It's perfectly reasonable and mainstream to debate whether there was disproportionate racial impact in the New Haven testing process, but it is neither reasonable nor mainstream to treat the question as a no-brainer deserving of zero deliberation.

Have you actually read the decision?

What part of "We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F.Supp.2d 142, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn. Sept. 28, 2006)." don't you understand?

I bolded the part of the decision which might be helpful.

Charlie Manson is pretty lonely and could use a cellmate.

May I suggest Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly?

I'll throw in a bottle of oxycontin and a loofah.

Well, at least you admit (paragraph #3) that jurisprudence has been politicized to the point that it is now just about whose politics is being served by the judges.

I have to say, I think you are wrong about why the case resonates. It is not about empathy. Its about using racial discrimination to reach a desired result.

Claiming that interest in the case is about empathy is self fulfilling and rules out considering the case on its merits, because 'empathy' for whites would be racist. But justifying race-based means by the presumed virtuous ends assumes that there will be a time when the sins of our past will finally have been atoned for, doesn't it? Or will that day never come, and we must proceed indefinitely under the assumption that all outcomes that negatively affect any minority must be overruled. This cycle will require 'minorities' to maintain the mantle of permanent victimization. Do you want to examine Obama's presidency in this through this warped perspective? How tiresom and unimaginative.

I believe it was Hamdan. He took no part in the decision in the Supreme Court because he had heard it in the D.C. Circuit. Several of the facts are similar: Roberts was on a three-judge panel that reached a unanimous verdict, and it was overturned in large part by Supremes with different ideologies. The differences are trivial: Roberts didn't write the opinion that SCOTUS overturned, he simply joined it; the Roberts panel overturned the district court while Sotomayor's opinion affirmed the decision below. And of course Roberts was there and recused himself, instead of being reversed before he was confirmed.

Per the trolls, whatever decision the Supreme Court reaches is correct. I guess Roberts should be pretty embarrassed that he got that one wrong, huh?

So, being nailed on your false meme about Sotomayor writing the decision,

So who did write it? She was part of a 3-member panel that authored the decision and left it unsigned. If we can't hold those 3 people accountable, then who? Santa Claus? Jesus? Michael Jackson's ghost?

"The racial adverse impact here was significant, andpetitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability."

I'm deeply skeptical of this being a prime facie case of disparate impact. Those are supposed to have some statistical merit behind them. Only 77 people took the disputed exam. Can you really tell anything from such a small group? In such a small sample size, it's quite possible the white guys in the group were just a little smarter or more hard-working than the black guys. If we had a sample size of 700 instead of 77, then it would be different.

Everything to do with our sense of fairness as Americans. I wouldn't care if Ricci were green. The way they were treated was not fundamentally fair.

Every ethnic group that came to America suffered substantial discrimination from Jews, Irish, and Italians, and Asian Americans. None of these groups ever demanded to be put ahead of other more qualified people and they instead relied on their own hard work and efforts to succeed. They raised their children on the merits of hard work and getting an education and not in idolizing rappers and people who can put a basketball thru a hoop.

Ah that's some good "it's their own fault" sophistry.

Blacks of course were immigrants too, except they didn't get welcomed through Ellis island, they were brought over in chains and explicitly denied even basic literacy. Their families were broken up whenever a slave was sold, and even after they achieved nominal freedom, they were severely restricted in ways the Irish, Italians, Asians and even Jews of America cannot really compare to.

Please copy and paste the following to all of your Letters responses from now on, until Salon.com updates their antiquated Letters sections.

There is another option available to you that may be substantially more attractive. Go to another site more suitable to your wishes.

I don't think that Sotomayor is too extreme for the bench. I believe she is worthy of the highest court. That said, I don't agree with her decision based on what I've read about the facts.

"The racial adverse impact here was significant, and petitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability."

That is right out of Kennedy's majority opinion. It's simply bizzarro world now due to a fact that the Supreme Court was not ruling on the law. They essentially have stated that, under the circumstances, no matter what the city did, someone has a case against them. So a test has a disparate impact on minorities that is noticable, even according to EEOC guidelines? Well, according to the Supreme Court, that is not a good enough reason to not certify the test, even though those who were subject to the disparate impact would have a valid lawsuit. How does that make any rational sense? Ginsburg's dissent was right on the money here.

First of all, I don't know why you feel the need to insult me. You have no idea whether my understanding of the law is "superficial" or not.

I certainly didn't mean to insult you; actually, I thought I was being pretty restrained in my responses to you. My characterization of your legal understanding of affirmative action, Title VII, etc. as "superficial" was based on what I thought was a fairly obvious lack of a persuasive argument, or connection of the "affirmative action" point you initially made to the Ricci case and Title VII. I think you are tap dancing a bit here.

Regarding your question, of course I care about policy considerations of what the law is and should be. I don't think that "legacy" considerations are fair at all. But there are a lot of things that aren't fair that also are not unlawful.

Title VII outlawed race discrimination in employment, among other things. My initial post was simply explaining why I view race-based decisions by employers to be different than decisions based on factors that aren't unlawful (even if those decisions may be more unfair and unprincipled than some race-based decisions).

Here's what you said originally, to which I ultimately responded by asking whether you think we should consider anything other than formal law when discussing the propriety of a law or practice:

I just want to say that some people (me, for instance) object to race-based affirmative action but don't object to "legacy" affirmative action (or other preferences received by various people) for the simple reason that it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of race.

It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too. I.e., you don't think legacy and other non-racial considerations are "fair at all" as a non-legal matter, but this isn't enough for you to "object" to them, for the "simple" (read: sole) reason that they are legal, whereas you think affirmative action is not, at least in the Title VII context.

Ultimately, you can't possibly address this issue without considering its non-legal components. The law, and the Ricci case in particular, is too ambiguous and nuanced for one's own interpretation thereof to completely inform one's opinion on affirmative action, Title VII, and racial policy generally.

And again, I meant no insult.