...for those who find fault with affirmative action to suggest an alternate way to remedy currently existing racial injustice.

Note: if you don't think there is currently existing racial injustice, that's a different matter. If you agree it exists, how do we deal with it?

All of those taxes tend to be regressive. The poorest among us pay a higher rate (based on income) than those well off.

You can thank the dumbocrats for that.

Oh really? So it was the Democrats who made Bush and Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates down from 70% to 35%?

Or cut the capital gains tax? Or who was fighting against closing the hedge fund loophole that lets billionaire hedgefund managers claim all their income as capital gains?

Or phase out the inheritance tax?

Pointing to a couple sin taxes is cute, but the bulk of the regression in the tax code comes from conservatives. The GOP even has flat-taxers like Huckabee running for President (and winning Primaries).

She was wrong.

Reversed

It seems Sotomayor can't lose - if she votes one way, she is only upholding the letter of the law, if she votes another way, she is rectifying the unfairness and unreasonableness of the law.

Thank God this decision was reversed, because it is common sense that it was unfair, and excuse me if I am wrong, but the job of judges is to judge, and if the law is wrong, then the law is wrong. (Two wrongs don't make a right - if 60% of the population is not represented on the local fire department, then find a way to rectify it without breaking the law, or screwing those who had nothing to do with it.)

It seems Glenn would have our judges just be computer programs, to logically analyze the law as it applies to specific situations.

As for her being mainstream as an argument for her qualifications, Jesus, God help us! Mainstream right now is pure shite. Our country is in ruins, and it has been for years, and it is accelerating towards absolute destruction. The LAST thing we need is more mainstream judges/executors/legislators.

I Got an Idea
_________________________

Sorry to get on your Case, but what you have is a denatured interrogative sentence that aspires to be an imbecilic critique.

It may well be the Case that such projectiles of irrational detritus are the closest you get to possessing and expressing actual Ideas, so it's natural that you'd mistake them for the real thing.

Like my music teacher exclaimed so long ago: practice, practice, practice!

First of all, how can anyone write

"The Court split along standard idealogical lines"

without noting in horror the implied acceptance that a partisan SCOTUS bench is now the standard? Are we so jaded as to have no hope of impartiality?

Second, I don't think this finding places Sotomayor anywhere on the judical spectrum at all. Overturning a liberal SCOTUS nominee's most controversial finding weeks before her confirmation hearings is surely exactly what GOP activists wanted. The Law is clear here, but those Justices ruling against Sotomayor's decision obviously decided that discrediting a more "empathetic" nominee then them was more important here.

"I'm just waiting for the legislation that taxes the poor while they're alive for their own burials/cremations." - rrheard it from bozo the clown

You might not have to wait long. The democrats are in power.

In addition to taxing alcohol and tobacco every chance they get, as well as raising fees on just about everything, now they want to start taxing energy (cap and trade bill).

All of those taxes tend to be regressive. The poorest among us pay a higher rate (based on income) than those well off.

You can thank the dumbocrats for that.

"Supreme Court justices make $208k/year. Any one of them could easily make 5x that (or more, Roberts was probably making 15x that) in private practice. Nobody takes the Supreme Court job for the money - it's a major personal financial sacrifice.

-- cestmoi123"

As a comparison, first year associates at Skadden Arps' New York office make $160k and first year associates at Wachtell make $165,000. Those starting salaries are typical at that level. I suppose, however, that if you make wild accusations of corruption without a shred of evidence, then you'll just believe anything you want.

Thanks for your response. In fact, I do understand the difference between Title VII and affirmative action. I also understand that racial affirmative action is, in some instances, lawful. That doesn't mean that I can't believe (as I do) that racial affirmative action is facially contrary to Title VII's prohibition of race discrimination.

I also understand the Ricci decision (at least based on a quick read), and I agree with Scalia's concurrence that the real problem in the case is the disparate impact cause of action.

I won't reply to your suggestion that there must be some other (presumably bad-faith and likely racist) reason for me to have these views.

In light of today's ruling, it's a bit difficult -- actually, impossible -- for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor's Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream...it's definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

Nah, for the wingnuts, this one won't even be hard. I'll put on my Rush Limbaugh hat and see what I can come up with:

She voted one way on this issue, and the Republican-dominated Supreme court disagrees with her. Therefore, she is a flaming liberal who is clearly out of touch with the mainstream.

There you go. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Just wait until Sotomayor is on the Supreme Court. Then the Dimocrats will give the Republicans their "Roe vs. Wade" back.

This is HOW WE do it.

In your world there are no bribes, payoffs, graft, speaking engagements or book deals.

Being a congressman is also a great financial sacrifice - yeah, right.

Look at poor Bill Clinton - being president is the greatest financial sacrifice of all.

We should send them money in the mail. Those poor dear public servants!