<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ricci: The Equal Protection Implications</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/ricci-the-equal-protection-implications.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/ricci-the-equal-protection-implications.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:16:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: RJ</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/ricci-the-equal-protection-implications.html/comment-page-1#comment-66532</link>
		<dc:creator>RJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22480#comment-66532</guid>
		<description>In what should be the unlikely event that the district court in Briscoe refuses to dismiss the case as either time-barred or foreclosed by the Ricci opinion, I think it would be nice to see Briscoe (or the relief he requests) challenged on EP grounds with the end result being the invalidation of Title VII&#039;s disparate impact provision as unconstitutional. If anything, the fact that Briscoe and related actions are vexing the Ricci plaintiffs on remand and worse still, threaten to disrupt the City of New Haven&#039;s ability to fill other vacancies in its fire department for years if these litigations are allowed to proceed, it provides a compelling reason and incentive for the Supreme Court to take the issue up and end the nonsense once and for all.  As they say, be careful what you ask for . . . these new litigants may get far more than they sought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In what should be the unlikely event that the district court in Briscoe refuses to dismiss the case as either time-barred or foreclosed by the Ricci opinion, I think it would be nice to see Briscoe (or the relief he requests) challenged on EP grounds with the end result being the invalidation of Title VII&#8217;s disparate impact provision as unconstitutional. If anything, the fact that Briscoe and related actions are vexing the Ricci plaintiffs on remand and worse still, threaten to disrupt the City of New Haven&#8217;s ability to fill other vacancies in its fire department for years if these litigations are allowed to proceed, it provides a compelling reason and incentive for the Supreme Court to take the issue up and end the nonsense once and for all.  As they say, be careful what you ask for . . . these new litigants may get far more than they sought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monday Round-up &#124; SCOTUSblog</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/ricci-the-equal-protection-implications.html/comment-page-1#comment-66440</link>
		<dc:creator>Monday Round-up &#124; SCOTUSblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22480#comment-66440</guid>
		<description>[...] of 14 firefighters based on the tests upheld in Ricci v. DeStefano, while Michael Zimmer at Concurring Opinions discussed the impact of Ricci on equal protection doctrine.  The Boston Globe also reported on the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of 14 firefighters based on the tests upheld in Ricci v. DeStefano, while Michael Zimmer at Concurring Opinions discussed the impact of Ricci on equal protection doctrine.  The Boston Globe also reported on the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

