⚖️What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action?⚖️

In a prior AA case.........Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun disagreed, saying “government may take race into account when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group, but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.”

Those disadvantages still exist.

 

The Roberts court is shaping up to be one of the most hostile to established precedent in US history. Even after he emphasized his commitment to respect stari decisis during his confirmation hearings. Gosh, what a liar.

 

Right. The use of racial factors to ignore merit. It's literally part of this threads OP

Grades and Test scores are the qualitative yardsticks that the opponents of AA were fighting for. Merit.

 

Equality not equity! Damn right I am pleased

You don't speak for me. Post#25 is special to you why?

 

Oh look everyone, the Supreme Court agrees!

 

Only if you believe blacks should always have been discriminated against.

 

"[T]he six unelected members of today’s majority upend the status quo based on their policy preferences about what race in America should be like, but is not, and their preferences for a veneer of colorblindness in a society where race has always mattered and continues to matter in fact and in law,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...ction-dissent-ketanji-brown-jackson-rcna91823

The majority's stance comes down to wishful thinking that college admissions are colorblind. They aren't.

 

The Court didn't strike down legacy candidates because that's not covered by the 14th Amendment and the CRA of 1964. Legacy candidates, no matter how annoying we may find them, have nothing to do with racial discrimination, which apparently you support.

Yet another 1950's sweaty southern sheriff outs himself.

 

Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the 14A provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.”

Clearly AA was designed to address the failure of that lofty goal. The Roberts court seems to think the goal has been met. How tragically naive.

 

The case seems to base it's overturning on the Equal Protection Clause. Now if you oppose the Equal Protection Clause, you can start working towards a constitutional amendment to overturn it. Until then, you will have to grudgingly deal with equal protection.

 

I think you should read that again and then consider a retraction.

 

I don't oppose it tho. I think it's fine. I'll be curious to see if it's used in the future and how the SC deals with it if it's used by someone discriminated against for their race in a university admission.

 

How about this: I'll not consider a retraction unless you can actually make an argument that is clever and convincing.

I think I'm safe.

 

That was this case, STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE.

 

There are definitely some established precedents that have to be changed. Affimative action is one such precedent, unrestricted abortion is another. Thank God for our conservative Court.

 

Lol. If that were true, there would have been no need for the policy in the first place. The time for these laws may have come and gone, but they were absolutely needed to get something resembling fairness into the equation.

We shall see.

 

Way to skate around the question.....

 

FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE SAID IT!

 

Affirmative action policies are straight forfward in-your-face discrimination. They should never have been imlimented..

 

No, you are trying to derail the topic.

 

So what should have been implemented? Or do you think nothing was needed becaise discrimination didn't exist?

 

I didn't bring up legacy and you responded to it. So nope, no derailment. You just want to dance around it.

 

I didn't bring up legacy admissions, two other posters did in this thread and I responded to them, so I'm unclear what you think I'm "dancing around." I'm not the one in this thread trying to justify racial discrimination.

So go ahead, justify racism.

 

That's what I just said.

Go ahead and support AA as you interpret it for the other groups and be a hypocrite.

 

You can't seem to define what exactly I'm a hypocrite about. I oppose racial discrimination, and you support it. Why do you want to judge based on the color of one's skin?