Saturday, January 14, 2012
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
EEOC charges Pepsi with black and Hispanic criminality
Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants — even if they weren’t convicted of a crime.
The settlement announced Wednesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of a national government crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.
EEOC officials said the company’s policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants who had been arrested, but not convicted of a crime, and denied employment to others who were convicted of minor offenses.
Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it’s irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.
(And? Mind boggling.)
Have We Elected an Autocrat
Verbatim Post
Friday’s Wall Street Journal contained an article aptly entitled Contempt For The Constitution, in which they point out the inconsistent, if convenient, (to them) interpretations given to the nation’s founding document by the Obama administration’s Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on Thursday.
There are numerous occasions where the administration is pleased to use the lack of a quorum in the Senate to push through its agenda, by taking advantage of the fact that the Senate often conducts business in pro forma sessions where much of the chamber is absent. In fact, the recent payroll tax holiday signed into law by the President was conducted under just such a scenario.
The WSJ editorial points out the weakness of Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz’s argument in suggesting that such pro forma sessions aren’t technically sessions. (From the journal editorial) In her 23 page opinion, she states that
… As “a practical matter,” in those sessions the Senate isn’t capable of receiving and acting on nominations to the executive branch and therefore cannot exercise its advice and consent duties. Ms. Seitz points in particular to a Senate “standing order”—the rules of order it adopts to govern its procedures—that no business would be transacted during the pro forma sessions. If the Senate itself says it can’t conduct business, she says, then the President can conclude it isn’t really in session.
Aside from the inherent weakness of her argument and “reasoning,” the journal identifies the bigger issue – a government by fiat, rather than by rule of law.
The practical effect of Ms. Seitz’s legal logic is that the President could make a recess appointment when the Senate adjourns for the day, or for lunch. He could also decide that the Senate isn’t functioning to his liking—for instance, by dragging its feet on his nominations—and recess appoint nominees even when the Senate is conducting other business.
Would Israel benefit from a Ron Paul presidency? (Original Video)
This year, with a strong 23.3% showing and second place in New Hampshire Primary and 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus, the Republican/Libertarian from Texas is proving to be the Second Coming of the Little Engine That could.
