|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 7, 2015 12:37:38 GMT
Well, Wikipedia explicitly states that these laws create protected classes of workers. As usual, Anthony Kennedy will probably be the swing vote in King v. Burwell. And I heard that his comments were caustic toward both sides; so that one might easily read his predisposition either way one might prefer.
Wikipedia is an exceptionally good general reference source but it is based upon common people presenting information subject to peer review and is not an authoritative source on all issues. There are numerous flaws of logic contained within it many of it's contents. I'm actually a member of the Wikipedia review group and have been involved in the behind-the-scenes discussions on topics. As I noted how does "race" create a protected class when all of us are defined by race? How does religion/non-religion create a protected class when all of us have religious/non-religious beliefs? How does gender create a protected class when all of us are a part of a gender group?
Kennedy and Roberts are both question marks in the Burwell case based upon the oral arguments. As I noted though the question of "standing" was of most interest to me because I don't believe that any of the plaintiff's actually had standing and they suffer no harm from the law. Of course this is not the first time the Supreme Court has ignored the specific issue of standing. In the case against DOMA Section 3 where House GOP was providing the defense the issue of whether they had standing to defend the law was waived by the Court but in the same combined case the legal representatives from NOM were denied standing in defending Prop 8.
The issue of "standing" is one of interest to me whenever it comes up and, from my perspective, is often more interesting than the case itself.
As for the case itself I don't see how the court can strike down the subsidies for those where the states chose to have the federal government create the exchange on behalf of the state. Kagan's comments on this point were pretty clear and straight forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 9, 2015 17:07:55 GMT
Well, Wikipedia explicitly states that these laws create protected classes of workers. As usual, Anthony Kennedy will probably be the swing vote in King v. Burwell. And I heard that his comments were caustic toward both sides; so that one might easily read his predisposition either way one might prefer.
Wikipedia is an exceptionally good general reference source but it is based upon common people presenting information subject to peer review and is not an authoritative source on all issues. There are numerous flaws of logic contained within it many of it's contents. I'm actually a member of the Wikipedia review group and have been involved in the behind-the-scenes discussions on topics. As I noted how does "race" create a protected class when all of us are defined by race? How does religion/non-religion create a protected class when all of us have religious/non-religious beliefs? How does gender create a protected class when all of us are a part of a gender group?
Kennedy and Roberts are both question marks in the Burwell case based upon the oral arguments. As I noted though the question of "standing" was of most interest to me because I don't believe that any of the plaintiff's actually had standing and they suffer no harm from the law. Of course this is not the first time the Supreme Court has ignored the specific issue of standing. In the case against DOMA Section 3 where House GOP was providing the defense the issue of whether they had standing to defend the law was waived by the Court but in the same combined case the legal representatives from NOM were denied standing in defending Prop 8.
The issue of "standing" is one of interest to me whenever it comes up and, from my perspective, is often more interesting than the case itself.
As for the case itself I don't see how the court can strike down the subsidies for those where the states chose to have the federal government create the exchange on behalf of the state. Kagan's comments on this point were pretty clear and straight forward.
Yes, we do, indeed, all belong to one race or another, and to one gender or another. But the law has created special protections for some; specifically, for black Americans and for women. How you can attempt to deny this, I am simply unsure. Recently, one of the Supreme Court justices--I forget, just now, whether it was Kennedy or Roberts--implied that the Court's rulings must be based upon the text of the law itself, and not at all upon the practical implications of that ruling. And the text itself says that federal subsidies are to be provided only to those states that have created their own exchanges. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 11, 2015 12:36:11 GMT
Yes, we do, indeed, all belong to one race or another, and to one gender or another. But the law has created special protections for some; specifically, for black Americans and for women. How you can attempt to deny this, I am simply unsure. Recently, one of the Supreme Court justices--I forget, just now, whether it was Kennedy or Roberts--implied that the Court's rulings must be based upon the text of the law itself, and not at all upon the practical implications of that ruling. And the text itself says that federal subsidies are to be provided only to those states that have created their own exchanges.
