As usual, you seem to be having this conversation with yourself, since you never seem to actually seem able to engage in any specific arguments or bring up any specifics. Your general bluster got boring months ago.

As for your regular douchebag insults, pheh! Do you think if I was ashamed of the fact that I got accepted to UC Berkeley, with its 20% acceptance rate, at the age of 40, I would have told anyone? Indeed, I'm sure I worked twice as hard as someone like you did to get into college--holding down a job and excelling with a 4.0 through two years of night school. Pour it on.

The biggest problem with Sotomayor's Ricci decision is that she evidently thought it so obvious she was not inclined to give any reasons. THAT is what put her outside the mainstream.

Steve Yates, author of a book on the subject, wrote this short essay in January of 2003:

For the past 40 years, furious debate has swirled around affirmative action. Stirring the pot anew is the U.S. Supreme Court’s announced plan to revisit the issue this year. At the University of Michigan, being black automatically counts "20 points" toward admission – considerably more than any academic or cognitive achievement (a perfect SAT score, for example, only counts "12 points"). The "point" system is not qualified in any way; as far as I can tell, Bill Cosby’s kids would be eligible for preferential admissions at the University of Michigan as members of a "disadvantaged" or "underrepresented" group. Two white students filed lawsuits. Given today’s spoils system, why wouldn’t they? Of course, it is a particular affirmative action program that is on trial. If I had to guess, based on history, I would predict that the Court will strike down the program at the University of Michigan as unconstitutional but stop short of repudiating preferential admissions overall. The troubled waters of affirmative action thus will remain as murky as ever. Let’s return to the beginning, and to fundamentals.

... much, much more by clicking on sig

That was just the first paragraph. He gives a pretty good history of the problem in the limited space he had to work in. I would ask anyone who thinks group warfare and the group spoils system is good for society to give a read --- it is not long.

PDA is especially invited to see what becomes of his die-hard defense of punishing some individuals for things they had nothing to do with. How can peace ever be achieved if PDA wants to harm individuals based on the color of their skin?

Are you proud you voted based on skin color?

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.

Is it your position that racial discrimination against POTW ceased decades ago?

The smaller your fig leaf gets, the more obvious it becomes that you have no point to make here other than being a nuisance.

As I mentioned before, feel free to call the company that created the test and they can go over it with you. Their phone number is on their website www.iosolutions.org.

The biggest problem with Sotomayor's Ricci decision is that she evidently thought it so obvious she was not inclined to give any reasons. THAT is what put her outside the mainstream.

You are mistaken. Sotomayor gave a perfectly legitimate reason for not overturning the trial court's decision and her reasoning was specified in the Appeals Court decision.

Try again.

She didn't evidently think anything. They, the unanimous appellate decision, thought that they agreed with the lower court ruling for the reasons stated in his decision. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? A lower court issues a ruling and specifies his/her reasons. Then, it goes to a higher court who rules that they agree with the decision of the lower court for the reasons stated already. What else did you want from them? Did you think it was required that they come up with brand new arguments???

Testing the individuals seems to produce results that leftists can not stomach. Therefore, let us run a lottery on every job. If 100 firemen in a town want to be the fire chief(*), then put all names in a hat and pick one. This works for all open positions; one SC case and it could be law of the land this year!

Hell, I have always believed that we should dispense with elections and just draw random names for all the political jobs. Could it be any worse than now? No! It just might go a lot better if a few town drunks got sent off to DC to run the country.

----------

(*) To our native-American readers, a question. Is it racist to refer to the top person in a fire department as the chief.

By all means, tell us how to design a test for implicit bias based on the information available, and how yours is better than the one they applied. Personally, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I'm one of those loons who believes that, in the abscence of significant statistical evidence, the actual content of the promotion test should be examined for evidence of racial bias.

Imagine that -- actually looking at the fucking content of the fucking test. What a crazy person I am for even thinking of such an idea.

As others have previously explained, the Ricci panel that included Sotomayor did give reasons, incorporating by reference the reasoning of the district court. As a lawyer with an extensive federal practice, I can assure you that there is nothing even remotely unusual about circuit courts affirming district court decisions in this way. It is done routinely in every federal appeals court, simply because it is efficient: if the panel concludes that the district court reached the right result for the right reasons, there's no need for the appeals court to waste time and resources reinventing the wheel. Of course, an appeals court can also affirm the lower court's decision with no comment at all (and this happens every day).