Nonsense. I strongly disagree with Kennedy on his weighting of the percentage breakdown. It was a sample of 77 people, which is tiny. It's ridiculous to talk about detailed stat sets when you're dealing with a situation where if three or four guys didn't get a decent night's sleep because the baby was crying, or were stressed after arguing with their wives, or a hundred other reasons, it could be enough to significantly skew the racial percentages of passers and failers. The sample size is just too small.

For example, imagine a Gallup poll on Barack Obama's approval rating. The sample consists of 77 non-randomly selected interviewees. Is that an opinion poll you would take seriously?

Are we discussing a poll of random people or are we discussing actual numbers of real people?

The numbers referred to in the majority opinion were not obtained by a random sampling. They were the actual numbers (percentages) of pass/fail rates among different subsets of those who took the actual test.

Are you any kin to Shooter242?

By treating every human being exactly the same before the law. Each individual should have exactly the same rights as any other individual even if some people who look like a given individual wronged others in the distant past.

I can't believe that people can not see that. Well, unless their ideology demands that they not see that. They want the newborn baby (who chooses the wrong color up in heaven) to pay for some wrong that happened decades or centuries ago. By that logic ... no wait, that is not logic at all.

Until the people of America stop the group warfare here; how do you expect us to ever get the USA to stop treating other nations (groups) the way we have since the country began.

The test results were not certified by New Haven. We all know that and that is not what I was referring to. Perhaps it would be better if I phrased it a different way so that we are on the same page. The test used in New Haven was created by Indusrial/ Organizational Solutions and tested for bias. The test was validated as an unbiased test through the extensive testing performed on the test. If you would like details, feel free to call the company who created the test. You can get their phone number at their website www.iosolutions.org.

Once you speak with them, you will be able to see if you are satisfied that the test was validated as unbiased. I can lead the horse to water...the rest is up to you.

By that logic ... no wait, that is not logic at all.

Well, at least your blind-as-a-bat, strawman, total-bs and uselessly diddling argument gets that much straight.

The test was validated as an unbiased test through the extensive testing performed on the test.

In my first response to you, I asked where you read this since the undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that this never occurred. Have you read the majority opinion? Have you read the dissent? These are largely rhetorical questions at this point. So, here you go:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Why is it that when Conservatives justices undermine the legal issues in favor of "empathy" they are not activist judges?

And can some one really tell me what is "reverse discrimination"? As stated above "whites in America have benefited" and in many circumstances still benefit from being white, so please explain not just what is "reverse discrimination, but why are these "activist judges" even pretending that they are "reading" the law correctly.

Yes, you racist twit, there is no logic at all to giving preference to one individual over another individual based on what other unconnected people did decades ago. Glad you could see that at least.

How is voting for President of the United States based on skin color working out for you? Will you be writing a paper on that in Sophomore English class soon?

Sotomayor was one member of a three-panel, unanimous decision applying the law as it was before SCOTUS ruled today, and the 2nd Cir. opinion was issued per curiam. Further, adopting an intelligent, lower-court's decision is not "lazy"; it is sensible when the lower-court judge said all that the appellate panel would have decreed.

I don't like most affirmative action. And I'm pretty sure that if my apartment complex became consumed in flames I'd want the smartest person making decisions, and lots of MEN with upper body strength to haul me out, if necessary. But if that ain't the law at any particular time, then it ain't.

On the other hand, one would have to be historically illiterate not to understand why the govt has a compelling reason to have lots of non-white faces on its police force in areas where their are lots of non-whites being policed. Blacks have reason-- excellent reason -- to be wary of cops, especially with the repugnant war on drugs going on where one can get stopped for Driving While Black.

But in any event, in Ricci Sotomayor was part of a concurring panel of three appellate judges. They followed the LAW as they understood precedent to require them to do.

Those like the execrable Ed Whelan at NRO who are labeling that appellate panel ruling "Sotomayor's decision," and even going so far as to suggest that the S. Ct's decision was not really 5-4, but really 9-0 against HER, are feeding the sickos like Limbaugh -- he is crowing that only Sotomayor was overturned by a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. These wingnuts lie as easily as they violate the "family values" they are so loud at touting.

By treating every human being exactly the same before the law. Each individual should have exactly the same rights as any other individual even if some people who look like a given individual wronged others in the distant past.

Well when white males somehow manage to stop accidentally and unintentionally arriving at systems that somehow result in white males being disproportionately in all the top jobs, then we can get government to stop trying to level the playing field.

The problem with affirmative action is that there isn't nearly enough of it to overcome the already existing discrimination against minorities, not that there is too much. Much of this discrimination is subconcious or merely incidental to other poverty related causes, but it still results in the colour of one's skin at birth being a tremendous asset or disadvantage in outcome.