I found these points of the court's judgement noteworthy: -- If a California government action contains discriminatory classifications with the intent to rever

I found these points of the court's judgement noteworthy: -- If a California government action contains discriminatory classifications with the intent to reverse or compensate for discrimination, that original discrimination must be concrete, tangible, and a product of that government's other action. -- The defendant (California government) could not / did not produce any case of an identifiable woman who was discriminated against in board seat selection (according to the definitions of illegal discrimination) which would have been justification for creating legislative discrimination to reverse the harm. -- The history and debate about the Senate bill showed that the goal was not to reverse specific cases of discrimination, but to achieve the broad goal of gender parity on boards -- which is not a compelling state interest enough to justify creating discrimination. -- The state was not able to (or did not) present compelling evidence either that lack of women representation on boards is a result of discrimination, or that having women on boards is a causal factor in improved corporate performance or positive benefit to the state, which would have been necessary to claim that the legislation is constitutional. During the bill's debate and passage, none of the expert testimony or contribution to its passage was able to cite compelling research linking female board members causally to such. ---- Let me just say I am all for all for women to have more representation on boards of companies -- by each individual's interest and merit (and equally, connections) to do so. I am not in favor of legislators passing such shoddy discriminatory legislation to force it to happen because they want to see a symbol of something achieved regardless of how it happens, and glossing over what it contorts others to have to do to make it so.