home

DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in Droves

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 05:04:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

The Washington Post reported yesterday that DOJ Civil Rights Division career attorneys are leaving at a rate nearly double that of prior administrations because disagreements over the conservative agenda of DOJ under the current Administration.

Such is the distain for the current Administration for civil rights enforcement, the division's lawyers have found their energies diverted away from enforcement of the civil rights laws into other areas.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which has enforced the nation's anti-discrimination laws for nearly half a century, is in the midst of an upheaval that has driven away dozens of veteran lawyers and has damaged morale for many of those who remain, according to former and current career employees.

Nearly 20 percent of the division's lawyers left in fiscal 2005, in part because of a buyout program that some lawyers believe was aimed at pushing out those who did not share the administration's conservative views on civil rights laws. Longtime litigators complain that political appointees have cut them out of hiring and major policy decisions, including approvals of controversial GOP redistricting plans in Mississippi and Texas.

At the same time, prosecutions for the kinds of racial and gender discrimination crimes traditionally handled by the division have declined 40 percent over the past five years, according to department statistics. Dozens of lawyers find themselves handling appeals of deportation orders and other immigration matters instead of civil rights cases.

The division has also come under criticism from the courts and some Democrats for its decision in August to approve a Georgia program requiring voters to present government-issued identification cards at the polls. The program was halted by an appellate court panel and a district court judge, who likened it to a poll tax from the Jim Crow era.

I'd be embarrassed to work there, too. A Civil Rights Division working against civil rights follows the Administration's plan. If War=Peace and Clean Air Initiative=No Clean Air, then Civil Rights=Less Civil Rights. It must keep minorities from voting because they likely will vote Democratic. It all follows.

< Rumsfeld and Cheney Meet With Chalabi | Fitzgerald and Libby Seek to Keep Discovery Private >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in Droves | 41 comments (41 topical)
    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    What a shocker - ideological differences between the liberals in the civil rights division and the conservatives now in charge. Up next on TL's radar - the shocking news that it tends to get colder in winter, and warmer in summer.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    gee, between the patriot act, and the current attempts to rid ourselves of habeas corpus, why on earth would you even need civil rights lawyers? in another couple of years, we won't have any, obviating the necessity of someone to defend them.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#3)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    JR, the fact that it's not surprising doesn't mean it's acceptable.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Al, in what way is it not acceptable? The current administration does not believe in tossing around lawsuits based on statistical disparities in staffing by race/gender. Some of the staff in the civil rights division are unhappy, and are leaving. Guess what? When a Democrat gets elected, a bunch of conservative staffers will disagree with DOJ direction, and will leave. I predict that neither you nor TL will care.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    James Robertson, They are leaving at nearly TWICE the rate they did at previous administrations. That means experience is going. That means a less efficient beauracracy. And they are leaving for ideological reasons, meaning the spectrum of opinion on controversial issues is being dangerously narrowed. I love that disparaging "statistical disparities" which translates, given the way you use it, to "meaningless differences." But of course statistical differences can be very, very real, And if you think there isn't race and gender discrimination in this country, change your sex and work for Walmart. If a Democrat ever gets elected as president, I guarantee you that unless they are fired, those new conservative staffers will not leave at anywhere near the rate the present ones are leaving. You are also making a weird assumption, that the staffers are leaving for partisan reasons, not ideological ones. Many may be, but I suspect that many are also moderate Republicans who simply don't worship extreme right values like officially sanctioned torture, elimination of habeas corpus, secrecy in government, and state establishment of religion.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    tristero, having worked in more than one large bureaucracy, I hardly think it's a problem for more staffers to be leaving. Heck, the more the merrier, I say - they'll probably get more efficient. And that would be true regardless of the ideology involved, IMHO. One other thing - saying that the rate of people leaving has doubled means nothing. Do we have a statistically significant number of people leaving?

