I can take the critique. (Since our last exchange, I have taken several hours of spiritual counseling, and had a mani-pedi, and I feel at peace now.) However, I note with interest that while you continue to say that I "don't know the law", you fail to cite the law you suggest you know better. But do go ahead and take another crack at it.

I'm not about to write a paper for you. As I've stated repeatedly here, Ginsburg got it absolutely right in her dissent. The fact is that all of the legal precedent leading up to this case led the city of New Haven in a different direction than the radical majority agreed with. If you knew the law, you'd understand this. But, you clearly don't.

As for ignoring my thought experiment, I'm not surprised you chose not to respond to that either, as it would show that your position is built on sand.

Hardly. It would just be me giving in to a tangent that is inapplicable. Thus, I ignored it. Get over it.

No need to write a paper. I guess your position is that the five justices of the Supreme Court who were in the majority, and the two on the 2nd Circuit appellate bench who wrote a critique, "don't know the law" either. That also goes for everyone who submitted amicus briefs, and everyone who has written about this case, ad nauseum, for months: professors, practitioners, and experts of every stripe - if they disagree with you, then they "know nothing about the law." In your view there were NO competing principles or values to be addressed, no statutory or constitutional issues (and of course, the Court left the constitutional issue untouched - ready to be tapped for the coup de grace when the right case emerges). As a matter of fact, it's just SILLY that anyone brought this to court at all; the law is SO CLEAR and DEVOID OF CONFLICTING INTERPRETATION OR VALUES that anyone who questions any aspect of what you THINK was SETTLED law (but per force, was NOT) clearly does not "know the law". ONLY Eris 23 knows the law. And yet, for reasons that passeth understanding, no one has put you on the bench. Can't POSSIBLY be knowledge of the law, so it must be TEMPERAMENT.

It's hard for people who think along emotional lines to "get it", but this has nothing to do with empathy. If the people who passed the test were all South Pacific Islanders they should be promoted. Or black. Or Latino whatever that is. The test was specially designed so that the black applicants could pass it. Salon should get a copy of the test and some samples of both passing and failing answer sheets. Then explain why people who could not answer the questions either SHOULD be promoted or why their failure has something to do with race. I DARE YOU.

The fact that the Court’s four more liberal members would affirm the Second Circuit shows that Judge Sotomayor’s views were far from outlandish and put her in line with Judge Souter, who she will replace.

I wish the author knew more abou grammar, though ("whom she will replace" is correct)