5:4, of course

[james_davis_nicoll]

Bare majority of US Supreme drags US kicking and screaming into the Century of the Anchovy.

Comments

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

Three, though the third is a little in the weeds.

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

Which one are you thinking of?

(If I had to guess, I'd guess JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES.)

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. Claims of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act can be based on disparate impact rather than overt evidence of discrimination. Not many people were expecting it to win, especially after the ridiculous rulings on the Voting Rights Act.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I didn't mind the mandatory minimums one, either.

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, that was the Supreme Court finally giving up on Congress to get its act together to clarify a statute. An eight-to-one decision, great but not WOOOOOOO great, if that makes sense?

This case, the concept of disparate impact has been found constitutional and honest jurisprudence now has to accommodate it. (Hackery won't, but that goes with the territory.)

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Having now read more news articles, I indeed go "Wow" in surprise.

[connactic.livejournal.com]

As well as similar rulings barring judicial action on racial bias in the criminal justice system.

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

Yes, this one is huge. I don't think the justices even understand what doors they've opened. But I bet a lot of civil rights activist lawyers do. School districts should start working on it today--there's a lot of harm since NCLBA that they're going to be held accountable for.

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

I don't think Kennedy quite gets the possibility. He'd be showier if he thought it meant more. The rest of them have a hunch. Especially Thomas, sigh.

[seawasp]

Yes, three. You and LWE pointed that one out to me. Most excellent.