Two headlines caught my attention this morning. I didn't read the articles so I won't link to them. I am sure you can see similar on any news site. The first implied that Judge Sotomayor has some tall explaining to do now that her (and another appellate court judge's) decision on that firefighter test bias case has been overturned by a narrow Supreme Court decision (5-4). The other noticed what I had suspected given the news coverage so far: the Court handed the decision down but failed to give any real guidance on what constitutes fair hiring. You may be sure that there will be more law suits over this issue.
On the first point I can only say "SO WHAT?" If every judge who had a decision overturned was not eligible for the Supreme court then I suspect very few of those who are on the court or have been in the past would have been appointed. Are we expecting omniscience from our justices now? I thought that was an attribute of God not humans.
On the second point: If, during my various stints as a college teacher, I had given a test in which ALL of the black (or insert any other group here) did not make the cut I would seriously question the fairness of the TEST. But now it seems we don't have to do that. So, Supremes, what constitutes a fair hiring standard? Got any ideas on that?
Bernie Madoff has been handed the maximum sentence for his fraud--150 years. I commented to Mom a couple of days before the sentencing that a nice 10-12 years for each count would be nice. I never thought he would get it since we have a history of treating extravagant white color criminals with kid gloves. But I have also been thinking of Madoff as a symptom of what ails us in a broader sense. I see that The Glittering Eye has been thinking along the same lines.