cherry pick defense of her, beceause of her politics.

 

And, you do the opposite to conservatives, because of their politics.

 

Pretty much leaves you looking like you don't have the nads to

 

handle the subject at hand. I may be wrong on things eh... once in a while...

 

but I have no problem voicing my opinions at length.

 

You got no substance. Just whiny-whiny and insults.

 

Try addressing the CONTENT OF THE SERIOUS POST, or stay out of thread.

 

You would look like you handle a political message board.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

As far as the court, you cheered Harriet Myers and defended her and she didnt even get to a hearing.

As far as Sotomayor is concerned ,you may as well get used to it ,she will be confirmed. DAn

**********************************************************************

Big deal. You made a completely invalid assumption about me cheering for Harriet Myers at the time,

and your point about her not even getting to a hearing only means you are ignoring the issue

of extremely obvious liberal vicious partisanship and hypocrisy. Note the use of the word "Ignore".

 

You do it a lot.

*****************************************************************

That is what I posted after having to address your crying over personal attacks that havent happened.

*****************************************************************

It doesn't address the CONTENT of the POST that STARTED THE THREAD.

 

Thank you for proving I am right once again.

*********************************************************

According to you Harriet Myers is more qualified than Sotomayor?

Please explain why you think this is,this should be good.

*******************************************************

Here is what I said:

 

"And, Harriet Myers was a victim of vicious partisanship, that worked to destroy

 

her confirmation by ruining any chance she had to get a vote.

 

But, the only reason Sotomayor may get in, in because Republicans promised

 

her a fair hearing. Dems don't play fair, they'll destroy you to further their agenda.

 

And, Republicans will keep trying to play fair.... sigh.

 

But Harriet Myers DID deserve the fair hearing she never got by Dems, and Sotomayor

 

WILL get a fair hearing, because SHE is not a conservative.

 

Unless, EVEN enough Dems are worried about her lack of integrity concerning the Constitution

 

and justice for all. She doesn't believe in the latter, and Myers most certainly did."

***************************************************************

Now, Dan, please explain to the jury how I said Harriet Myers was more qualified

that Sotomayor.

 

I disagree with Sotomayor's statements in the past, and her rulings in the past,

which have been and will surely be overruled.

 

Show one judgement Harriet Myers made that was overruled by the Supreme Court.

 

Or, you can keep trying to start verbal bickering to divert from the real issues.

 

I guess you are copying Heck's boring approach. I think you both are upset

 

that Steve and I keep showing you hat your boring partisan quibbling and hopscotching

 

is not the point of a lot of threads, and not legit in content.

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Actuallly Harriet Meyers was not fit for the SC because.....

 

?

 

WSS

[choco]

sounds like your problem is with congressional republicans, and not soto. we already knew they were spineless....this only serves to prove it.

 

hmmm...bet ya ron paul sounds a bit better, eh?

[calfoxwc]

She was on middle ground. Meaning, far right and left hated her.

 

Fine by me.

 

Sotomayor is LOVED by the LEft.

 

Because, she IS left, but may be not so much...

 

or not.

 

But nobody is calling her being on middle ground.

 

Which, is what I would think everybody wants.

[Guest mz.]

Actuallly Harriet Meyers was not fit for the SC because.....

 

?

 

WSS

 

...she was never a fcuking judge.

 

Gimme a break already, Steve. Your it's-OK-if-I-act-partisan-because-I-assume-you-do-to act is beyond tired. Read Miers' and Sotomayor's history/experience/etc and tell me if they are even in the same fcuking league.

 

[Guest mz.]

Via Glenn Greenwald's Twitter:

Now that 4 Supreme Court justices agree with Sotomayor on Ricci, can we stop pretending her decision there makes her out of the mainstream?

[calfoxwc]

No, because 4 are liberal judges who want her to join them on the court.

 

Can we agree that 4 judges on the Supreme Court would rule favorable

 

on ANY liberal cause, no matter WHAT it was?