No specific protections are required for those not discriminated against. In providing explicit protections it does not disparage the protections of those not hsitorically discriminated against. We've seen that in the courts where, in rare cases, whites were discriminated against because of misapplied Affirmative Action guidelines so we know that the protections of white and white males are still being fully protected in the United States.
Supreme Court precedent establishes that the text of the entire law must be considered when addressing a single passage. How that passage effects the intent of the law has always been the primary consideration in Supreme Court decisions. To hinge the decision on one sentence when that would effectively destroy the very intent of the law would violate the prior precendent of the US Supreme Court. So yes, the Supreme Court will review the text of the law but it will (or should based upon precedent) be the entire text of the law and not the single line in dispute if the Supreme Court follows existing precedent. Of course there are Justices on the US Supreme Court that aren't even consistant in their opinions from one case to the next with Scalia being one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 12, 2015 6:28:22 GMT
Yes, we do, indeed, all belong to one race or another, and to one gender or another. But the law has created special protections for some; specifically, for black Americans and for women. How you can attempt to deny this, I am simply unsure. Recently, one of the Supreme Court justices--I forget, just now, whether it was Kennedy or Roberts--implied that the Court's rulings must be based upon the text of the law itself, and not at all upon the practical implications of that ruling. And the text itself says that federal subsidies are to be provided only to those states that have created their own exchanges.
No specific protections are required for those not discriminated against. In providing explicit protections it does not disparage the protections of those not hsitorically discriminated against. We've seen that in the courts where, in rare cases, whites were discriminated against because of misapplied Affirmative Action guidelines so we know that the protections of white and white males are still being fully protected in the United States.
Supreme Court precedent establishes that the text of the entire law must be considered when addressing a single passage. How that passage effects the intent of the law has always been the primary consideration in Supreme Court decisions. To hinge the decision on one sentence when that would effectively destroy the very intent of the law would violate the prior precendent of the US Supreme Court. So yes, the Supreme Court will review the text of the law but it will (or should based upon precedent) be the entire text of the law and not the single line in dispute if the Supreme Court follows existing precedent. Of course there are Justices on the US Supreme Court that aren't even consistant in their opinions from one case to the next with Scalia being one of those.
The meaning of this "single line," to which you refer, is not at all "in dispute," by anyone who can read. Only those who desire a certain outcome--and are willing to twist the clear meaning of the text--could suggest otherwise. Even Jonathan Gruber once noted--proudly--that only those states creating their own exchanges would be eligible for federal subsidies. Now some people wish to undo that, because to do otherwise would "effectively destroy" ObamaCare. I have no desire that "white males" should benefit from affirmative-action policies. But neither do I wish to see any other race or gender benefit from them. Perhaps if we were to get rid of them altogether, that would be an appropriate solution. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 12, 2015 13:36:51 GMT
The meaning of this "single line," to which you refer, is not at all "in dispute," by anyone who can read. Only those who desire a certain outcome--and are willing to twist the clear meaning of the text--could suggest otherwise. Even Jonathan Gruber once noted--proudly--that only those states creating their own exchanges would be eligible for federal subsidies. Now some people wish to undo that, because to do otherwise would "effectively destroy" ObamaCare. I have no desire that "white males" should benefit from affirmative-action policies. But neither do I wish to see any other race or gender benefit from them. Perhaps if we were to get rid of them altogether, that would be an appropriate solution.
It could be argued that all of the states did create their own exchanges even when they delegated the adminstration of the insurance exhange to the federal government. The federal government merely provided the "state exchange" for those states that did not want the adminstrative head-aches. We know, for example, that the federal exchange is also specific to the individual state because it's not a "one-size-fits-all" insurance offering. The offering of all of the insurance both public (Medicaid) and private is specific to each individual state. In effect that was Kagan's arguments in addressing the plaintiffs allegations. Effectively the states merely contracted the federal government to create the health insurance exchange for the state so it is a ultimately state exchange.
It can also be noted that everyone involved in the law, both Democrats and Republicans in government at both the federal and state level, understood that the subsidies would apply to every qualified person regardless of whether it was under a state or federal exchange. There was no dispute related to this in government.
