6.29.2009

Blogging, meet brick wall

For the life of me, I don't know what to say about the Ricci case, in which Justice Kennedy wrote for the SCOTUS majority in overturning the lower court's decision in the New Haven firefighters' suit against the city. I probably wouldn't even be trying to formulate an opinion, were it not for the attention paid to the case because of Sonia Sotomayor's involvement in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which was reversed.

So, instead of muddling through a post of some kind, in which I try to figure out what I think, I'm going to inaugurate the First Bleakonomy Open Thread.

What do you think?

Update: Apparently, even though some people clearly have nothing intelligent (or accurate) to add, it doesn't stop them from talking anyway. (H/t Political Animal.)

Update II (Son of Update): Here's a handy little encapsulation of why today's decision is not an historic repudiation of Judge Sotomayor. (H/t HuffPo.)

Update III (Revenge of Update): Don't all yell at once.

10 comments:

  1. I don't know anything about the legal matters on which this is being decided. However, it does seem to me that New Haven was terribly unfair to those firefighters who studied hard and did well. I don't see how anyone's interest is served by their actions. It's one thing, in affirmative action, to choose a minority or female over a white male if all else is pretty much equal. In this case, however, all else was not equal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was my take, as well. Apparently Ginsburg's dissent references flaws in the test itself, but it is not my understanding that this was a central argument for the city's having discarded the results. I actually agree, at least to be best of my understanding, with the majority on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I scored 100% on a test because I studied hard then was denied any value from my accomplishments; well I think I would be pissed!
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Supremes aren't giving much guidance on how to comply with the law; read Mr. Scalia's warning, with which I agree, where he says the Court will be forced to address the inherent tension between disparate impact and disparate treatment. A similar dynamic was in play in the recent strip-search ruling; how is a school to know the limits when the Supremes are unable to clearly articulate what is and what is not out of bounds? I suspect many of the zero tolerance policies (such as the ones that classify Advil and inhalers as prohibited drugs in school) are simple CYA measures to prevent school baords from being sued -- "we just followed policy."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let the record show that I basically agree with Gadfly John.

    ReplyDelete
  6. hey lazy, I don't come here to do the work of coming up with my own opinions!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, I'm considering the Bleakonomy Open Thread experiment a resounding thud of a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you might need to start with something easier than weighty legal opinions. how about an open thread on those fat cats in washington?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Optic, since this is an open thread, I may as well use it as an opportunity to tell you that the comment on your blog about "Anathem" was from me. (I forgot to sign it.)

    ReplyDelete