LOL...I stand corrected.

I sure hate to p*ss on your parade but here is an excellent article on how big this reversal of Sotomayar "AND" the other two sitting Judges is,NOT!
Looks like Judge Alito was taken to the woodshed 4 times before hitting the big time:
Rompilla v Horn
Thomas V Comm'r of Social Security (unanimously,I might add)
Coss v Lackawanna County DA
Fiore v White
Read:
mediamatters.org/research/200906290013

you couldn't get out of jury duty?? you miss oprah, jerry, morey....what a loser!

I don't see what is so hard to understand.

The white guys scored better on the requirements than the black or hispanic guys.

If you give the promotions to the guys that demonstrated their abilities and really deserve it (the white guys), then you get in trouble with those "groups".

To keep from getting in trouble, you give the promotions to the guys that don't deserve it.
Now you have the unqualified people in the higher ranking positions. What a good idea.

The Supreme Court vote should have been 9-0 FOR.
The stupid pucks that voted against it - I would like to kick their ass.

In some respects, I agree with those who claim that this is a NEW Supreme Court interpretation of the law.
For a long time the standard has been that...if a test results in a "disparate impact"...it MUST be racially biased. This has always been nonsense, of course, but it's the way the liberals have always WANTED to be able to look at things. (Notice that the actual test itself has not been released? That way we can't review the questions. And in this day and age, do you really think a promotions test is going to be filled with questions about sailing with dad in the Hamptons?) Now, however, to prove bias you're actually going to have to challenge the test itself...and not just the results. So naturally, the race pimps and the giggle-sissy liberals are all upset.

Reverse discrimination?
She is clearly the puppet of the power hungry.
Just tweaking this discrimination crap that you all started in the '60's.
Pay back is hell.
... swing low ...

So, she follows judicial precedent, eh? And her rulings have nothing to do with her bigotry toward white men? And Obama never associates with bigots?

How could I have been so wrong??

Who cares!. 5-4, 9-0. The point is that these Constitution was upheld and justice served.

We should savor this victory because it has much larger ramifications than the left cares to admit (see Copy's attempt to downplay below). I expected to see the Kos trolls infiltrate and downplay today.

It effectively means that the federal government cannot discriminate against a particular racial group for the benefit of another. This sounds fair, doesn't it? But not to liberal statists. This is a setback for them.

Will it have any impact on the Sotomayor confirmation? Probably not. The decision does serve to further illustrate Sotomayor's incompetence and judicial activism. As a chain-smoking diabetic pushing 60, she won't be around too much longer anyway.

Where is Tom DeLay when we need him,he was right we can't have "Activists Judges" making law from the bench! That's exactly what the 5 Republican Judges did in this case,they made new law!
Rush has introduced his ditto-heads to a entire new system of numbers. Yesterday he said the Supreme Court voted 9-0 on the Ricci case when here in the real world it was 5-4. Se in Ditto-Land you add the numbers of the judges and their voting together and that's what the court voted, not 5-4 in favor but 9-0 in favor!

is a moron.

How can this be interpreted in any way but that preferential treatment will not be granted to ANYone It doesn't say "just" hispancis or blacks,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-­management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Rules Along Party Lines.

Nation Stunned. Film at 11. (yawn)