Once agian Affirmative Action, under federal law, only requires a very limited number of employers (i.e. less than 5% of private companies) to create their own individual policies and procedures designed to remove any discriminatory practices in hiring and compensation. That's all the federal AA guidelines require. All of the major corporations that have done this state without exception that their corporation has benefited from Affirmative Action. Sadly, as noted, only about 5% of all private enteprise was actually required to comply with AA and therefore benefited from it.
What are we to do about the other 95%?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 16, 2015 18:07:57 GMT
The meaning of this "single line," to which you refer, is not at all "in dispute," by anyone who can read. Only those who desire a certain outcome--and are willing to twist the clear meaning of the text--could suggest otherwise. Even Jonathan Gruber once noted--proudly--that only those states creating their own exchanges would be eligible for federal subsidies. Now some people wish to undo that, because to do otherwise would "effectively destroy" ObamaCare. I have no desire that "white males" should benefit from affirmative-action policies. But neither do I wish to see any other race or gender benefit from them. Perhaps if we were to get rid of them altogether, that would be an appropriate solution.
It could be argued that all of the states did create their own exchanges even when they delegated the adminstration of the insurance exhange to the federal government. The federal government merely provided the "state exchange" for those states that did not want the adminstrative head-aches. We know, for example, that the federal exchange is also specific to the individual state because it's not a "one-size-fits-all" insurance offering. The offering of all of the insurance both public (Medicaid) and private is specific to each individual state. In effect that was Kagan's arguments in addressing the plaintiffs allegations. Effectively the states merely contracted the federal government to create the health insurance exchange for the state so it is a cultimately state exchange.
It can also be noted that everyone involved in the law, both Democrats and Republicans in government at both the federal and state level, understood that the subsidies would apply to every qualified person regardless of whether it was under a state or federal exchange. There was no dispute related to this in government.
Once agian Affirmative Action, under federal law, only requires a very limited number of employers (i.e. less than 5% of private companies) to create their own individual policies and procedures designed to remove any discriminatory practices in hiring and compensation. That's all the federal AA guidelines require. All of the major corporations that have done this state without exception that their corporation has benefited from Affirmative Action. Sadly, as noted, only about 5% of all private enteprise was actually required to comply with AA and therefore benefited from it.
What are we to do about the other 95%?
I wonder if those who were denied employment (or promotion) due to affirmative-action policies would agree that they have "benefited" from it. (And if only five percent of all "major corporations" have accepted affirmative-action criteria, that begs the question: Why have the other 95 percent rejected it, if it is so very beneficial?) Your argument that all 50 states have necessarily created "their own exchanges" is highly disingenuous. According to this logic, it would be impossible for a state not to create "its own exchange." And somehow, that just does not seem quite plausible... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 17, 2015 3:38:24 GMT
I wonder if those who were denied employment (or promotion) due to affirmative-action policies would agree that they have "benefited" from it. (And if only five percent of all "major corporations" have accepted affirmative-action criteria, that begs the question: Why have the other 95 percent rejected it, if it is so very beneficial?) Your argument that all 50 states have necessarily created "their own exchanges" is highly disingenuous. According to this logic, it would be impossible for a state not to create "its own exchange." And somehow, that just does not seem quite plausible...
Whites males were never denied employment or advancement based upon Affirmative Action by the large corporations that were required to comply with the Affirmative Action guidelines that only required them to create policies and procedures to ensure against discriminating against anyone in their employment practices from hiring, to compensation, and to promotion. In fact "white favoristism" still exists but it has diminished over time as women and minorities have demonstrated they can be equal and often times superior job performance to the white males employed. The 5% are major corporations that employ perhaps 20% of all workers while the other enterprises are typically much, much, smaller and many of them are completely uninformed about Affirmative Action, what it means, or how to implement it. Many falsely believe it involves having to hire minorities or women because they've been falsely indoctinated by right-wing politicans and pundits.