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    James, If the number of staffers weren't significant THIS THREAD WOULDN'T EXIST. What does it say to you that staffers who've, in many cases, worked through several different administrations, staffers who have worked diligently and honorably for Repubs AND Dems, have finally met a group of partisans they CAN'T work with or for? At the least, it suggests to any rational, self-critical person that there is a serious problem.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    James, Who sez they're not being replaced? As the article itself notes: "The more slots you open, the more you can populate them with people you like," said Stephen B. Pershing, who left the division in May and is now senior counsel at the Center for Constitutional Litigation, a Washington law firm that handles civil rights cases. "It's pretty simple really."

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Now if we could just get the same kind of exodus at the CIA, we would really be on to something!

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    "statistical disparities" (as if this some how doesn't make them real) are irrelevant, only as long as they don't affect you. this is analogous to "activist judges" only being liberal ones. you have to admire a "thought" process that works this way, though it is basic to the human psyche': as long as i get what i want, it really doesn't matter how anyone else may or may not be affected. i've noticed that "conservatives" tend to exhibit the worldview of your typical 5 year-old, the world revolves around them, and what they want, no one else matters. this is fine for a 5 year-old. as a parent, i've had to deal with this. interestingly, i've noticed it only changes slightly as they get older. this explains why we don't allow 5 year-olds to run for public office, or take seats on the judiciary: their focus is too narrowly constricted. public officials and judges are supposed to take a broader view; how does what i do affect the citizenry as a whole? this is the fatal flaw in the current "conservative" ethos, and why it is in the process of self-destructing: people are beginning to see it for what it is, 5 year-olds running the country.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    So they've cut back on telling people that Freedom of Association ends as soon as you hand out a paycheck? I'm OK with that. Re: statistical disparities, how do Cpinva and Tristero feel about cases like this? The link is slow today (Farked); a meat packing company started testing applicants by having them lift heavy objects and got sued by the feds because women disproportionately failed the test.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Dadler writes:
    If the number of staffers weren't significant THIS THREAD WOULDN'T EXIST
    Actually that is not a fact. The number of those leaving may be interesting to "Last Night In LR" but that doesn't mean the number is significant. What it does mean that is an easy attack on the Bush administration, which is what LNiLR is doing with the Post. I see no problem in that, free country, etc., but let's not make it something it is not. And I would argue that reducing staff in any organization doesn't mean that the organization is less efficent. Actually, you can have too many people, which leads to not enough to do, which leads to office politics and other counter-productive activities. In fact, a lean organization is always happier and more productibe than a far, over staffed organization. Variable - Well said.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    "i've noticed that "conservatives" tend to exhibit the worldview of your typical 5 year-old, the world revolves around them, and what they want, no one else matters." Indeed, it is the conservatives who want to change the traditional definition of marriage, as one of a multitude of examples. cpinva, get real.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Better link for the meat-packing case, from the EEOC.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    James, the lying libertarian, claims that people leaving is a good thing because it will make government smaller. He doesn't notice that Bush has increased the size of government BY ONE THIRD. Do you have any idea how large the government is, James? It was already HUGE, and now it's one-third larger under your boy. James is such a partisan ideologue that he supports taking the milk of our children's mouths, because maybe then there will be fewer poor people, fewer blacks, fewer lesbians, fewer poor people, white or black, to protect. Let them fend for themselves! The Ugly Amerikan, and his Dog Eat Dog moral depravity.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Jim, They are leaving in droves for a reason. Come on, buddy boy, wake up and smell the coffee. Denial doesn't suit you very well. These are seasoned veterans of administrtions on both sides of the political aisle being alienated and essentially driven away.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Dadler - My point was simple. The fact that they are leaving is a classic, "So what?" If they want to leave, free country. Does this mean that the JD can't do its job? No. So let's repeat after me: When in trouble, fear or doubt. Run in circles, scream and shout.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Jim, In a large law firm, which the DOJ is, it actually does mean that they will not be able to do their jobs. You should see what happens when a public defender or state's attorney has too high a turnover.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    "Indeed, it is the conservatives who want to change the traditional definition of marriage, as one of a multitude of examples." sarcastic, this is just too easy, low hanging fruit. how, exactly, will same-gender marriages possibly have an adverse impact on you? game, match, set.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    game, set, match

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Jim, Do you really think, to use your own gameplan, that a DOJ run by AG's like John "Cover the boobs on the statue like the Taliban" Ashcroft and Alberto "Torture Schmorture, I toe the company line better than a Flying Walenda" Gonzales, can really be a bastion of sound decision-making? If yes, please provide new nicknames for the aformentioned AG's.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    cpinva, Too funny. Um, see, it doesn't matter what the impact on me is, read your own quote. "they want what they want, no one else matters." Are you really that obtuse?

