Do Americans have a right to expect that firefighters responding to calls from their neighborhoods will always be the best-trained, most capable individuals available?
The lawsuit against the New York Fire Department accusing it of racism, with no evidence except that minority applications had been failing its test, was one of the more insane abuses of power by the Federal government. That a judge agreed with it was even worse.
Now the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pulled back on the reins of the lunatic decision, and came as close as it could to calling U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis out for his blatant misbehavior.
It also removed U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis from the case for trial purposes, noting he had branded the city's evidence "incredible," making it fair to question whether he could be impartial. He also called the FDNY "a stubborn bastion of white male privilege."
Still, the appeals court left him in control of the remedial process, calling him an "entirely fair-minded jurist."
So it's not all good news, despite the finding of no intentional discrimination, a useless and illegal monitoring program, has been left in place.
“We have no doubt that Judge Garaufis is an entirely fair-minded jurist who could impartially adjudicate the remaining issues in the case,” Judge Jon O. Newman wrote in a 59-page opinion for a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
But, citing a comment by Judge Garaufis that the city’s evidence on the intentional discrimination issue was “incredible,” Judge Newman wrote that “an objective observer would have a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality in assessing that evidence at trial.”
So which is it?
Despite essentially finding Judge Nicholas Garaufis to have behaved inappropriately, the court will allow him to continue abusing the city's heroes for his own leftist agitprop.
It will also pay out blackmail money to minority failed firefighters and it leaves in place the ridiculous claim that firefighter tests had been racially biased.
Meanwhile the lawyer heading up the assault on the heroes of September 11 was none other than Baher Azmy. Azmy is a Muslim lawyer who represented Gitmo terrorists. It is appropriate enough that he followed that up with a war against the people who tried to save New Yorkers from Muslim terrorists.
But as the Washington Examiner points out, the decision is a partial setback for Holder and Tom Perez
Do Americans have a right to expect that firefighters responding to calls from their neighborhoods will always be the best-trained, most capable individuals available? Not if the U.S. Department of Justice has its way. That's the disturbing message from a discrimination suit DOJ filed against the New York City Fire Department alleging that it discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants.
Oddly enough, the case was not based on any particular act of discrimination. It was based purely on the fact that somebody somewhere decided that too many NYFD applicants had failed a job exam. The DOJ argued that these multiple failures were undeniable evidence of "disparate impact." That's the quack legal theory that it isn't necessary to show discriminatory intent to prove discrimination. All that is required is evidence that a policy or procedure has "the effect of disproportionately excluding members of a particular protected group," to quote from DOJ's website.
Attorney General Eric Holder made it a top priority, as did another Obama appointee, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, whose job makes him the government's top civil rights enforcer. Disparate impact theory is a crucial tool for those like Holder and Perez who believe they are all that stands between racist America and racial catastrophe.