When all of the states are covered and all of the states must have an exchange to address the specific insurance offerings in the state and they're specific Medicaid plan (all states are different when it comes to Medicaid) then it's only logical that there must be one exhange for every state. If every state requires it's unique exchange they are correctly called a "state exchange" regardless of who administers the exchange. If every state must have an exchange to administer Obamacare enrollment (required by the law) then it is implausable for there to not be a state exchange regardless of who the adminstrator is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 19, 2015 19:32:28 GMT
I wonder if those who were denied employment (or promotion) due to affirmative-action policies would agree that they have "benefited" from it. (And if only five percent of all "major corporations" have accepted affirmative-action criteria, that begs the question: Why have the other 95 percent rejected it, if it is so very beneficial?) Your argument that all 50 states have necessarily created "their own exchanges" is highly disingenuous. According to this logic, it would be impossible for a state not to create "its own exchange." And somehow, that just does not seem quite plausible...
Whites males were never denied employment or advancement based upon Affirmative Action by the large corporations that were required to comply with the Affirmative Action guidelines that only required them to create policies and procedures to ensure against discriminating against anyone in their employment practices from hiring, to compensation, and to promotion. In fact "white favoristism" still exists but it has diminished over time as women and minorities have demonstrated they can be equal and often times superior job performance to the white males employed. The 5% are major corporations that employ perhaps 20% of all workers while the other enterprises are typically much, much, smaller and many of them are completely uninformed about Affirmative Action, what it means, or how to implement it. Many falsely believe it involves having to hire minorities or women because they've been falsely indoctinated by right-wing politicans and pundits.
When all of the states are covered and all of the states must have an exchange to address the specific insurance offerings in the state and they're specific Medicaid plan (all states are different when it comes to Medicaid) then it's only logical that there must be one exhange for every state. If every state requires it's unique exchange they are correctly called a "state exchange" regardless of who administers the exchange. If every state must have an exchange to administer Obamacare enrollment (required by the law) then it is implausable for there to not be a state exchange regardless of who the adminstrator is.
I cannot believe that you really, sincerely, think that the use of the federal exchange is tantamount to a state exchange for ObamaCare. But if that is what you believe-- really believe--just keep clinging to that belief, in the hope that the High Court will see it your way. You are correct that white males have not historically been discriminated against in America. But that may be changing, what with "affirmative action" (that can amount to simple reverse discrimination). You appear to believe that 95 percent of American corporations--many of which are smaller--are run by people who are "completely uninformed" about affirmative action. (In other words, anyone who does not toe the leftist line in this regard is, well, just plain ignorant--if not actually stupid.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 20, 2015 12:39:35 GMT
I cannot believe that you really, sincerely, think that the use of the federal exchange is tantamount to a state exchange for ObamaCare. But if that is what you believe-- really believe--just keep clinging to that belief, in the hope that the High Court will see it your way. You are correct that white males have not historically been discriminated against in America. But that may be changing, what with "affirmative action" (that can amount to simple reverse discrimination). You appear to believe that 95 percent of American corporations--many of which are smaller--are run by people who are "completely uninformed" about affirmative action. (In other words, anyone who does not toe the leftist line in this regard is, well, just plain ignorant--if not actually stupid.)
It was actually the complexity of establishing a separate "plan" of mulitple insurance offering for each individual state that was responsible for the failures of the rollout of the healthcare.gov website. Basically each state got it's own customized program by the federal government. In the end if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiff's it will be a pity for the millions of Americans that will lose their health insurance because they won't be able to afford it without the federal subsidies.
The vast majority of corporations, perhaps 95%, are not required to comply with Affirmative Action guidelines because they either don't have a government contract (or subcontract) or they don't have over 50 employees. Why would enterprises be informed about Affirmative Action when they're under no obligation to comply with it?
I've been a discussion with another person on another forum about AA and he asked how it was possible to follow the AA guidelines that seek to improve employment opportunities for those discriminated against historically without using a 'quota' and that was easy to answer based upon personal experience. Large defense contractors like Boeing and Northrop simply began to send recruitors into predominately black communities that they'd previously ignored. All of their prior recruitment efforts had focused on white communities so they only received job applications from whites. When they went to the black communities it dramatically increased the number of black applications for employment. The hiring criteria is identical for both but by simply increasing the number of black employment applications it increased the number of blacks being hired. There was no discrimination and no quota and these corporations are in full compliance with both the letter and intent of the Affirmative Action guidelines. They're also highly active in providing college scholarships for both men and women (that were traditionally ignored) in engineering which has dramatically increased the number of women mechanical engineers over time.
