One with respect to the Not So Wise Latina, to accept her Ricci decision

What do you mean "her" decision? And what's the bullshit about the "Sotomayor Standard"? She and her two colleagues on the panel followed precedent in affirming a decision of the federal circuit judge, who himself was following precedent, and the entire 2d Circuit declined to overturn the panel's decision.

One with respect to the Not So Wise Latina, to accept her Ricci decision, means that any business, government, entity can use the mere threat of lawsuit to engage in racial discrimination. That to say, that a fair result can be discarded if but one member of a statutorily protected class objects. The Sotomayor Standard isn't that the objection is substained, but rather merely advanced.

Two, the Supreme Court and Congress have created this legal fiction that cultural capital is proportional distributed among all demographic groups. Alas it is not. Yet we required to achieve outcomes based on a legal fiction.

I'd suggest commentators quit bitching about the Court and start bitching to their Representatives.

That's right--though I'd substitute 'courts' for 'Court' (Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues on the the 2d panel followed the district court judge in applying precedent--horror of horrors).

One thing to come out of this is that, according to this story, some municipalities have moved away from written tests toward performance-based evaluations. As someone says in the article, a written test primarily evaluates your memory skills.

In New Haven, city officials, having concluded that their written test was flawed, said there was another, trusted method to select firefighting lieutenants and captains that posed less of a disadvantage to blacks and Hispanics. That method relies largely on assessment centers where applicants are evaluated in simulated real-life situations to see how they would handle them.

This seems to me quite reasonable.

To avoid this dilemma, business groups have long sought to persuade the courts to interpret Title VII to shield them from liability for race-conscious hiring policies that are intended to prevent disparate impact lawsuits.

Or this could be simple stated as : business groups have long sought to persuade the courts to shield them from liability for racial discrimination against whites.

Turns out the laws are for all people. Eventually, a balance will be achieved but today it was ruled that fearing a lawsuit is no reason to actively discriminate against another group. In all change, there is a period of transition where damage occurs. The damage from this change will be increased due to the same reason the 2nd Circuit rejected the suit out of hand, much of the judiciary believes in discrimination as long as the right group(s) benefits and will resist efforts to create a world where "all men are judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin."

I'd suggest commentators quit bitching about the Court and start bitching to their Representatives.

That would be my answer now, as well.
See also, Bed, lying in it.

The conservative justices made an activist decision...

You mean conservatives do it too!?! Who knew...

If I were to hire 5 new docs by giving a test, what would happen if all 5 top scorers were white? Title VII says that inequality in outcome is, by itself, adequate cause to bring a suit and assume discrimination. This current ruling by the court means that if I decide to try to avoid a suit by not hiring anyone, I can be sued by the 5 white test winners. As head of a small corporation, I am hosed either way.

The conservative justices made an activist decision in an attempt to correct for a bad law, IMO. But, without the follow up of rewriting the law, so that you cannot sue without more proof than just unequal results, this finding stands as a bonanza for trial lawyers. The group that seems to usually win no matter what.

Steve

Steve