Tells me most of the raw information I needed to know about the Supreme Court's reversal in the Ricci case. Short on sourcing, context, but sound overall.

I think that a few of the statements made are not very well substantiated. Author could have interviewed neutral legal experts for a more balanced and contextualized story. I also think that more historical context would be required to understand the political consequences of the court's decision.

Keep in mind that this is a breaking news story and, as such, the sourcing and writing will expand in the next day or so; but the reporters did research and share facts that speak to an important case--made more so because it is a reversal of an appeals ruling in which U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor partook.

The story seems to carry a bias favoring the argument that any action against discrimination is reverse discrimination. It seems to have missed that the court changed the law from the bench ( sign of an activist court ) to require those complaining of discrimination to show intent to discriminate. The hypocrisy of the reactionary right complaining about judicial activism, then celebrating judical activism that supports racism should be a part of the story.

This news event is quite ambiguous. This leads to horrific journalism because the whole truth about this civil rights case has not been told. Deaiing with civil rights is a monumental sensitive subject. For the public to obtain a an objective view of this case, the complete truth must be exposed.