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#23)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    wow sarcastic, you are truly too pathetic for words. is that the best you can come up with? geez, if that's the case, the conservative movement is truly down the toilet. let's see: "they want what they want, no one else matters." simple enough for you? so, the question is, how does same gender marriage adversely affect you? this would be the "no one else matters" part of the test. since you've provided no evidence of an adverse impact on you, it's reasonable to assume there isn't one. you, of course, aren't alone in that regard, none of your bretheran have either. at least, nothing intelligable. that being the case, same-sex marriage passes the test. your wanting to deny it to other people does adversely impact them, with no discernable extra benefit to society at large. your position does not pass the "no one else matters" test. thank for your interest, do come and play again.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    I'll take that as a yes, Roy. Business rights trump human rights for libertarians. Very weird philosophy you claim adherence to. The first mistaken assumption: employees have no rights on the workplace other than those the employer chooses to recognize explicitly at the time of the hiring. Second mistaken assumption: Employer/employee relationships are entirely voluntary with employees capable of terminating that relationship at anytime with as few personal consequences as employers in terminating that relationship. Third mistaken assumption: Employers' business property is intrinsically more valuable and worthy of protection than the labor and treatment of the employees. But we digress. I don't want to talk you out of your bad ideas. Reality will do that eventually.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Notice the dramatic increase in Poor Me talk from the wingers. They can hardly complete a sentence, they are so choked up with emotion over themselves. "Shut up, shut up, shut up!" They are in the final hours of 'Titanic Watch,' and don't want anyone telling them how it ends.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Roy, Are you arguing that discrimination against women and minorities doesn't exist merely because of a frivolous meat-packing lawsuit? If not, what is your point?

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#26)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Are you arguing that discrimination against women and minorities doesn't exist merely because of a frivolous meat-packing lawsuit? If not, what is your point?
    I know discrimination exists. I really am just curious how people feel about lawsuits based on practices which seem (to me) legit, but have a disparate effect on minorities and could conceivably be reformulated to reduce the disparity. No hidden agenda, the fact that I don't like anti-discrimination laws applied to private organizations is right out there in the open.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    I'm glad you understand that discrimination exists, but I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that "practices that seem (to me) legit" are things like insisting upon being able to lift a certain amount of meat in order to get a job? I'd certainly agree with you if the answer is yes. But I'd have to add a caveat that I don't know the particular case involved. I could see a pretty clear suspicion of gender discrimination under these circumstances: 1. There was a rule that a meat lifter had to lift a minimum of, say 100 pounds.(I have no idea how much meat a meat lifter lifts. Plug the correct figure in.) 2. A female meat lifter met the rule and was merrily lifting meat until the cows...well, until the cows didn't come home. 3. Suddenly the supervisor changes the rule. Now all meat lifters must be able to lift a minimum of, say, 175 pounds, ie, a poundage which is clearly beyond the limits of the woman but not the men. 4. The woman is transferred/fired and the the meat lifter regulation later is determined to be needlessly restricted and is revised to require a minimum of, say 110 pounds. In such a case, a lawsuit of gender discrimination would not be frivolus, agreed?

