The important thing about this decision is that it is ineffective-- well, on such a public issue as this, it might have some effect. But as a rule, Supreme Court Decisions have no effect because there is absolutely no practical mechanism for enforcing them. Now more then ever judges routinely ignore case law knowing that their victims-- I mean parties, seldom if ever have the means to challenge the decisions. Judges at the disrict and appellate level are beholden to no will but their own. They are immune for bad decisions, and that reality is sinking in. The problem is systemic, and lawyers universally recognize this as the reality of our current system. Recognizing this problem is more important than any decision the Supreme Court makes.

... that the five conservative judges on the supreme court are the ones out of the "judicial mainstream"?

Don't the rest of you get it? Discrimination against women, racial minorities, etc. officially and completely ended a long, long time ago! There's no need to ever acknowledge anything having to do with race ever again! It just makes us feel so yucky!

From what I have read, the administered test was certified, unbiased and used routinely for promotions.

Where are you reading that? Because, according to the facts of the case which were not disputed, this exam was not only not certified, but not ever put through any validation study.

as the power/political structure in the City of New Haven wanted it to come out.

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.

that I'm a, what's the term?, dumocrat, so I wouldn't even hazard a response to that one, other than to note GG's observation that "The Court split along standard ideological lines (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy in the majority) ...."

Nope, no activism there.

Also, "can you define 'judicial activism'" you ask. There are a multitude of dictionaries available online that offer things like definitions and meanings and usages so, you know, knock yourself out. (And if you'd like, I can give you more homework once you finish your assignment)

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?

Yes. By stating what we should NOT do. Searching for an answer, or a solution, to a problem can often be done by beginning with negating choices, eliminating paths. What some here are trying to say is that racial injustice should not be remedied by practicing racial injustice. Isn't this the lesson of Rwanda? Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how much one's gut may tell them it does. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - with rage.

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.

And at this time... what? Those people need to suck it up and deal with their lives? That's your interpretation of King's legacy?

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

I was a child in the 1960s. I guess you haven't left the 1960s to know what the hell is going on in the 2000s. Consider educating yourself.

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

Despite your inability to recognize rational conversation, here's another simple answer to your simple question; lawsuits, existing law, and the EEOC.

Lawsuit - an example would be Ricci v. DeStefano. Ricci won.

Laws - http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html

EEOC - http://www.eeoc.gov/

DCLaw - I am not claiming discrimination has ended. Your suggestion to the contrary is false. Your sarcastic comment; "There's no need to ever acknowledge anything having to do with race ever again" was disproven, by Ricci.

First of all, I don't know why you feel the need to insult me. You have no idea whether my understanding of the law is "superficial" or not.

Regarding your question, of course I care about policy considerations of what the law is and should be. I don't think that "legacy" considerations are fair at all. But there are a lot of things that aren't fair that also are not unlawful.

Title VII outlawed race discrimination in employment, among other things. My initial post was simply explaining why I view race-based decisions by employers to be different than decisions based on factors that aren't unlawful (even if those decisions may be more unfair and unprincipled than some race-based decisions).

was borrowed from John Roberts line:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race

What some here are trying to say is that racial injustice should not be remedied by practicing racial injustice.

That sounds very high minded. So then what should be done? Nothing?

You need to offer something to convince me that a solution that avoids even the possibility of the slightest negative repercussions for members of the majority race, while ensuring that minorities will continue to suffer them, is not racist on its face.

You seem to follow from the assumption that Affirmative Action type policies are punitive, when they are not; and that they seek to benefit certain elements of society, when that is the opposite of their purpose. Societies where diverse segments of the population participate equally are inherently more stable than those that don't--that seems to go without saying. Leave one group nursing wounds for a few generations--say by excluding them socially and politically--and they will be exactly the group that threatens the state in later times. This is basic conflict resolution.

Apparently, to continue the meme that Sotomayor is, in mind, far-left, crazy, and totally outside of the mainstream, the right wing is just going to go to its fall back plan of completely making stuff up:

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001880/