Historic Vergara ruling finalized; state has weighty decision on appeal

Historic Vergara ruling finalized; state has weighty decision on appeal

Vergara-Trial-WebsiteA court decision that puts the interests of Latino and black students and parents on a collision course with those of the mostly white members of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers has been finalized:

The judge in Vergara vs. California today released his final review of the case, affirming his preliminary decision in June, that five state statures governing teacher employment rules violate the California constitution by denying students access to a quality public education.

In his final ruling, filed yesterday, Judge Rolf Treu, said, “plaintiffs have met their burden of proof on all issues presented.”

The decision effectively starts the clock for the defendants — the state and its two largest teachers unions, which joined the case — on whether to appeal. They have 60 days to decide.

Implications many for governor, state Dems

Cal Watchdog has had extensive coverage of the Vergara decision and its educational and political implications.

Here’s part of a piece from Monday — “Vergara appeal decision: Nixon goes to China for Jerry Brown?”:

He is on cruise control for re-election, so if he backed an appeal — especially on narrow grounds — he wouldn’t face the blowback that [state Superintendent of Public Instruction] Torlakson would.

But at this point in his life, Brown isn’t necessarily thinking about the short term. He may be thinking about history and his lasting legacies.

 Here’s part of a piece from June 12 — “The left-wing theory driving Vergara ruling.”

A point that hasn’t been made nearly enough by the MSM is that the Vergara vs. California ruling rejecting the state’s lax teacher tenure practices depends on a legal doctrine associated with lefty causes. That doctrine deals with “disparate impact” and holds that if a seemingly neutral law has the real-world effect of hurting discrete groups, that law can be seen as de facto discriminatory under constitutional equal protection provisions.

It is most associated with employment discrimination lawsuits challenging standardized tests in government employment. In public education — at least until this week — the doctrine had mostly been invoked in litigation targeting the sharp differences in student discipline by race.

Here’s part of the piece about the Vergara ruling’s potential to dynamite the California Democratic Party coalition from June 24 — “Vergara’s grim implications for CA Dems ignored”:

[The] landmark court ruling [portends a highly] … consequential rift between California Democratic factions. The Vergara vs. California decision posits that state policies which protect mostly white veteran teachers and funnel the worst teachers to schools in poor minority neighborhoods are an unconstitutional affront to equal protection laws. The judge explicitly likened his ruling to Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “seperate but equal” public school systems were unconstitutional.

This puts the Democratic coalition at great risk. Its most powerful members — the CTA and the CFT — are accused of orchestrating an assault on the interests of the children of blacks and Latinos — its most loyal voters.

10 comments

Write a comment
  1. Ted Steele, Editor
    Ted Steele, Editor 29 August, 2014, 07:45

    Chris-

    You have misused the word “finalized” in your story.

    This purports to be a legal story and words in this context have meaning. It is merely his decision and of course fully appealable– not final.

    I’ll let ya know when it’s final little buddy!

    Reply this comment
  2. Ted Steele, Editor
    Ted Steele, Editor 29 August, 2014, 07:49

    Final judgment means “a judgment that is final and not appealable, and includes an order of settlement.” 28 USCS § 2412; See Griner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95104 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2009)

    Reply this comment
  3. Chris Reed
    Chris Reed Author 29 August, 2014, 10:12

    Ted, the judge finalized his ruling. That doesn’t mean it can’t be appealed. Duh.

    And you wonder why I liken many of your posts to onanism.

    This doesn’t add anything to the debate over public schools, tenure, etc.

    But it makes you feel good. Congrats.

    Reply this comment
    • Ted Steele, Editor
      Ted Steele, Editor 29 August, 2014, 17:34

      LOL Chris– you DO like to think about Onan—-well……alot!

      Hmmmm…….

      “Duh”, is your best shot?

      Oh my.

      I, of course know well that you NEVER admit when you’re wrong, so no worries there.
      “the judge…issued his final review…”

      It’s not a final judgement, he merely “ruled”…..he is a lower court…..of course it’s not final and it is appealable…..but you kids are frothing to smear your tea baggy pov across most of the so called stories out here so whoever wrote the headline spurt “finalized” up there! LMAO

      This “journalistic venture”, at times, looks like a jr. high paper.

      Carry on little buddy!

      Reply this comment
      • Chris Reed
        Chris Reed Author 29 August, 2014, 19:46

        Ted, I never once said it was a final ruling that can’t be revoked. It is the final ruling of the trial court. In fact, the post specifically talks about Jerry Brown’s decision on whether or not to appeal. The headline mentions a possible state appeal!

        If you’re going to troll, please read what you’re trolling over.

        But you win. I officially give up. I won’t react to you any more. Enjoy your daily workout.

        Reply this comment
        • Ted Steele, Editor
          Ted Steele, Editor 29 August, 2014, 21:34

          Chris-

          Words have meaning– you or your ed. use them here incorrectly to support your VERY always obvious teabaggerous slants. That’s all– just calling attention to it.

          Words have meaning and ANYone with any legal knowledge would agree that your headline is VERY misleading–intentionally or with a nice dash of ignorance delivered with confidence.

          Your defense can’t be, “hey it’s just a headline, we got it right in the article”…….can it? Or are you still defending the “truth” of the headline?

          Reply this comment
  4. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 29 August, 2014, 13:09

    It’s a little thing some of us have with using words that are misleading, like misinterpreting the meaning of the “normal cost” of pensions. We’re trying to help you out.

    Also trying to figure out how political disagreements are related to masturbation.

    “If it makes you feel good”?

    Reply this comment
  5. Chris Reed
    Chris Reed Author 29 August, 2014, 16:07

    Still wrong, SMD.

    “The funding of annual normal pension costs should be shared equally by employees and employers.”

    This is from Brown’s pension reform blueprint in 2011:

    1. Equal Sharing of Pension Costs: All Employees and Employers
    While many public employees make some contribution to their retirement – state employees contribute at least 8 percent of their salaries – some make none. Their employers pay the full amount of the annual cost of their pension benefits. The funding of annual normal pension costs should be shared equally by employees and employers.

    My plan will require that all new and current employees transition to a contribution level of at least 50 percent of the annual cost of their pension benefits. Given the different levels of employee contributions, the move to a contribution level of at least 50 percent will be phased in at a pace that takes into account current contribution levels, current contracts and the collective bargaining process.

    Regardless of pacing, this change delivers real near-term savings to public employers, who will see their share of annual employee pension costs decline.

    Reply this comment
  6. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 29 August, 2014, 16:41

    If it makes you feel good.

    Reply this comment
  7. Queeg
    Queeg 30 August, 2014, 21:15

    The day free men started to pay money to have a job is the day freedom started to wane!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment



Related Articles

Video: Gov. Brown punishes good schools to help bad ones

July 5, 2013 By Brian Calle John Phillips explains how Gov. Jerry Brown is taking money from successful districts to

Good side of Maldonado comedy

Everyone’s getting a hearty horse laugh over the Abel Maldonado lieutenant-governor comedy. The latest episode in “As the Capitol Turns”:

Obamacare: Not enough doctors in CA, FL

Feb. 26, 2013 By John Seiler An axiom of Econ. 101 is: Lower cost increases demand. That’s what’s happening to