[Guest mz.]

This is in direct response to the claims that Sotomayor was "out there," not that she isn't liberal.

 

Can we agree that 4 judges on the Supreme Court would rule favorable on ANY liberal cause, no matter WHAT it was?

 

Only if you'll agree that the Conservative judges on the Supreme Court would rule favorably on ANY Conservative cause, no matter WHAT it was.

[calfoxwc]

Maybe, but I think that the conservative judges rule objectively in appraising the law.

 

We all know that liberal judges are apt to rule regardless of what the Founding Fathers intended.

 

Which is, what Sotomayor did.

[Guest mz.]

Maybe, but I think that the conservative judges rule objectively in appraising the law.

 

Of course you'd say something like this.

 

We all know that liberal judges are apt to rule regardless of what the Founding Fathers intended.

 

Which is, what Sotomayor did.

 

You're hilarious.

 

[calfoxwc]

Well, I don't believe anybody can show me where Sotomayor's decision against the white firefighters

 

was based on the law.

 

It was based on liberal personally held feelings about reverse discrimination.

 

"I'm hispanic, so I'm siding for him, and against the white firefighters" doesn't sound

 

very intelligent or legally based to me. To you?

[calfoxwc]

Sotomayor ruling was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

Told ya. And, I'm telling you again, she does not have the objectivity, nor the integrity, imho,

 

to be a Supreme Court justice. And, she doesn't seem to be smart enough to comprehend

 

complex understandings. As in, any case that is more than "who caused the car accident."

********************************************************************************

 

Sotomayor's Smackdown, Part II

 

 

High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit

 

Ruling Reverses High-Profile Decision by Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

 

 

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:07 PM

 

 

The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

 

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.

 

In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.

 

The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.

 

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

 

She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

 

On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

 

Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

 

The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.

 

Senate hearings on her nomination are set to begin in two weeks.

 

The New Haven case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has become the ruling that Sotomayor's critics most point to for evidence that she lets her background influence her decisions, even though her role has been somewhat inflated.

 

 

 

The promotion test results produced a heated debate in New Haven, and government lawyers warned the city's civil service board that if it certified the test results, minority firefighters might have a good case for claiming discrimination under Title VII. Federal guidelines presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on minorities.

 

The board split 2 to 2, which meant the exam was not certified. Those who opposed using the results said they worried the test must be flawed in some way that disadvantaged minorities. (The test questions have not been made public.)

 

The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due process.

 

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

 

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."

 

Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion.

 

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.

 

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

 

The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin.

 

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work.

[Guest mz.]

Well, I don't believe anybody can show me where Sotomayor's decision against the white firefighters

 

was based on the law.

 

Well anybody besides four Supreme Court judges??

[calfoxwc]

Sotomayor is a fool:

 

"The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work. "

 

 

means that it has nothing to do with his being Hispanic, it had to do with a learning disability.

 

 

All they had to do was test Ricci by reading the test to him.

 

But to punish the white firefighters was stupid. And, the Supreme Court justices

 

who DO KNOW the LAW AND ABIDE BY IT IN THEIR DECISIONS, agree.

 

[Guest mz.]

Couldn't agree with Glenn Greenwald more.

 

The Supreme Court's Ricci decision

 

In the now famous "white firefighter" affirmative action case -- Ricci v. DeStefano -- the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling (.pdf), reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor) and held that the firefighters were the victims of unlawful racial discrimination. The Court split along standard ideological lines (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy in the majority), with Kennedy writing the Court's opinion. Four Justices agreed with the Second Circuit's panel, including David Souter, the Justice whom Sotomayor has been nominated to replace. Several points are noteworthy about this decision:

 

(1) In light of today's ruling, it's a bit difficult -- actually, impossible -- for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor's Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; ( she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; © a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel's ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices -- including the ones she is to replace -- agree with her.

