Comments on: On The Eve Of Sotomayor: Ricci Is Irrelevant

By: pbator7

pbator7 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:07:18 +0000

bmaz is right that Ricci should neither be paraded nor berated–Ricci is off the record. But bmaz is wrong when he says that the Ricci case “is about a testing process for the promotion of firefighters in New Haven.”
Absolutely not: just as it’s not about Frank Ricci neither is it about
a testing process. It is about judging disparate impact under the purview of Title VII. Sotomayor along with 4 High Court Justices would agree that
EEOC standards, following stare decisis in the appellate courts, ought to be recognized and upheld until Congress decides to amend the law. That’s called
judicial conservatism. What Kennedy et al. produced is a decision based upon sympathetic feelings for poor Mr. Ricci that colored their decision against precedent and for judicial activism.

By: hillvoter

hillvoter — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:31:10 +0000

Ricci is rediculous. He is a member of a class of people that must accept that they are going to have to settle for second class citizenship. The constitution doesn’t apply to his race or gender and he needs to accept that or get out of this country.

By: mui1

mui1 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:39:55 +0000

When I talk about uncaring powers-that-be I am not including NAACP. media and national politicians don’t seem to gave a flying f*ck about who this affects at the local level.

By: mui1

mui1 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:22:41 +0000

I am uncomfortable with all this because I am from the New Haven. It’s a place full of people who are just what they are (don’t want to use the words eccentric or crazy). But really, the powers-that-be have caused more harm than good in terms of tensions (See New Haven Independent’s series including NAACP backs City in Firefighters Case.) In the national media, noone seems to feel responsible or care about that.
I will not criticize Ricci or any other local dude or dudette who merely travels their own “Righteous Path/s”. I will say that even some local media (yes you! WTNH “news” channel 8 at 11) have acted very badly by using this case as a platform for right-wing anti-Stotomayor clap trap.

By: SebastianDangerfield

SebastianDangerfield — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:42:49 +0000

Yeah, I expect much more from Lithwick. She is smart and independent-minded, but put her name to an oppo shop hit piece. Despicable.
I sincerely hope that those pushing this crap out were not members of the White House’s Sotomayor squad (but I’m not laying bets against that possibility).

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:34:16 +0000

I was disappointed in Lithwick’s shallow and wrongheaded work here.

By: SebastianDangerfield

SebastianDangerfield — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:16:38 +0000

While I understand a momentary temptation to try to smear Ricci once he decided to allow himself to be paraded around by Republican senators who are eager to race-bait, whoever decided to start pushing this Ricci smear-job out (and make no mistake, Dahlia and others didn’t just dig this stuff up; they were fed it) should be ashamed of themselves. It’s completely irrelevant for the reasons bmaz catalogs. It’s also not even smart politics/public relations. Beating up on Ricci feeds the victimhood narrative. It distracts from the central issues. It gives credence to the idea that Ricci is at all relevant to the proceedings — rather than an excuse tor race-baiting. And, the anti-Ricci narrative is built on premises that buy into certain right-wing frames like ‘litigation abuse’ or the seeking of ’special treatment.’

Despicable and stupid.

As Hilzoy put it:

Stop.

Really. Just stop.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:26:20 +0000

But Johnny that is exactly why the Ricci dyslexia bit is such a gross red herring here.

For all those that have not actually read the Ricci decision, it is not that long; you should read it. First off, the case was not about Ricci individually in any regard, he was one of a co-equal group of 17 plaintiffs, his name by whatever happenstance simply ended up being the first name in the caption. The case is NOT about Ricci, it is about a testing process.

Secondly, Ricci himself was not complaining about the test, nor did he argue that his alleged dyslexia affected his performance on the test whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact Ricci was adamant that the test was fair and ought to be determinative in the promotion debate.

Nelson Algren @32 above - that is true, the Republicans should not be using Ricci either. I said that quite clearly in the post.

For the foregoing reasons, Ricci is inappropriate as a witness as far as having any probative value for either side in the Sotomayor nomination process. He, his dyslexia and the whole dog and pony show are worthless here. And I understand exactly who David Cone was, and what his interaction with Sotomayor was about, and personally do not think he is much, if any, more relevant than Ricci.

By: torgo2009

torgo2009 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:44:24 +0000

People miss the whole point. If you design a test and it does indeed test for the knowledge that is related to a job promotion, then race should not be a factor. In short you shouldn’t have to go back and reconstruct an entire test just because a particular group did not pass the test. Doesn’t anyone see how silly this is?

By: i4u2bi

i4u2bi — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:21:40 +0000

Here we go again..the minorities always keepin’ da white man down!