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    jr-Now that the Bush Admin has new empty slots to fill do you really think that gov bureaucracy will get more efficient?
    I say - they'll probably get more efficient.
    I guess the question is more efficient at what?
    "The more slots you open, the more you can populate them with people you like,"
    Replace them with some real estate, insurance, or estate lawyers like Michael Brown and see how efficient the gov is at gutting civil rights in America, oh, and at greater cost to the taxpayer (good idea if you are for the plan to gut social services by redistributing tax revenue to your friends until there is no money left for education, social security, etc.). Great kneejerk reaction if you are a middle class white male on up, that is until you 'inadvertently' get arrested and find that your right to due process has been long eliminated and there is no phone call allowed or even necessity for a trial, because the 'mistaken' charges amounted to a threat to national security.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    roy, i read both sites. interesting. what bothered me most was something that, at least on those sites, wasn't addressed: is/was the physical ability to lift reasonably heavy amounts an actual necessity for the job? or, as is more likely, was it a convenient method for reducing/eliminating the number of women who could qualify for a job? i bring this up for a specific reason. the basis used by defendent for initiating this employment test was to reduce the number of job related injuries. fair enough. except..............it fails the smell test. having audited meat packing plants, i have some insight into this. unless this plant is working well into the 1840's, it is a modern, mechanized operation; machinery does most, if not all, of the heavy lifting, not people. let me add, this is not so much for the health and well being of the workers, as is it due to the economic efficiencies incurred; machines work faster and more cost effectively than people due, in repetative activities. any decrease in harm to the workers is merely a pleasant side benefit. as well, this is not to say that the company is overtly callous, with regards to their employees, they just aren't the highest priority on most company's food chain, shareholder's are. this goes to the heart of the issue: why, in a modern, mechanized meat packing operation, would workers need to be lifting heavy weights in the first place? the answer is, they wouldn't. this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the "lifting" requirement was a sham, designed solely to give the company what appeared to be a legitimate reason for discriminating against women, in it's hiring practices. hence, the settlement.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    cpinva, I'm sure some who so strongly agree with your agenda will no doubt also be as blind to the truth as you are. Others, who have a rather more rational outlook will recognize that the agenda of changing the traditional definition of marriage is being pushed by liberals (like you?) and they, in your words, "want what they want, no one else matters," and therefore, again in your words, those liberals "exhibit the worldview of your typical 5 year-old, the world revolves around them." If you can't understand that, there is nothing left to say. Good night, Alfie.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one can't keep to a subject. But wait a minute...I'm sorry SUO, I was wrong. Most of us fail to see any connection between meat lifting and marriage, traditional, monogamous (traditional marriages were polygamous until fairly recently in western history), or modern. But SUO, genius that he is, recongized that lifting meat in a packing plant is a lot like carrying a new bride -born female of course, and human, and the only one - across a threshold. It never would have occurred to me. WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOU, SUO.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    cpinva, you were right (and my guess was close althought my weights were off)! And Roy, shame, shame, shame on you for trumping up this example. Here's the EEOC press release: The court's decision rejects the validity of the strength test, which was implemented by Dial in January 2000. Prior to the test, nearly half of the people hired for entry-level jobs in the sausage department of the plant had been female. The job is physically demanding, requiring the repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches. Although women had been successfully performing the job for years, Dial argued that the test was necessary to reduce injuries. Judge Longstaff rejected that argument, noting that women had been no more likely than men to be injured prior to the use of the test, that the test was more difficult than the job, and that an overall reduction in injuries was likely related to other safety initiatives implemented by Dial. The court will now consider appropriate relief for the approximately 50 women who had been rejected at the time of the trial.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    "sarcastic unnamed one can't keep to a subject. But wait a minute...I'm sorry SUO, I was wrong" Indeed, tristero, you are wrong. I merely responded to a topic/comment initiated by your pal cpinva - mayhaps you should direct your little OT rant at him? You are entertaining, tho.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    trist-you have picked up an important point here. With men marrying men the meat lifting test is at a new bar. Progressive and regressives meat on a weighty issue.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Oops indeed. I didn't "trump up" anything, I didn't know about the 2nd EEOC article until this afternoon. I found it through Overlawyered, which was Farked for a while yesterday. I was this close to posting a (alarmingly long) comment to incorporate the new info. Anyway, assuming the women working at the plant weren't abnormally tall, now we know the strength test was stricter than necessary. I'm still OK with that, because safety margins are supposed to be wider than necessary. I'm putting words in mouths with that interpretation, though. I could still complain based upon general libertarian dogma, but I was hoping to discuss a case where both sides sought the company did something legit. That's right out now, and thus my very long post goes unposted. And, BTW, Cpinva was at most half right. The 2nd EEOC article backs up the claim that workers really do lift 35 pounds to 65 inches. Now that the plant allows tippy-toe lifting, I hope they don't get sued for failing to adequately discourage bad lifting technique.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    cpinva "with regards to their employees, they just aren't the highest priority on most company's food chain, shareholder's are." A-ha-ha-ha-ha! Well, by shareholders, I guess you mean CEO salaries. Typo, what. Here's a clue -- the guy with the longhorns on his Cadillac is the sole purpose of the factory.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    paul, i can assure you, if the sh's aren't kept happy, the CEO will no longer be CEO. sarcastic, do you take a compass with you, when you go to the bathroom, so you can find your way back? i assume you must, given the complete lack of a sense of direction you routinely display here. my original post was in response to james robertson's comment, regarding "statistical disparities". nothing in it remotely connected to the issue of same-sex marriage, you raised that issue, the proverbial strawman. geez, you're so far out, you can't even keep track of your own inane posts. going back to my original point, statistical disparities are not usually the sole basis for a suit. first, you have to analyze them, and find out why they exist. conceivably, there may be a legitimate reason, one that no court in the land can, or should do anything about. however, having audited a number of manufacturing companies, i can attest to the fact that women work in all of them, on the plant floor. the vast majority of them use machinery for heavy lifting, it's safer and more efficient. men don't do it any more than women do. for that matter, i'm hard pressed to think of many industries for which only men are uniquely suited, absent some unnecessary, arbritary physical requirement. this is merely one example of discrimination, there are many others. the problem with experienced people leaving in droves, from any company, is the loss of institutional knowledge; these are the people who know how to get things done. many private companies have learned this hard lesson, with the massive downsizing of the past 15 years.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    cpinva, sigh. Of your 7(!) paragraph response to JR, 5 were devoted to your misguided musings on the thought process of conservatives. I responded to that. Your contortions to explain away that fact would make Cirque du Soleil proud. Have your way with your last words, if you like, I'm done with you. game, match, set. (In your words)

