As he humbly admits.

However, as an employed lawyer, I don’t really have the time to troll blogs in order to leave copious and extensive derogatory comments.

Followed by ten sentences of derogatory comments.

Tell me counselor: how do you define “copious and extensive”?

You seem to be really into legal analysis. Me too. However, as an employed lawyer, I don’t really have the time to troll blogs in order to leave copious and extensive derogatory comments. It comes from having a job. A time consuming one at that. Which I’m guessing you don’t? One of those lawyer types who couldn’t survive the economic downturn, meaning you probably weren’t very good? Or a law student who seems a bit big for his britches? Or, more likely, a poser legal eagle? Either way, David Steinberg works two jobs: full time editor at PJM, and part time fitness instructor. He also appears to write brilliantly, so he appears to be about three up on you. Since you have all this free time on your hands, why don’t you volunteer? Or by asking that question, have I just proven the point of the article?

Peter writes: I wish I could see and hear the video you suggested, but unfortunately my computer has problems and doesn’t play sound right now.

My question to the city of New Haven and the Court of Appeals who say the test was biased against minorities is this; How can a test on knowledge of firefighting techniques and supervision, one that was passed with an exceptional score by a firefighter suffering from a learning disability by hard work and preparation, possibly be biased in anyway? What kind of question can be answered correctly by a knowledgable white firefighter that can’t be answered correctly by a similarly knowledgeable black firefighter? They were given the exact same exam, were they not? Aren’t they all supposed to be doing the same job and therefore have the sasme basic knowledge of their jobs? Or does the city of New Haven demand white firefighters only perform certain work which better prepares them for promotion exams and black firefighters are only allowed different work that doesn’t apply on the exam, which would be discrimination of the highest degree?

This statement does not falsify my statement that they denied a promotion to a qualified individual. That was the end result of not using the test results. But, nice try.

It doesn’t matter how you feel about vdare’s veracity, they are just relaying the concurring opinion of Justice Alito. Typical trick of liars to attack the source rather than the argument.

As an aside, maybe the race hustlers could have spent some time and energy teaching the blacks so they could test well instead of bitching about the results after the fact. Kinda like the democrats in 2000 presidential election who should have taught their own how to vote correctly instead of who to vote for. anyone who left a polling booth unsure of who they voted for , and thinks that entitles them to throw a huge monkeywrench into the whole operation is an arrogant idiot.

Yet they won’t even consider giving a promotion to a dyslexic who studied hard and ACHIEVED a superior test score.

Wrong. They just decided that they wouldn’t use the results of that particular test.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/29/justice-alito-delivers-the-inside-story-on-how-destefano-did-ricci-wrong/

I don’t profess to have the intricate knowledge that Blarty and Peter have about court precedents and readings of law, but this is a great window into the shennanigans perpetuated by leftist thought resulting in public policy highjacking.

My two cents on Alito’s text : notice how New haven gave the position of Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners , not someone with firefighting knowledge,he had none, but was a COMMUNITY ACTIVIST! Yet they won’t even consider giving a promotion to a dyslexic who studied hard and ACHIEVED a superior test score. Read Alito’s text and then try and squre it with Ginsburg’s assertion that the procees was open and fair. Disgusting.

Wrong, except for the ad nauseum part.

…and YOU are saying they were right in doing so…

From a legal standpoint, yes. They were acting in accordance with the law as it existed before Monday.

…therefore you are admitting a person’s skin color or heritage should have more bearing on a legal case than ACTUAL LAW.

No I’m not.

I will now be ignoring any further posts you enter on this thread…

That’s cool. I won’t be able to tell the difference.

Except I don’t argue for the things you said I argued for in the quote you cite. I was characterizing the decision using the terminology of the right.

It was sarcasm. A lampoon if you will. Exposing your hypocrisy, to use the trite phrase.