SCOTUS upholds affirmative action 7-1

[UncleBuck]

wow, even scalia got on board with this one.

ginsburg scores the best line by far here by invoking the almighty ostrich:

*"I have said before and reiterate here that only an ostrich could regard the supposedly neutral alternatives as race unconscious."*


can't wait for more big decisions from the SCOTUS this summer!

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

No they didn't. They punted.

 

[UncleBuck]

No they didn't.

then why am i seeing no articles stating that the SCOTUS struck down affirmative action?

They punted.

they sent it back to the lower court, which has the effect of upholding it.

affirmative action is constitutional, deal with it.

 

[desert dude]

then why am i seeing no articles stating that the SCOTUS struck down affirmative action?





they sent it back to the lower court, which has the effect of upholding it.

affirmative action is constitutional, deal with it.

Slavery used to be constitutional as well. Jim Crow used to be constitutional as well. Racism is still lawful.

 

[tokeprep]

then why am i seeing no articles stating that the SCOTUS struck down affirmative action?

Because they didn't.

they sent it back to the lower court, which has the effect of upholding it.

affirmative action is constitutional, deal with it.

Except they didn't uphold the lower court's ruling, they vacated and remanded it. The lower court now has to consider the case with the supreme court's guidance, which is that the way the lower court upheld affirmative action was insufficient. There are going to be new arguments and a new opinion from the lower court, and potentially another supreme court opinion afterward.

 

[UncleBuck]

Slavery used to be constitutional as well. Jim Crow used to be constitutional as well. Racism is still lawful.

tell me what part of ensuring diversity is racist, smarty.

did you even read the opinion? take a glance at what kennedy had to say? or are you just speaking out of your bitter, butthurt, rear end again?

 

[Wavels]

Well this is interesting, UB is in agreement with Ted Cruz...wowee. They both like this decision.



Cruz praises Supreme Court sidestep on affirmative action.


Cruz's comments came after the high court vacated the decision on University of Texas vs. Fisher. The court did not uphold or strike down the university's affirmative action system and, instead, called on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to hold a new hearing on the case.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-sidestep-on-affirmative-action#ixzz2XAt8dOYG

 

[UncleBuck]

Well this is interesting, UB is in agreement with Ted Cruz

*dislike*

...

 

[Doer]

So, I guess it's personal or maybe the silly rabbit thinks this good spam...figures.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

then why am i seeing no articles stating that the SCOTUS struck down affirmative action?





they sent it back to the lower court, which has the effect of upholding it.

affirmative action is constitutional, deal with it.

You're not seeing articles saying its struck down because they didn't decide that. Not did they decide its cool either.

They punted on that decision. Hence the "sidestepping" in the articles you see.

Put the dunce emoticon away.

 

[desert dude]

tell me what part of ensuring diversity is racist, smarty.

did you even read the opinion? take a glance at what kennedy had to say? or are you just speaking out of your bitter, butthurt, rear end again?

Tell me what part of "equal treatment under the law" allows the state to favor/disfavor a citizen based on their melanin content?

How is unequal treatment of citizens based on melanin content consistent with 14A?

Cast your vote for Ted Cruz, you are already in bed with him.

 

[UncleBuck]

Tell me what part of "equal treatment under the law" allows the state to favor/disfavor a citizen based on their melanin content?

How is unequal treatment of citizens based on melanin content consistent with 14A?

there ya go.

you assume that it's done unequally.

probably not a good idea to build your case on your own assumptions.

but then again, i almost forgot who i'm talking to.

 

[SHOTGUN420]

tell me what part of ensuring diversity is racist, smarty.

The part where people like you take it to far.

Affirmative action clearly points out racial identity you would think someone as anti-racist as yourself would be against such a thing.

Affirmative action should be abolished. If we are all equal why is it needed in 2013?

 

[UncleBuck]

The part where people like you take it to far.

Affirmative action clearly points out racial identity you would think someone as anti-racist as yourself would be against such a thing.

Affirmative action should be abolished. If we are all equal why is it needed in 2013?

affirmative action doesn't point out racial identity, it takes it into consideration along with many, many other things.

you are aware that it was less than 50 years ago that jim crow laws were still around right?

thanks for censoring me from your "free speech" group. i guess you only like free speech when you agree with what's being said. hypocritical, but not unexpected from an unremitting failure like yourself.

 

[SHOTGUN420]

thanks for censoring me from your "free speech" group. i guess you only like free speech when you agree with what's being said. hypocritical, but not unexpected from an unremitting failure like yourself.

https://www.rollitup.org/groups/free-speech-debates-information-d3251-about-group.html

The only person who has censored you is yourself. You have stated that were are a "bigot" , "nazi" group or something along those lines. So I assumed someone as anti-racist as yourself felt hes is to good to join. I will send you an invite if you like I'm willing to give anyone a shot to voice their opinions and post as much information as they like but we do not stand for labeling or name calling of other members within the group.

 

[desert dude]

I will hand it to SCOTUS, they are a crafty bunch and can always find a way to dodge uncomfortable questions. Turn it back to lower courts and demand "strict scrutiny". It will be interesting to see how the lower courts apply strict scrutiny and still allow affirmative action.

From Justice Thomas' dissent:

"
"It is for this reason that we must subject all racial classifications to the strictest of scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, all racial classifications are categorically prohibited unless they are 'necessary to further a compelling government interest.'"


Thomas goes on to write that "Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity– assuming they exist –hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”

Do you get that, dear reader, "educational benefits" was cited as the reason for Jim Crow laws and was rejected by SCOTUS. Tell me how "diversity" enhances education? Tell me what is meant by "diversity"? Is it melanin content? Is it diversity of opinion? Looking at Universities in the US, they are totally devoid of diversity of opinion.

An approach to affirmative action that seems more supportable to me would be based solely on socioeconomics, i.e. let's make sure some percentage of entering college classes are reserved for intellectually qualified poor kids with no consideration of their race. I would support that policy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Tell me how "diversity" enhances education?

that's a fool's errand.

no one is ever gonna convince a racist tool like yourself of the benefits of diversity.

 

[UncleBuck]

https://www.rollitup.org/groups/free-speech-debates-information-d3251-about-group.html

The only person who has censored you is yourself. You have stated that were are a "bigot" , "nazi" group or something along those lines. So I assumed someone as anti-racist as yourself felt hes is to good to join. I will send you an invite if you like I'm willing to give anyone a shot to voice their opinions and post as much information as they like but we do not stand for labeling or name calling of other members within the group.

why don't you like labels?

you have labels galore for me, which seems hypocritical for someone who claims to reject them.

and if you espouse white supremacy and holocaust denial like a neo nazi would, why don't you accept that you espouse the same beliefs as a neo-nazi?

 

[Doer]

So, back to topic with someone that at least thinks about this stuff.

Dear Uncle Buck,

What do you think of this SCOTUS session, so far? Sort of a mixed bag?

 

[UncleBuck]

So, back to topic with someone that at least thinks about this stuff.

Dear Uncle Buck,

What do you think of this SCOTUS session, so far? Sort of a mixed bag?

still waiting on the two big ones tomorrow, but it's always interesting to see how the SCOTUS operates. this is one of the best and most consequential times of the year, but very few people seem to care.

oh well. too many cooks in the kitchen is sometimes a bad thing, especially when many of those cooks believe their white onions to be superior to my walla wallas.