okay, but since it went against the new precedent, it is NOW against the "law", right? So it was proven in court, the supreme court, that the ruling was counter to what the supreme court now interprets to be the law.
So, under the lens of time, it became a wrong decision, even though it was under the guiding the precedent at the time of the decision.
Sort of like saying that rulings about slave ownership in 1820 were fine because when they were made they were legal under the guiding precedents at the time, yet we now universally agree they were wrong.
You are confusing a conclusion of what a reasonable person would determine versus legal subtlety.
The whole issue was a ruling about moves made by a city under FEAR of a lawsuit and didn't start as an actual reverse discrimination charge... the legal parasites turned it into a case that resembled reverse discrimination to the casual observer, but in reality it was sparked by bone-headed defensive moves made by city hack lawyers, who left the door open to a generally sympathetic group, firefighters, to step through.
I don't personally believe there was a shred of anything sinister in her original ruling. When the people against her went to their usual game plan, fear, it didn't even catch on with the usual crowd of republicans.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
