Is there a Lawyer in the House?
A decision in the Shakman v City lawsuit. Now if we could just get a cockro ... we mean a lawyer to explain it to us. What does it mean? What does this affect? Who does it apply to? Sgt Northern? What does Mike say?
posted by SCC at 9:47 PM
22 Comments:
I am not a lawyer but what it seems to me is that the courts have sided with the city and have given the city permission to pursue the elimination of the decree that was passed in 1983 and which was supposedly being followed which we all know is not true
You called? The way I read it, the 7th Circuit (Appeals Court) is saying that the District Court did not provide a proper basis for denying a motion to vacate the 1983 settlement by which the city agreed to restrict a practice of political hiring (as compared to political promotions).
So the District Court has to go back and again see if the 1983 settlement should be vacated.
On the one hand, the 7th Circuit indicated that it will be tough for Shakman and the politicos to show standing, based on intervening developments. One of the intervening developments was a decision that invoked principles of Federalism as inhibiting Federal Courts from exercising long-term control over local decisionmaking abilities. Us conservatives embrace this line of thought as a general matter.
On the other hand, the way I read it, the 7th Circuit is saying that standing for such an agreement would exist for any group whose rights are impacted by political hiring. Anyone got a cousin who was denied employment in the water department in the last 5 years?
There were several ways of characterizing the District Court's mistakes. Basically, the mistake could be summarized as that the District Court was not flexible in evaluating whether to vacate the agreement, and flexibility must be provided to ensure that long-term control of local governments is not vested in Federal courts in a manner that proves self-perpetuating.
If anyone ever looks up my IP address to show my thoughts as malpractice, please note that I am merely a 7th grade student whose uncle is a lawyer. Thus, you are nuts if you take this as legal advice. Its past my bedtime too, so good night officers!
Anoother meaningless disclaimer! I'm sure my lawyer, Mr. Goldstein will work something out with your malpractice carrier. You'll find another carrier soon...
This sounds like Daley will get some relief at least for political promotions. That's too bad...
To 10:39,
My reading is that the '83 agreement pertained to hiring, not promotions. THe court took pains to indicate that the city was not trying to back out of inhibitions on political promotions.
No matter. There are about 100000 potential plaintiffs with standing who could take the place of Shakman or the rest. Basically, anybody who applied for a city job and didn't get hired could argue that they are hurt by political hiring. And there is no doubt that some potential for damage could be shown just based on guilty pleas in the last few months relating to fixed hiring.
But Daley would still have to get a hostile judge to agree to vacate the '83 agreement first before a new plaintiff (with standing) even becomes necessary (in a new suit).
Oh, and tell Mr. Goldstein that my uncle knows where he lives.
I have yet to see today's decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Within the hour, I did send an eMail to the Federal Monitor, Ms. Noelle Brennan, requesting that she post the decision on the following Web site:
www.ShakmanMonitor.com
To Northside- there's a link to the decision in the original post in this thread.
10-4. Thank you.
I don't necessarily see this latest decision as significantly affecting Shakman....but keep in mind, the Daley administration is fighting tooth and nail to get rid of the Shakman restrictions on political hiring and promotions (as it applies to the CPD, to Capt, and "merit" to Lt., Sgt., and maybe Det.). The remedy: 1) support the Shakman restrictions; 2) politically, vote out the current administration....
HEY SHADYLEFTY
EVERYONE SAYS YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON BECAUSE YOU BOTH WRITE USELESS POSTS ABOUT ABSOULTELY NOTHING. WE ACTUALLY KNOW THAT YOU ARE SEPERATE BEINGS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY YOU ARE SEPERATE ANYMORE. PEOPLE SAY IT TO GET YOUR BLOOD BOILING. MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN MEET AT STATE & MADISON TODAY AT NOON. YOU BOTH CAN WEAR PINK FLOWERS ON YOUR LAPELS.
LOTTO-BALLS:
I HEREBY MOTION THAT YOU CEASE & DESIST INDICKTING ME AND IMMEDIATELY VACATE MY SHORTS!
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
AYE!!!
Can't you idiots ever stay on thread.
Hey 4:16 poster:
Can't meet you and Shady today at noon because of court. Is tomorrow okay?
The city increases "merit" promotions in the fire dept. from 10% to 16%. The firefighters revolt, kick out their union boss, and get the policy changed. Does anyone know what the percentafge was reduced too?
Meanwhile Nolan promises to fight 30% "merit" in the next contract, but its not even on the table come contract time. Donahue, well he seems to be a church mouse. I'm not surprised we've done nothing about it when I constantly read on this blog the amount of hate we have for one another. Maybe we should worry a little less about who's doing what and worry about why our union bends over to let the city fuck us.
Copy this link into your address bar.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-crash25.html
You mean Nolan didnt fight for us?? Gee Im sure glad we have Marky boy now!! What a joke FLOP DIS.
Go WAYNE, Go Tierney, GO Sean!!!!
Keep the rips coming!!!
You guys are the whiniest!!!!
WEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
New Blog coming soon:
foplodge7 and the truth.
An independant analysis from someone who is NOT part of the administration.
whiners, cryers, and self rightous FOP fucks will all be welcome to post.
Yeah, the fire department fought the merit numbers, however they still have affirmative action written into their contract as far as promotions go. There are set numbers of minorities and women that must be promoted for every M/2 that is made.
i know the other two but who is sean?
SHADY = LEFTISTHEBEST
O'GRADY = SHADY = LEFTISTHEBEST
SHADENFRUEDEN = SHADY = LEFTISTHEBEST= O'GRADY
THEY ARE ALL THE SAME, ONE GREAT BIG ASSHOLE.
And you know this how? Let everyone know who you are!! BALL-LESS PUSSY
your mamma
I suspect part of the problem is that Shakman only addresses "political" hiring or promotions; namely, people who are promoted or not based upon whether they support the right political candidates or parties. Much of the anger I see in this department is directed at promotions - merit or not - that are made on the basis, not of politics, but of geneology - do you know who you daddy is? uncle? mom? brother? These kind of promotions are not barred by Shakman or any other consent decree. Who you know or who you blow - is still the hiring standard. Those poor souls that got promoted purely on the basis of their test scores are all sitting in patrol somewhere and will likely finish their careers there. Go figure!!!
<< Home