Like you I've read of the anecdotal cases of "reverse-discrimination" but they're actually quite rare and represent a lack of understanding of the Affirmative Action guidelines. If these entities that create "reverse-discrimination" were actually following both the letter and intent of Affirmative Action these cases would not exist.
We're also fortunate because scientific studies are being conducted constantly and if the potential situation of "discrimination against white males" in our society ever comes close to being a reality the studies will reveal it well in advance of it become problematic. It's highly unlikely it will ever happen but we will be fore-warned if it starts to happen because the emperical statistical evidence will reveal it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 23, 2015 17:24:18 GMT
I cannot believe that you really, sincerely, think that the use of the federal exchange is tantamount to a state exchange for ObamaCare. But if that is what you believe-- really believe--just keep clinging to that belief, in the hope that the High Court will see it your way. You are correct that white males have not historically been discriminated against in America. But that may be changing, what with "affirmative action" (that can amount to simple reverse discrimination). You appear to believe that 95 percent of American corporations--many of which are smaller--are run by people who are "completely uninformed" about affirmative action. (In other words, anyone who does not toe the leftist line in this regard is, well, just plain ignorant--if not actually stupid.)
It was actually the complexity of establishing a separate "plan" of mulitple insurance offering for each individual state that was responsible for the failures of the rollout of the healthcare.gov website. Basically each state got it's own customized program by the federal government. In the end if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiff's it will be a pity for the millions of Americans that will lose their health insurance because they won't be able to afford it without the federal subsidies.
The vast majority of corporations, perhaps 95%, are not required to comply with Affirmative Action guidelines because they either don't have a government contract (or subcontract) or they don't have over 50 employees. Why would enterprises be informed about Affirmative Action when they're under no obligation to comply with it?
I've been a discussion with another person on another forum about AA and he asked how it was possible to follow the AA guidelines that seek to improve employment opportunities for those discriminated against historically without using a 'quota' and that was easy to answer based upon personal experience. Large defense contractors like Boeing and Northrop simply began to send recruitors into predominately black communities that they'd previously ignored. All of their prior recruitment efforts had focused on white communities so they only received job applications from whites. When they went to the black communities it dramatically increased the number of black applications for employment. The hiring criteria is identical for both but by simply increasing the number of black employment applications it increased the number of blacks being hired. There was no discrimination and no quota and these corporations are in full compliance with both the letter and intent of the Affirmative Action guidelines. They're also highly active in providing college scholarships for both men and women (that were traditionally ignored) in engineering which has dramatically increased the number of women mechanical engineers over time.
Like you I've read of the anecdotal cases of "reverse-discrimination" but they're actually quite rare and represent a lack of understanding of the Affirmative Action guidelines. If these entities that create "reverse-discrimination" were actually following both the letter and intent of Affirmative Action these cases would not exist.
We're also fortunate because scientific studies are being conducted constantly and if the potential situation of "discrimination against white males" in our society ever comes close to being a reality the studies will reveal it well in advance of it become problematic. It's highly unlikely it will ever happen but we will be fore-warned if it starts to happen because the emperical statistical evidence will reveal it.