 

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it's definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

 

(2) The irony of using Ricci against Sotomayor has always been that the reason this case resonates for so many people is due to empathy for the white firefighters. That irony is underscored by today's ruling, as Justice Kennedy devotes multiple paragraphs at the beginning of his opinion to highlighting all of the facts (as opposed to legal arguments) which make people sympathetic to Ricci. Conversely, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, noted upfront that the white firefighters "understandably attract this Court's sympathy," but it must be the law -- i.e., long-standing legal precedent and the purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- which determines the outcome.

 

From the start, those protesting Sotomayor's decision in Ricci did so by appealing not to law, but to emotion, non-legal precepts of "fairness" and empathy -- at the very same time that those very same people mocked the notion that those considerations should play any role in judicial decision-making.

 

(3) For all the chatter about "judicial activism" and that dreadful Roberts metaphor of "a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes," it is so striking how frequently conservative judges invalidate policies which conservatives dislike as a political matter. Here we have the conservative wing of the Court declaring illegal the employment decisions of local government officials, who used a political approach -- diversity -- which conservatives dislike on policy grounds. So often, the outcomes of the allegedly neutral conservative judges are completely consistent with (and aggressively advance) the political preferences of conservatives (Bush v. Gore being only the most obvious example). Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise -- the true test for whether one applies to law independently of political and outcome preferences.

 

(4) As is true for most discussions of affirmative action, the fight over Ricci has completely ignored the countless ways that whites in America have long benefited, and continue to benefit, from exactly the sort of non-merit considerations which affirmative action opponents decry. As Justice Ginsberg noted, whites had a virtual monopoly for decades on firefighter positions until Congress extended Title VII to public employment ("firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow"), and city officials in this case determined that the test in question was flawed because, among other things, it did not reward merit. The result of the Court's decision in Ricci -- barring the City of New Haven from invalidating metrics with a racially disparate impact -- is this:

 

Regardless of one's views on affirmative action, the complaints about not-merit-based factors cut both ways. As for Sotomayor, the Court's 5-4 decision today ought to put an end to the attempt to use Ricci to depict her as being somehow out of the judicial mainstream and thus unfit for the Court.

 

via here.

[calfoxwc]

<H2 class=sidebar-title>About Me</H2>Name: Glenn Greenwald I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and am now a Contributing Writer at Salon. I am the author of three books -- "How Would a Patriot Act" (a critique of Bush executive power theories), "Tragic Legacy" (documenting the Bush legacy), and "Great American Hypocrites" (examining the GOP's electoral tactics and the role the media plays in aiding them).

**********************************

 

Noooooooooo, Greenwald isn't a political Democratic party hack... no wayyyyyyyyy....

 

LOL.

 

 

[Guest mz.]

Nobody said he was partisan. His intelligence, however, is not debatable, unlike that of Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, "Hawk," "Anonymous" and the morons you "read."

 

It's just refreshing to read stuff from a great writer once in awhile, instead of crap C&P from Los Ninos del Christo New Mexico.

[Pumpkin Eater]

her two cases to be overruled by the SCOTUS are quite disturbing.

 

I think Obama needs to withdraw her nomination.

[Guest mz.]

her two cases to be overruled by the SCOTUS are quite disturbing.

 

I think Obama needs to withdraw her nomination.

 

 

So any judge who has his/her decision overturned, by a partisan vote, by a court where his/her political ideology is n the court's minority should have his/her credentials questioned?

 

Seems fair.

 

...

[calfoxwc]

More than once, yes. It is troubling that her decisions would not stand up to professional, top justice scrutiny.

 

Note: The four justices did NOT AGREE with her decision, either. They just wanted it to go back to a lower court.

