conservatives who reject "judicial activism" out of respect for the Founders' "original intent" and blah, blah, blah.

Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise -- the true test for whether one applies to law independently of political and outcome preferences.

The utter hypocrisy or (were one to use a more benign term) inconsistency of these people is really something to behold. But, as Wikipedia observes,

Judicial activism is ... most often used to describe left-wing judges.

However, I note that notorbitboy has shown up to demonstrate yet again his slavishness to his Rightie masters by employing the term "dumbocrat," so I suppose all is right with the world.

as a man who studied the great AMERICAN, Martin Luther King Jr., I believe he would be happy with this verdict.

You mean, the great AMERICAN who said

A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro,

that great AMERICAN?

As a man who studied the great AMERICAN, Martin Luther King Jr., I believe he would be happy with this verdict. All he wanted is for ALL men to be judged by the content of their Character; and in the end-that is all these men wanted.

Also, Sotomayor is not (I believe) as liberal as the person she is going to replace; so this proud neocon is fine with her selection....

Well, you've got the neocon art of warping the record of MLK down pat. He would have approved of this verdict...ha, good one. Maybe you can tell us how Gandhi supported British rule in India next too.

http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm25.htm

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html

A sample:

Reporter: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?"

Dr. King: "I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group." -- (Interview,1965, p.367)

That 5-4 breakdown goes exactly along the standard Conservative/Liberal line in the Supreme Court.

But it didn't. I just find it funny that, ever since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter became a "liberal." He was Bush's pick to replace Brennan, a real "liberal." He was not chosen with the intention to appease a liberal wing. He was chosen to stack the court against it, as was Thomas. The fact that Souter's legal rulings haven't been 100% in line with what authoritarians prefer may suck for them. But, it hardly makes Souter part of the "liberal line." His record shows he's very much the opposite.

The vote wasn't standard amongst the "liberal line," as it doesn't include souter. The vote was simply standard amongst the now majority pro-Authoritarian activist judges. :P

From Femisex:

AOL Spot poll:

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s Decision on the firefighters:

I agree with it --- 92%

American voters say 55 - 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished, and disagree 71 - 19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in the New Haven firefighters' case, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today

The firefighter case sucked. The public knows this! The public knows that when their house is afire they want someone calling the shots who was able to identify what the accurate shots are! The tests given to those firefighters did not ask them about quantum physics, it asked them how best to fight fires.

The public really wants to trust the firefighters who come a calling--black, white or purple. We need to let this happen.

So, just to be clear, the only reason you fault racial affirmative action and not other non-merit-based factors (e.g., legacy admissions, consideration of where a person is from geographically) is your rather superficial understanding of the law, with absolutely no other considerations entering the equation?

You don't think it's worthwhile or relevant to compare affirmative action with other widely accepted non-merit factors on a moral, logical, historical, or political level? You don't bother questioning the underlying rationales and policy considerations behind our laws? Or just when doing so might lead to discomfort regarding your own position?

"Still waiting...for those who find fault with affirmative action to suggest an alternate way to remedy currently existing racial injustice.? - pda

Simple. Stop engaging in racial injustice. Stop making decisions based on one's race, gender, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.

In other words, don't act like New Haven.

@timothy3 - can you define "judicial activisim" and tell me how, exactly, the Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism in this case? . . . I'm pretty sure you can't.

A one-paragragh decision was just intolerable.

Who delivered it?

Context is everything. At the time Dr. King made that statement something did need to be done for people who had been treated so unfairly and unjustly.

He was more about character than race and was assassinated while addressing economic injustice.

I guess you weren't around in the 1960s to know what the hell was going on.

The firefighter case sucked. The public knows this! The public knows that when their house is afire they want someone calling the shots who was able to identify what the accurate shots are!

Then why wasn't there any part of the test that was based on merit?

an alternate way to remedy currently existing racial injustice? - pda

Simple. Stop engaging in racial injustice. - nob

Thank you for your helpful illustration of a tautology: yes, the way to stop racial injustice is to stop racial injustice.

Does anyone capable of carrying on a rational conversation have anything to suggest as to how that might actually be achieved?

Although I am a non-white male, I am with the SCOTUS on this one. From what I have read, the administered test was certified, unbiased and used routinely for promotions. I agree that if the test is the criteria set out by New Haven to be promoted, then you cannot change the rules because you a) don't like the outcome, or b) don't like the racial makeup of the outcome. If you flipped the races in this case, it is an open and shut case.

The right wingers will try to make a big deal of this, but I do not think that this is a big black eye to Sotomayor. She took the wrong side of the issue on this one but 4 SCOTUS justices agreed with her. If it were a 9-0 ruling, then I think it would have been a bitof a black eye. In the end, you must abide by the rules set out; and you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Duck off a waters back for her confirmation.