I really don't place a lot of faith in the value of "empirical evidence" that flies in the face of politically correct thinking. Whenever that happens, political correctness is just about certain to carry the day. As one Supreme Cout justice recently noted, it is not the Court's responsibility to make its rulings based upon the likely results of those rulings; but to make its rulings based entirely upon the law--with no other consideration whatsoever. So the mere fact that you would consider the result "a pity," if the Court were to rule against subsidies being granted to states using the federal exchange, is entirely beside the point. I would think that corporations would recruit from those neighborhoods--whether predominantly white, black, Latino, or whatever else--that would probably yield the highest percentage of high-quality applicants. And I certainly have no problem with that. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 24, 2015 1:19:17 GMT
I really don't place a lot of faith in the value of "empirical evidence" that flies in the face of politically correct thinking. Whenever that happens, political correctness is just about certain to carry the day. As one Supreme Cout justice recently noted, it is not the Court's responsibility to make its rulings based upon the likely results of those rulings; but to make its rulings based entirely upon the law--with no other consideration whatsoever. So the mere fact that you would consider the result "a pity," if the Court were to rule against subsidies being granted to states using the federal exchange, is entirely beside the point. I would think that corporations would recruit from those neighborhoods--whether predominantly white, black, Latino, or whatever else--that would probably yield the highest percentage of high-quality applicants. And I certainly have no problem with that.
The result of a scientific study is what it is regardless of whether the results are politically correct or not. You can't change the numbers to fit an opinion.
While the Supreme Court addressing a law based upon the law is certainly established by precedent the interpretation of any clause in the law is always reviewed in context related to the entire law. What would be a travesty is for one sentence to over-ride the entire intent of thousands of pages in a single law. The plaintiff cannot simply pull a line out of context and expect to be successful as the entire context of the must be considered by the Supreme Court. How the law impacts society is not up to the Supreme Court is not a consideration of the court but how a single sentence or clause is interpreted within the context of the law is a primary consideration for the Court.
In point of fact the most qualified person may come from the least likely of places. When can also note that racial and gender prejudice can dramatically affect where the employer believes the most qualified person might be. Do you really believe that the most qualified person should be over-looked simply because the employer refuses to seek applications based upon race or gender? Remember the employer isn't looking for the highest percentage of high-quality applicants but is looking for the most qualified applicant.
The "most qualified applicant" does not always come from the "highest precentage of high-quality" applicants.
There is the additional problem that historically most enterprises never even looked at any group except white males for many professions.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 26, 2015 17:44:32 GMT
I really don't place a lot of faith in the value of "empirical evidence" that flies in the face of politically correct thinking. Whenever that happens, political correctness is just about certain to carry the day. As one Supreme Cout justice recently noted, it is not the Court's responsibility to make its rulings based upon the likely results of those rulings; but to make its rulings based entirely upon the law--with no other consideration whatsoever. So the mere fact that you would consider the result "a pity," if the Court were to rule against subsidies being granted to states using the federal exchange, is entirely beside the point. I would think that corporations would recruit from those neighborhoods--whether predominantly white, black, Latino, or whatever else--that would probably yield the highest percentage of high-quality applicants. And I certainly have no problem with that.
The result of a scientific study is what it is regardless of whether the results are politically correct or not. You can't change the numbers to fit an opinion.
While the Supreme Court addressing a law based upon the law is certainly established by precedent the interpretation of any clause in the law is always reviewed in context related to the entire law. What would be a travesty is for one sentence to over-ride the entire intent of thousands of pages in a single law. The plaintiff cannot simply pull a line out of context and expect to be successful as the entire context of the must be considered by the Supreme Court. How the law impacts society is not up to the Supreme Court is not a consideration of the court but how a single sentence or clause is interpreted within the context of the law is a primary consideration for the Court.
In point of fact the most qualified person may come from the least likely of places. When can also note that racial and gender prejudice can dramatically affect where the employer believes the most qualified person might be. Do you really believe that the most qualified person should be over-looked simply because the employer refuses to seek applications based upon race or gender? Remember the employer isn't looking for the highest percentage of high-quality applicants but is looking for the most qualified applicant.
The "most qualified applicant" does not always come from the "highest precentage of high-quality" applicants.
There is the additional problem that historically most enterprises never even looked at any group except white males for many professions.
