I gave not much thought about Obama after he won the election. It is different this time. I do not quite understand the ruling of this judge. It just defiles any logic I know. If the news is reported correctly, she rejected the result of the examination just because one racial does not come out on top. The ruling did not find any evidence that the examination is racially biased towards one race or the other. The ruing only deals with the outcome of the examination simply does not fit the racial balance of the expectation of the officials and politicians.

I thought the judges are supposed to obey the existing laws and leave all politics aside. Apparently, the judges did not do that. If her logic holds, do the judges have to have quota to convict a predetermined percentage of blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics? If the outcome of convictions do not meet the criteria of the political taste, does the court have to throw out all its verdicts?

Examinations for a position are supposed to select the best of the candidates. If the examination is fair, one should accept the result. If the officials have to retest and retest until they achieve their desired racial mixed, than the examination becomes unfair because there is an inherent racial bias. The citizens have the right to demand the unbiased top achievers to be promoted, not a predetermined outcome.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html