(no message)
In "certain, narrow circumstances" after tests are given, Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, employers may discard the results if they can demonstrate "a strong basis in evidence" that using the results would cause them to lose a disparate-impact suit.
This "strong basis in evidence" standard...it doesn't appear anywhere until now. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court always has and always will spell out new standards and tests that don't exist in any statute...and about 80-90% of the caterwauling over the Supreme Court being a "superlegislature" or "activist" is selective whining that turns a blind eye to the superlegislating and activism that occurs when it's to the liking of those who complain about the Supreme Court.
The Scalias of the judicial world only quote the Constitution chapter and verse if it happens to agree with their political ideology. Otherwise, they fudge like everybody else.
Knute:
There is a saying in the legal profession, "the Supreme Court is not always right but it is always last". Thirteen Judges and Justices looked at this case. Four Supreme Court Justices, three Court of Appeals Judges and one District Judge ruled in favor of the Defendants. Five Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. In reality Justice Kennedy made the decision as he almost always does in these politically charged cases.
Tom
Ginsburg, in her dissent, wrote:
"Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.
"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.
Unless an objective of the law is to ensure that NO ONE suffers from racial discrimination. They made the right decision. Are you even disagreeing with that Tom?
(no message)
...talk about morons.
(no message)
Link: Fuck Sotomayor and grievance politics
(no message)
and don't necessarily reflect the political sentiments of those on the Court. By your way of thinking, most SC decisions would be 5-4 or so, and I don't believe that is the case.
(no message)
(no message)
And while there is an "originalist" aspect to those matters, it is much less "ideological" than the issue of a "living constitution".
Three cheers for Latina "wisdom".
(no message)
No matter your feelings on her politics, the woman is a genius. Anyone who gets appointed to the Supreme Court is a freaking genius. I think Scalia is one of the most reprehensible people on Earth, but the man's legal mind is amazing.
coming from the George Bush is a moron crowd
Don't lump me in. I respect the office and the man. I disagree with him.
the Court can be described as geniuses, or at least the white ones. There's actual competition for those jobs. The females - they should thank their lucky stars for their vaginas.