********************************************************************************

****************

http://axisofright.com/2009/06/29/sonia-so...gain-by-scotus/

 

Sonia Sotomayor Overruled (again) by SCOTUS

by Sal on June 29, 2009

 

in Judicial Watch, Law, Politics

 

Sonia Sotomayor was overruled today by the Supreme Court, yet again. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the City of New Haven was not allowed to throw out the results of a test that was used to qualify firefighters for promotion. The city threw out the test results because they felt that they did not get enough Hispanics to pass the test. Sotomayor had upheld a lower court’s summary judgment to dismiss the case without trial, thus not giving the New Haven firefighters a day in court. The Supreme Court has now ruled that it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and found in favor of the firefighters. Even more telling, although the decision was 5-4, it is worth noting that not a single member of the court agreed with Sotomayor’s decision; in fact, the four liberal justices who dissented felt that the case should be remanded to lower court for trial, thus invalidating Sotomayor’s decision.

 

This is both a victory for the rule of law and a stinging defeat for Obama’s nominee. It is a case that is bound to become fodder for the confirmation hearings. At issue is whether or not Sotomayor’s race and her views as a “wise Latina” colored her decision to ignore the rule of law. In reading this case, it is fairly obvious that it did. At the same time, the fact that all nine justices believed her summary judgement to be inappropriate exhibits just how far outside the mainstream Sotomayor is. This decision could end up being a public realations problem for Sotomayor. I still believe that she will be confirmed, but this has about as much potential of derailing her nomination as anything else.

[calfoxwc]

SO,

 

EVERY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE apparently found no legal justification for Sotomayor's decsion.

 

It makes it unaminous - Sotomayor, while not ignorant, while experienced, does not have the honor

 

nor ethics to properly make legal decisions as a judge.

 

Hardly qualifies

[calfoxwc]

SO,

 

EVERY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE apparently found no legal justification for Sotomayor's decision.

 

It makes it unaminous - Sotomayor, while not ignorant, while experienced, does not have the honor

 

nor ethics to properly make legal decisions as a judge.

 

Hardly qualifies her to be on the court, now.

 

She's a very troubling nominee. She should withdraw her name from nomination.

[Chicopee John]

Well, I don't believe anybody can show me where Sotomayor's decision against the white firefighters

 

I'm not picking on you, Cal, yours was the first post I read on this subject since my return from the hinterlands.

 

FOR THE LAST TIME - PLEASE!!! - STOP SAYING 'WHITE' FIREFIGHTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Although the media likes to jump on the racial side of things - and New Haven's decision was based strictly on Race - this was not simply a White/Black issue.

 

Little reported fact is that two Hispanic firefighters passed the test and were part of the lawsuit against the city. Are hispanics now simply, "White" because they happened to be smarter than the Black firefighters who failed the test??

 

[Chicopee John]

So any judge who has his/her decision overturned, by a partisan vote, by a court where his/her political ideology is n the court's minority should have his/her credentials questioned?Seems fair.

 

 

This should never have come to the 'partisan vote' status, mz the pussy. This was simply a microcosm of what ails the SP in general. This is not an issue, nor should any be, 'partisan' in nature.

 

Does the Constitution of the United States hold any strength any more? Seems to me that you run to the SP to support your, admittedly activist leanings and then rail against its partisanship when a majority of the justices vote for the Consitution but against your personal views?

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Sorry, John, you are correct. No black firefighters passed the test, and two, only two Hispanics passed the test.

 

I have read where Ricci was dyslexic, and failed the test. Then I read, the rest of the time, that Ricci

 

is dyslexic, but overcame his dyslexia by spending a few thousand bucks for audio tapes, studied like

 

a wild man for many hours a week, and placed 6th overall.

 

And after all that, it goes for naught.

 

I find it inexcusable to let a fear of racist lawsuits reflect officials' and judges' decisions.

 

It is concerning that no black firefighters passed. but that hardly means the test was at fault.

 

Was it a sense of entitlement that led the black firefighters to not study very hard? A subcultural affect

 

that doesn't put education through school, study habits, on a high priority?

 

I don't know. But to say the test was at fault is ludicrous.