Surprise, surprise, the Leftist Race War against White People has suffered a defeat, minor though it may be. Just wait until Sotomayor joins the Court, then whitey's in for one hell of a thrashing that will go on and on and on.

At newhaven20.com, the CSB is described as:

"the Board members (all political appointees of the Mayor)"

If so, I am not sure how Ginsburg can write this group is politically insulated.

I couldn't find anything on google as to how they are appointed. Does anyone know?

Honestly I felt like Alito's concurrance was a tell anyway. It showed that they conserves on the bench weren't really confident that their ruling would survive scrutiny. So he decided to attack the dissent.

I wonder how many times something like that usually happens in a concurrence.

Is it normal or abnormal because it came off as bush league.

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Government/Boards_Commissions.asp#CIVIL%20SERVICE%20COMMISSION

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR Per Section #157, Article XXX of the Revised City Charter, TERM FIVE YEARS (5)

Adam, when the Board of Directors hears from the compensation committee about CEO and executive wages and also hears from opposing stockholders about those same wages, are you going to tell me that the Board of Directors doesn't know who is giving the orders?

"What cannot credibly be denied, however, is that the decision against certification of the exams was made neither by Kimber nor by the mayor and his staff. The relevant decision was made by the CSB, an unelected, politically insulated body."

I like Ginsburg, but seeing how the CSB are all appointed by the mayor, I think that excerpt says far more about her than anything else.

Earth to troll: most politically insulated bodies are appointed by the relavent executive. For example, the Supreme Court.

My dearest Shoe, the word is "relevant" and the Supreme Court members have life tenure. They are nominated and then need to be vetted in public by the Judiciary Committee and then voted on by the Senate as a whole.

They are not nominated for limited appointments and then require renomination by the relevant executive who they owe their paycheck to.

They also do not exist in an atmosphere of constant scrutiny by the press (and bloggers.)

Perhaps you never heard of Tammany Hall though and believe there is no such thing as corruption. I can understand that. I don't understand Ginsburg apparent ignorance.

If you're going to call me names, can I at least ask you not be a complete idiot?

Clearly, Ginsburg's point was that the CSB is "insulated" from having to directly appease black voters in New Haven, given that they are not elected officials. I fail to see how her point is inaccurate.

Sewer says Ginsburg rebuked Alito's claim that the decision was politically motivated.

Ginsburg says the CSB is not elected and is so insulated from political concerns.

The facts are that the CSB is appointed to limited terms by the mayor, and so, easily controlled by the mayor who is very motivated by political concerns.

I don't know what happened, but this is a textbook example of possible corruption, influence peddling, cronyism.

The mayor appoints them. Limited terms. How can anyone say they are necessarily an insulated, objective, neutral, apolitical body?

I live in Phoenix. It's a crappy town. Try not to live here. But this is how our board is put together. Compare and contrast:

Board Composition:
This Board shall consist of five members who are residents and electors appointed by the City Council. No more than three members shall be adherents of the same political party and no member shall hold any other salaried public office. Vacancies shall be filled by the Mayor for the unexpired term subject to the approval of the Council. Three members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

How was the point inaccurate?

It was inaccurate because its necessary central thesis was that service at the discretionary pleasure of an elected official is insulated from political pressure.

Aside from that, though, it was pretty much spot-on.

Insulated does not mean totally immune from any and all political influences (even the Federal judiciary is not that insulated -- Congress can be careless about pay increases or slow in appointing new members). Insulated means a layer of separation from direct political pressure. The members of the board do not serve at the pleasure of the mayor, they serve fixed terms. Not being reappointed to an unpaid seat does not seem like much of a stick to wield against the members. Especially given the number of vacancies listed on those city boards.

Ginsburg's rebuttal is not saying that "there is no way what Alito is saying is true."

What she is saying is that Alito is accepting as true an assertion by the plaintiff that the decision was made for political pandering reasons. That essentially Providence is a corrupt, pandering, useless government. Usually for a judge to accept something like as true, he's going to need some proof.

There's no reason to get into the weeds of whether this board is politically insulated or not. There is no evidence of corruption here. The default assumption by any judge should be that the board made it's decision in good faith until proven otherwise.

Alito, OTOH, chose corruption/political motivation as his default position, despite the fact the board was never asked to defend itself on this accusation. It's a one-sided assertion from the plaintiffs that's gone unchallenged and Alito has taken it as a fact. That's pretty appalling for a Supreme Court justice.

And besides that, it had nothing to do with the issue at hand. There was no need for him to even weigh in on this point. Very strange.

I believe his opinion is primarily to give talking points right-wing columnists like George Will (who is running with it today as if Alito's interpretation of the facts is gospel) against Sotomayor in particular, and discrimination law in general.