Judge Sotomayor: Call Your Office

Other SCOTUSing: States “have the power to police discrimination in mortgage lending,” per SCOTUSblog reading of Cuomo v Clearing House. The banks lose this one, 5-4. The dirty libs concur with opinion written by… Tony Scalia, J.? Well then.

Decision on anti-Hillary film deferred, pending reargument. And that’s it. (Word is that nobody else is hanging up the robes besides Souter — announcements of such things are usually made on the last day of the term.)

ADD: SCOTUSblog: “The gavel has rapped at 10:31, the public session is over and the Term is closed. The buzzer has sounded and the Justices have retired from the bench.”

The Supreme Court has a buzzer? Like a shot clock buzzer? AWESOME.

@chicago bureau: “The dirty libs concur with opinion written by… Tony Scalia, J.? ”

Even the blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

blogenfreude: Sure. There was Texas v Johnson, in which Scalia had to defend flag burning.

I don’t have time to read that ruling, really, until tonight. But it seems to me that Scalia could have just gone with the federal government (which regulates mortgage lending ten or twenty different ways) and told the states to pound sand. But he didn’t do it.

@chicago bureau: States’ rights, baby. He’d rather have states have the power to police (or not police) than the dirty feds. Yes, they do have a buzzer. And lights.

The only fucking “activist” judge in the New Haven firefighters case are the five who voted to undermine what shred is left of affirmative action programs. Sotomayor, in voting with the others at the appellate level, was following existing caselaw. Not that any of the prattering douchebags who pass for political commentators on the teevee will understand the concept of stare decisis.

DEVELOPING HARD: Bernie Madoff, GTFO. Dude is not to be opened until Christmas. In 2159.

That may cheer you up a bit.

What most people don’t realize about this case is that it turn on the question of whether a test that does not bear on your ability to perform your job is a constitutionally permissible way to weed out job candidates.

I hope this decision was based upon the opinion of the majority that the test in question was relevant to firefighting duties, because otherwise the court has just legalized racial discrimination. If you can design a test that weeds out blacks you’re good to go, regardless of whether or not the test actually pertains to the job duties of the position you’re advertising. Of course it remains technically illegal to do so intentionally, but proving intent is going to be nigh impossible.

@Serolf Divad: If you can design a test that weeds out blacks you’re good to go, regardless of whether or not the test actually pertains to the job duties of the position you’re advertising.

You mean like literacy tests? I smell Crow…

@chicago bureau: That does cheer me up. Loved how no one, including his sons, submitted letters or testified in support of him.

I have to say that Les Avocats here have turned me into a kind of legal sport fan- I am paying so much more attention to different legal cases nowadays, and actually seek out and peruse opinions now.

I want to thank all of you stinque-ay lawyer types for making me into an even wonkier nerd than I already was.

@Tommmcatt doesn’t mind if he doesn’t make the scene: You’re welcome, darling. Mr. SFL sometimes threatens to go take the bar exam to see what he’s picked up from me via osmosis.

OK, I’ve had a chance to skim the decision. It’s not as radical as I feared. The majority does not seem to be challenging the notion that a test must be relevant to the job performed if it disparately excludes minorities (Which, I learned from reading the opinion was established in Connecticut v Teal ) They are simply stating that the test was relevant and that the City of New Haven threw out the results merely because there was a statistical disparity in its results that disadvantaged minorities.

Ginsburg’s dissent claims that (variously) whites had institutional advantages in preparing for the test, that other less discriminatory tests were available, and that the test itself was flawed.

As with many of these controversial decisions, the net effect s a slight burden shifting.

@Tommmcatt doesn’t mind if he doesn’t make the scene: Ditto.

Oh, and I’m surprised that “Rush Limbaugh” isn’t part of that poll.