Forcing a political entity to strictly adhere to the letter of the law seems pretty low on the judicial activism scale to me. It’s not as though the Court created a new right while striking down a law and then later used that new right to fashion yet another one as it struck down yet another law.

…nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

If the city of New Haven feared a lawsuit because no Blacks passed the test, then that fear was based on prior judicial activism, not the law as it is written.

The Ricci decision corrects that situation.

I do agree that the lower court made the correct decision, because the lower courts are bound by prior Supreme Court decisions. However, because the prior Supreme Court decision was wrong, the decision to overturn was also correct.

When is it ever correct to promote based upon skin color and a lower qualification assessment?

The answer should be self evident.

All of us should distance ourselves from this form of “equality” where value, pride and honor gained by the pursuit of excellence diminished when pushed to the margins and replaced by a racially inspired system based upon quotas.

Affirmative action is not good for anyone. It is certainly not good for America.