The Supreme Court should release its decision in the New Haven firefighters case today.
[UPDATE: Sotomayor is overturned 5-4, which preserves her cred as a reliable liberal:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.
This won't be that awkward for Sotomayor - she is a liberal judge with, at least on this case, mainstream liberal views. But it will be helpful to give the Senate Democrats an opportunity to defend her position.
EVEN THE LOSERS: Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy studies Footnote 10 of the dissent and infers a rebuke to Sotomayor:
First, Justice Ginsburg's dissent contains an interesting footnote -- Footnote 10 -- suggesting that she and the other dissenters were prepared to vacate and remand the case as recommended by the Obama Administration's amicus brief.
10. The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than onwhether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.
The non-PC Steve Sailer has fun with Emily Bazelon of Slate, who looks with disfavor on family ties and acquired expertise in mundane matters such as saving people's lives but presumably has a different view for important matters such as law school admissions. A snippet of his Big Finish:
I looked up "Emily Bazelon" on Wikipedia (accessed 16.59 ET, June 28 2009) and discovered that while she’s very bright, she’s not exactly the most self-aware person. When read in light of her biography, her Slate article about privileged white firemen becomes an amusing epitome of unthinking Gown v. Town prejudice.
Skip a bit and:
Actually, as her 2005 Slate article Shopping with Betty suggests, she’s more like the second cousin twice removed of the proto-feminist (and crypto-communist) authoress of the bestselling Feminine Mystique. Still, the two were fairly close despite their age difference.
Mr. Sailer overlooks that she is also a woman. Well, then.