And again, the key question we need to ask ourselves is: What is the purpose of all this well-funded opposition to a potential Justice, who is virtually guaranteed confirmation, regardless?

My friends, they're working the refs to lay the groundwork for a SCOTUS of the future which virtually guarantees there will never again be a Justice to the left of center-right (and that will be a rarity).

The whole "Latina woman" tempest is a straw man (if a nice fluff for the neanderthals with Red State base votes, and checkbooks). No future President (or, even this one) will dare send up a nominee who is any more progressive than Sotomayor... herself, hardly progressive... ever again. Not unless they want this scorched-Earth campaign against a moderate like her to look like a day at an amusement park.

This is the Federalist Society types, pounding the stake into the ground NOW, in anticipation of a sturdy right-wing Judicial edifice that will withstand the storm of any future Democratic presidency.

The decision is actually even narrower than 5-4 might be suggest (if that's possible!)

I gather from Ginsburg's fn.10 that the majority did not actually care about whether New Haven rejected the test as flawed and decides never to use it again, or what test was applied in affirming New Haven's rejection of the test. (If they cared about that, they would -- or should -- have remanded to the Court of Appeal with instructions to use the correct test -- good cause rather than New Haven's intent.) The majority is simply saying, at least in this instance, that if you administered the test, you're stuck with the results of that particular administration.