The current SCOTUS sends the newest nominee a welcome note and a little common sense.
The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because [on] their race, reversing a decision that high court…

No. The argument was made that people who had relatives or friends who had studied for similar tests might not have to buy the books new (the total cost was in the neighborhood of $500). Some people also claimed that there was a long delay on the books that had to be backordered. SCOTUS held, properly, I think, that this was not a significant effect and thus could not have a demonstrable ‘disparate impact’.

Still a bad argument. If the issue were economic, then it wouldn’t be disparate racial impact; it would be disparate economic impact with race as a proxy.

That’s an even worse selling point than the one the defendants used; after all, there’s no right to economic parity in our country (thankfully) and such a ruling would wreck havoc with various other systems. Every level of education and every decision would be a Title VII violation: after all, one could argue that looking at SAT scores in college admissions results in “disparate impact,” as wealthy kids can better afford tutors. Bar exams would likewise be suspect, as BarBri fees make SAT tutoring look like pocket change. The list goes on.

I can see the ad now:

WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR PROMOTIONS ARE BULLET PROOF?
USE US – WE’RE BACKED BY THE SUPREME COURT!

On side note: how does one say b*tch-slapped in Spanish?

5-4 decision

I’m so sick of this.

If 4 of these justices could read, it should have been 9-0.

Unfortunately, we have inherited blind spots where the pendulum of justice has swung far past equity and into the same wrongs coming from the other direction. (Jazz Shaw, as quoted by Ed Morrissey)

In Ed Morrissey’s reply to Jazz Shaw’s critique, he made mention of “turf” protection on the part of judges. I think he’s noted an important motive at work in this case, one that I regret not having seen, myself.

However, it seems good to take issue with Jazz Shaw’s very notion that “the pendulum of justice has swung.” I respond that the pendulum hasn’t swung, because there’s no pendulum. More directly, the problem doesn’t seem to be comparable to inertia, but to a change of target. It seems more accurate to say (as Aristotle does in the Politics), that men in an inferior condition tend to aim for and argue for equality, and those in an equal condition tend to aim for and argue for superiority. To borrow this other inertial metaphor, then, human beings don’t idly overshoot the original target; rather, they pick a new, higher target.

Predictably the looney race-baiting libtards are now going into the usual temper tantrum they throw when eeevil white men aren’t kicked around:
http://thirdbranch.crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/supreme-court-overturns-sotomayors-r

Good for the firemen!

Are you saying then that only the white and hispanic firefighters were able to get study material,while the black fire firefighters were denied access to those same materials?

oldernwiser on June 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM

No. The argument was made that people who had relatives or friends who had studied for similar tests might not have to buy the books new (the total cost was in the neighborhood of $500). Some people also claimed that there was a long delay on the books that had to be backordered. SCOTUS held, properly, I think, that this was not a significant effect and thus could not have a demonstrable ‘disparate impact’.

My concern is that whether or not there is any disparate impact’ the testwriters should have notified the publishers that these books were likely to be in demand. Colleges notify publishers of expected demand for textbooks; this seems to me similar, especially for books for which the demand is limited and which sell for such high prices.