Whereas it is certainly true that "[t]he 'most qualified applicant' does not always come from the 'highest percentage of high-quality' applicants," that is probably the best place to focus most of one's resources. For instance, if one wanted (for whatever reason) only a person who is over six feet in height, it would not be a certainty that this person would be male; but it would probably be more productive to focus those (finite) resources on the male population, if this were the objective. (In any case, those exceptionally well-qualified candidates who do not fit the mold are certainly free to apply--whether or not they are acrively "recruited.") In determining what the intent of the law must be, just "a single sentence" may indeed be instrumental. Why do you suppose that "single sentence" would have been included in the first place, if not to clarify the intent of the law? (But I am entirely content to await the Supreme Court's ruling in this regard. Are you, also? Or would you rather campaign for your preferred outcome, so that you can slam the High Court if it does not rule in the way you would prefer?) That "scientific study" can be--and often is--spun in a manner designed to "fit an opinion." You really should not be so disingenuous as to pretend otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 27, 2015 0:13:05 GMT
Whereas it is certainly true that "[t]he 'most qualified applicant' does not always come from the 'highest percentage of high-quality' applicants," that is probably the best place to focus most of one's resources. For instance, if one wanted (for whatever reason) only a person who is over six feet in height, it would not be a certainty that this person would be male; but it would probably be more productive to focus those (finite) resources on the male population, if this were the objective. (In any case, those exceptionally well-qualified candidates who do not fit the mold are certainly free to apply--whether or not they are acrively "recruited.") In determining what the intent of the law must be, just "a single sentence" may indeed be instrumental. Why do you suppose that "single sentence" would have been included in the first place, if not to clarify the intent of the law? (But I am entirely content to await the Supreme Court's ruling in this regard. Are you, also? Or would you rather campaign for your preferred outcome, so that you can slam the High Court if it does not rule in the way you would prefer?) That "scientific study" can be--and often is--spun in a manner designed to "fit an opinion." You really should not be so disingenuous as to pretend otherwise.
If the resources actually limited the search that might be an argument but in reality they don't and it's well worth it to the enterprise to expand it's search to as many possible applicants as possible.
Yes, I'm quite content to wait on the Supreme Court.... and to see the response of the Congressional Republicans considering that the vast majority of Americans want the law fixed if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. It's only a one sentence correction of the plaintiffs win the case and Americans expect Congress to do that. I'm really surprised that Republicans didn't fix it before it went to the Supreme Court because they should have.
No, the results of the study cannot be spun because they are what they are. Political opinion writers can sometimes try to put a spin on the numbers but they can't change them. If you do a random sample of black and white rocks and it comes out 9 white rocks and one black rock you can pretty much assume that the box is full of mostly white rocks. If you sample 1,000 rocks and 900 are white and 100 are black you can be virtually certain that the proportion of white rocks to black rocks is 9:1. No one can spin those numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 29, 2015 23:38:31 GMT
Whereas it is certainly true that "[t]he 'most qualified applicant' does not always come from the 'highest percentage of high-quality' applicants," that is probably the best place to focus most of one's resources. For instance, if one wanted (for whatever reason) only a person who is over six feet in height, it would not be a certainty that this person would be male; but it would probably be more productive to focus those (finite) resources on the male population, if this were the objective. (In any case, those exceptionally well-qualified candidates who do not fit the mold are certainly free to apply--whether or not they are acrively "recruited.") In determining what the intent of the law must be, just "a single sentence" may indeed be instrumental. Why do you suppose that "single sentence" would have been included in the first place, if not to clarify the intent of the law? (But I am entirely content to await the Supreme Court's ruling in this regard. Are you, also? Or would you rather campaign for your preferred outcome, so that you can slam the High Court if it does not rule in the way you would prefer?) That "scientific study" can be--and often is--spun in a manner designed to "fit an opinion." You really should not be so disingenuous as to pretend otherwise.
If the resources actually limited the search that might be an argument but in reality they don't and it's well worth it to the enterprise to expand it's search to as many possible applicants as possible.
Yes, I'm quite content to wait on the Supreme Court.... and to see the response of the Congressional Republicans considering that the vast majority of Americans want the law fixed if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. It's only a one sentence correction of the plaintiffs win the case and Americans expect Congress to do that. I'm really surprised that Republicans didn't fix it before it went to the Supreme Court because they should have.