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Roy, "I'm still OK with that, because safety margins are supposed to be wider than necessary." I remind you: "...women had been no more likely than men to be injured prior to the use of the test, that the test was more difficult than the job, and that an overall reduction in injuries was likely related to other safety initiatives implemented by Dial. " It appears this is not a frivolous lawsuit. Unless you care to go to the original data and contest the methodology and the definitions of reasonable safety, this certainly looks like blatant gender discrimination, which you admit exists. "I could still complain based upon general libertarian dogma..." Does that mean that in libertarian dogma human rights are trumped by business rights? Strange philosophy, if that's the case.

    Re: DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in D (none / 0) (#40)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Tristero, The sausage case got a lot less interesting with the 2nd EEOC article. I think it becomes a technical matter of whether the strength test is good enough evidence. At the risk of seeming to weasel out of an argument I'm losing, I'm just not inclined to refine my gut feel beyond "seems OK".
    Does that mean that in libertarian dogma human rights are trumped by business rights?
    It means that one does not give up one's human rights when one starts a business. I have a right to choose who to invite onto my property. I have a right to ask my guests to do me a favor while on my property. I have a right to promise a favor in return. Am I correct so far? But, if these favors become useful enough or money-centered enough to make the whole thing a "business", I lose my rights. I can't choose to invite only people of my own race, I can't ask my guests the perform the favor of working for eight hours straight without a break, and I can't offer the favor of $2.00 per hour in exchange. And the people who I declined to invite onto my property, or with whom I declined to exhange favors, can sue me and get my property if I can't convince a court that I declined for a good enough reason. And my own personal preferences of how to use my own private property aren't good enough reasons.

    DOJ Civil Rights Division Lawyers Leaving in Droves | 41 comments (41 topical)