"This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit.

... moreover... the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case...

This Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal. If the Ricci plaintiffs are to receive such an opinion from a reviewing court they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review."

From his remarks above Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes clearly thought Ricci's claims were at least worthy of review. Sotomayor did not. And THAT is why she's fringe, not because she did not take Ricci's side.

That makes no sense. She's fringe because another judge disagreed with her [and two other judges]? Really? Were the other two also fringe?

No, you are afraid of the answer you will give. Why? Are you not proud you voted based on skin color?

It is such a simple question that you are avoiding with all those childish insults. Just answer.

I'm sorry but I don't care about the politics of the judges who overturned another of Sotomayer's attempts to enforce her racist ideology and views. All I care about is that thankfully common sense prevailed over the extremism that results in injustices that an over fixation on identity politics inevitably leads to. As for the rest of you liberal hypocrite whiners - cry me a river. Since when have liberal judges been any better in terms of impartial-ism to the so called 'conservative' judges you are complaining about - the question is rhetorical as the answer is they haven't!

Read Judge Cabranes more closely. He said the plaintiff's claims were worthy of Supreme Court review. He didn't say that the three-judge circuit panel (of which SS was part) failed to review anything, and there is no basis for inferring inadequate review by the panel. Either the district court got it right, or it didn't. The 2nd Circuit panel thought the district court got it right; five Supremes thought otherwise. So it goes.

No trouble at all, it is often entertaining to see what all a given set of letters might stand for.

You want to know if I think discrimination has ended? I'll ask you to tightly define your terms first. Are you talking about governmental discrimination through laws, policies, or other means? If not, what?

According to Cabranes, yes, those other 2 are outside of where Cabranes is, which is in the Democrat mainstream.

The fact the Supreme Court has now overtoned Sotomayor's dismissive, no reason ruling just underlines Cabranes' point.

I asked you a simple question, too. Are you going to answer it?

Cabranes criticized her. If it is your contention that Cabranes did not, all I can say is that conservatives disagree, and this Supreme Court ruling does nothing to render that view less reasonable.

You obtuse jack-off. You got your answer: its a loaded question, as valid as if I asked you "Have you stopped beating your wife". And no, despite the fact that its a simple question, I don't want to know the answer about your wife.

We actually could have had a very interesting conversation about race and the election, if you had sincere motives. Time after time, with your stupid straw-man arguments and purposeful mischaracterizations, you've proven you don't. Almost anyone who gets into a discourse with you regrets it as much as a man wandering bare-foot into a dog run.

There's nothing wrong with being argumentative just for the sake of a good argument. Its actually good practice for critical thinking for most people. But whatever good it could do you is undermined by your unabashed choice to remain as ignorant as possible.

Are you proud that you voted based on skin color?

I can't speak for omooex, but I did and I am anything but ashamed of it. Was it the only reason I voted for Obama? Absolutely not, it was just one of several reasons.

And I defy anyone to trot out that lame excuse, "I don't see color."

I thought all other items remaining equal, having a president that was something other than white and 50+ years old would help America. I felt it would further civil rights not only here, but around the world. I felt it would ease some of the blowback generated by the race-based hate spewed in the form of war over the past seven-plus years from the Bush administration.

I could go on and on and on.

Is there something wrong with that?

I might add that Cabranes is a co-founder of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and a former chairman of Aspira, another Puerto Rican organization. This Clinton appointed Hispanic judge is what a MAINSTREAM liberal looks like.

The company that designed the test has this to say about their work:

Many of our public safety clients came to us while struggling to meet the demands of the U.S. Department of Justice. Developing solutions for them has made us keenly aware of the steps that must be taken to ensure the validity, reliability, fairness and defensibility of every examination process.

It is the court system that decides whether the tests are adequate, if someone wishes to test them. I suppose that that is now decided.

By the way, what is this I read here that no blacks passed the test? I believe some did, which means that they are qualified for promotion. But they did not get the highest scores.

The mainstream is broad enough so that it covers 5/4 decisions. It is silly to argue with that. I think Glenn was just making a little thin ice on the pond to see who was foolish enough to skate out onto it.

I grow weary of this. If you sincerely believe that 77 is a large enough sample to statistically invalidate a test, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fine. You apparently are having a hard time accepting the fact that those 77 people are the ones who actually took the test in question and they took the test at the time in question and the results clearly indicate that the test was discriminatory under EEOC rules.

The results don't count.

New Haven should have ignored them. New Haven should have told the EEOC to stick their rules up their collective asses.

Right.

Uh, huh.

I grow weary of trolls.

So results must be predestined. No individual examples of hard work, aptitude, or intelligence must be allowed to alter the predetermined verdict. Sample size too small to be statistically significant? So what! Should we look at the actual content of the test for evidence of bias? Hell no!

Tell you what, why even bother with a department-wide promotion test? Just divide everybody up by race and test each group separately, then fill out proportional race quotas with the top qualifiers of each group. It would be morally repellent, but at least it would be honest.