And that's the point. We can go back and forth about the relative merits of the case. I think the fact that the decisions have been so close for both sides of the argument speaks volumes to the complexity of the matter. All the more reason why its completely dishonest to bring this case up as a reason why Sotomayor is radically liberal. The only reason conservatives use this as a launching pad for attacks is its an emotional issue for Americans. Ultimately, it does very little to illuminate her qualifications one way or another.

You are hopeless. I repeat -- if we can't hold the members of that 3-judge panel responsible for their own decision, then who? With your thinking, NONE of the individuals involved are responsible. All 3 of the judges could avoid accountability, because they were only one judge out of 3. Ergo, NOBODY is responsible for ANYTHING.

I suppose you could have made an argument that Sotomayor was in dissent from the other two judges, but if that was the case she certainly didn't bother to tell anybody about it.

Who said anything about not being able to hold the members of the 3-judge panel responsible for their decision? All of them are responsible for agreeing with the trial court and they took responsibility for their decision when they said precisely that.

If you make a statement and give reasons for your statement's content, and I agree with that statement, is there some reason I must come up with new reasons for agreeing with you, or is there some reason why you think I should repeat the reasons you gave for taking the position you took?

That's daft.

You are hopeless. I repeat -- if we can't hold the members of that 3-judge panel responsible for their own decision, then who?

I never said you couldn't hold her responsible. The problem is that you are acting as the predictable tool by waffling back and forth as you act like she is the sole author when, in fact, she wasn't. While I'd usually chalk up my attack on your absurdity as being overly nit-picky on my part, given that this line of BS has been a favorite of tools of the right-wing, I'm just now willing to swallow it from you, particularly in the context of how you've raised it.

With your thinking, NONE of the individuals involved are responsible.

I never said that. I actually said the exact opposite. :) I'm not the one waffling about here.

When you can not argue with logic, a pithy comment will have to do. It was even kinda funny, thanks ;-)

But I think you're getting hung up on semantics, viz. the legal standard for ""disproportionate racial impact" and your own--or anyone else's objective opinion of same.

Not really. The following quote is from Paul Daniel Ash's helpful link. It corresponds exactly to my notion of prima facie. I just don't see how a sample size of 77 people can yield persuasive statistical arguments for disparate impact.

Allocation of proof

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm

I missed this line, but DCLaw quoted it and it needs a note in rebuttal:

Promotions on the job should be based on something old fashioned we used to have in America called ability to perform and track record on the job, not on the color of one's skin.

The "old fashioned" way was never based on merit. That's laughable. Go look up the "spoils" system for example. Or the Irish death grip on many police and fire fighting forces. Or the phrase "good old boys network" throw in "glass ceiling" and a smattering of things like Skull and Bones, Freemasons and even the KKK and you have a giant soup of quiet, pervasive, persistent and still effective discrimination in favour of white straight Christian males over their counterparts.

Even today, multiple studies confirm that identical resumes get more interview requests if the name is a common Anglo heritage one instead of an ethnic/foreign sounding name.

Affirmative action isn't just correcting past wrongs, real, effective discrimination is still going on. Having a black name makes it harder to even get in the door for an interview.

Glenn wrote:

Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise -- the true test for whether one applies to law independently of political and outcome preferences.

Well...duh!

1) Facts do have a nasty liberal bias.

2) Conservatives dislike liberals, and by extension, facts.

3) What's left? Beliefs, opinions and political preferences.

CQFD!

(even though I have yet to read the decisions.) I don't like the idea of cities being whipsawed no matter what they do the way New Haven was here. A clarification of the law that avoids that strikes me as a good thing.

But it just doesn't follow from that that Sotomayor and the Second Circuit majority decided wrongly. Their decision seems to me a pretty straightforward application of what the Supreme Court had said in Griggs. A mere circuit court doesn't have the authority to overrule a Supreme Court precedent.

Not really. The following quote is from Paul Daniel Ash's helpful link. It corresponds exactly to my notion of prima facie. I just don't see how a sample size of 77 people can yield persuasive statistical arguments for disparate impact.

From the majority opinion of the Supreme Court:

"The racial adverse impact here was significant, andpetitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with aprima facie case of disparate-impact liability. On the captain exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 64percent but was 37.5 percent for both black and Hispanic candidates. On the lieutenant exam, the pass rate forwhite candidates was 58.1 percent; for black candidates,

31.6 percent; and for Hispanic candidates, 20 percent. The pass rates of minorities, which were approximately one-half the pass rates for white candidates, fall well below the80-percent standard set by the EEOC to implement the disparate-impact provision of Title VII. See 29 CFR §1607.4(D) (2008) (selection rate that is less than 80 per-cent “of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agen-cies as evidence of adverse impact”); Watson, 487 U. S., at 995–996, n. 3 (plurality opinion) (EEOC’s 80-percent standard is “a rule of thumb for the courts”)."

You're drowning.