No, the results of the study cannot be spun because they are what they are. Political opinion writers can sometimes try to put a spin on the numbers but they can't change them. If you do a random sample of black and white rocks and it comes out 9 white rocks and one black rock you can pretty much assume that the box is full of mostly white rocks. If you sample 1,000 rocks and 900 are white and 100 are black you can be virtually certain that the proportion of white rocks to black rocks is 9:1. No one can spin those numbers.
It is not the "numbers" per se that are likely to be spun. Rather, it is their meaning. Are you claiming that there is no expense attendant to "recruiting" efforts? (And, in any case, why couldn't a well-qualified person apply to the company in question, whether or not he or she was recruited?) Johnathan Gruber--the chief architect of ObamaCare--himself declared, on January 18, 2012 (at the Noblis Innovation and Colaboration Center) that "if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits." And that should settle the matter, as regarding the law's intent--notwithstanding his subsequent attempts to claim otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 30, 2015 12:27:32 GMT
It is not the "numbers" per se that are likely to be spun. Rather, it is their meaning. Are you claiming that there is no expense attendant to "recruiting" efforts? (And, in any case, why couldn't a well-qualified person apply to the company in question, whether or not he or she was recruited?) Johnathan Gruber--the chief architect of ObamaCare--himself declared, on January 18, 2012 (at the Noblis Innovation and Colaboration Center) that "if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits." And that should settle the matter, as regarding the law's intent--notwithstanding his subsequent attempts to claim otherwise.
I agree with you completely. It's not the numbers that are likely to be spun but instead the meaning. That's why looking at the numbers is of primary importance and questioning the opinions about the meanings.
For example we know that blacks score lower on IQ tests in their teenage years than whites and racist groups like Stormfront have put the "spin" on this that it shows that blacks are less intelligent than whites. The problem is that IQ tests only measure a limited number of attributes of intelligence for a specific purpose, were never intended to measure general intelligence, and the results are highly effected by numerous factors other than intelligence that more than account for the differences in the test scores.
Employers often spend a lot of money on recruitment but perhaps the least expense is related to adverstising the job opening. A person will apply for the job if they know it exists but with the exception of a few very large corporations few people know of the company or the job opening. We're even aware of many cases where jobs are virtually always based upon nepotism related to the current employees so if you have an all white work force you will only hire white people because all of the relatives of the current employees are white. Other companies rely on employee referrals and once again if the employee is white the odds are that anyone they refer will also be white.
Affirmative Action merely requires the enterprise to reach outside of it's traditional employment recruitment practices if those recruitment practices result racial or gender discrimination. There are no quotas and no enterprise is expected to spend a lot of extra money doing this.
It isn't what the "author" believes the text means but instead what those that adopted the text as law believe that matters. What did Congress believe the text of the ACA authorized matters because they're the ones responsible for adopting it into law and not Johnathan Gruber. Of course the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.
Of real interest to me is what will the GOP do if the Supreme Court rules on behalf of the plaintiffs and strikes down the subsidies for those covered under the federal exchange? The majority of Americans want Congress to fix the problem and restore the subsidies if this happens so will the GOP do that? Will the GOP fix the law to reinstate the subsidies is very questionable at best.
I'm seeing this as similar to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder where the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that rendered Section 5, the enforcement of the law, moot. The Court in it's decision stated that the provisions of Section 4(b) were out of date and needed Congress to redifine them (you and I agreed with this previously) but the GOP controlled House fundamentally prevented any legislation to redefine the provions of Section 4(b) so the Voting Rights Act is unenforceable today.
The failure of Congress to redefine Section 4(b) is a huge step backwards when it comes to enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution and the Right to Vote for Americans. If we conducted a poll on whether Americans have a "right to vote" regardless of race I'd assume the vast majority would say yes but the one real law we had to specifically ensure that right effectively no longer exists. No state was harmed by the Voting Rights Act and it needs to be amended so that it is once again effective but I don't see the GOP supporting any amendment to it. We're basically back to the pre-1965, pre-civil rights era, where discriminatory laws that effectively deny the right to vote for minorities are not prevented under the Voting Rights Act.
Will the GOP act on behalf of the people of the United States is highly questionable based upon the recent past.
|
|
