⚖️What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action?⚖️

What was fair about omitting equality to all?

 

I suspect there will be some set backs to the minority groups in USA.
But hopefully it will be short lived and CEOs, admission departments, bank loan officers, etc, will still work to help out the minorities that are subject to blatant discrimination due to a class they belong to.

 

That was never the case in USA in the past.
There was legal and blatant discrimination and is a big part of USA past history to discriminate against those protected classes AA covered.

To think things were based on merit in the past is absolutely incorrect.
Whites, males in particular, always had a leg up in this white Patriarchal society.

 

You are aware that religious people are white?
Gay people are white?
Women are white?
To claim AA was against white is not understanding the focus of AA at all.

 

Race was not the focus of AA.
It was about a minority often discriminated classes of people. There were several of them.

 

Why did it end there?
That didn't erase 250+ years of slavery, legal discrimination, segregation, relining, etc.

Only 15 yrs ago, did the USA gov't apologize and recognize the horrors of past policies towards black.
AA address that and did so for several minority groups. Not just based on race.

It is a set back to minority often discriminated groups. But hopefully, it will be minor and short lived. Time will tell.

 

Will this ruling be another lightening rod for getting democrat voters to the polls like abortion ruling did?

This could be seen as ramping back up systemic discrimination that has always existed in this country.

 

Congrats. You just defined what AA really is

 

It is perfectly clear to me and is now unconstitutional.

 

Affirmative action programs are legal discrimination, and thankfully they will be ended.

 

Yes, but, they will be taken to Court and if their actions violate the narrow exceptions outlined by the Court, they will pay damages, with each and every case that they lose building the bulwark of case law supporting this landmark decision.

EXCEPTIONS

'Outside the circumstances of these cases, our precedents have identified only two compelling interests that permit resort to race-based government action. One is remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute. See, e.g., Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701, 720 (2007); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 909–910 (1996); post, at 19–20, 30–31 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). The second is avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot. See Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 512–513 (2005).'

'Our acceptance of race-based state action has been rare for a reason. “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 517 (2000) (quoting Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943)). That principle cannot be overridden except in the most extraordinary case.'

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TEARS INTO THE DISSENT:

'The dissents’ interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause is not new. In Bakke, four Justices would have permitted race-based admissions programs to remedy the effects of societal discrimination. 438 U. S., at 362 (joint opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). But that minority view was just that—a minority view. Justice Powell, who provided the fifth vote and controlling opinion in Bakke, firmly rejected the notion that societal discrimination constituted a compelling interest. Such an interest presents “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past,” he explained. Id., at 307. It cannot “justify a [racial] classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons . . . who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the [race-based] admissions program are thought to have suffered.” Id., at 310.'

'The Court soon adopted Justice Powell’s analysis as its own. …'

'The dissents here do not acknowledge any of this. They fail to cite Hunt. They fail to cite Croson. They fail to mention that the entirety of their analysis of the Equal Protection Clause—the statistics, the cases, the history—has been considered and rejected before. There is a reason the principal dissent must invoke Justice Marshall’s partial dissent in Bakke nearly a dozen times while mentioning Justice Powell’s controlling opinion barely once (JUSTICE JACKSON’s opinion ignores Justice Powell altogether). For what one dissent denigrates as “rhetorical flourishes about colorblindness,” post, at 14 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), are in fact the proud pronouncements of cases like Loving and Yick Wo, like Shelley and Bolling—they are defining statements of law. We understand the dissents want that law to be different. They are entitled to that desire. But they surely cannot claim the mantle of stare decisis while pursuing it.'

'The dissents are no more faithful to our precedent on race-based admissions. To hear the principal dissent tell it, Grutter blessed such programs indefinitely, until “racial inequality will end.” Post, at 54 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But Grutter did no such thing. It emphasized—not once or twice, but at least six separate times—that race-based admissions programs “must have reasonable durational limits” and that their “deviation from the norm of equal treatment” must be “a temporary matter.” 539 U. S., at 342. The Court also disclaimed “[e]nshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences.” Ibid. Yet the justification for race-based admissions that the dissent latches on to is just that—unceasing.'

 

JUSTICE THOMAS ADDS HIS OWN THOUGHTS



NOT JUST UNIVERSITIES

'Roberts is overturning all race-based distinctions in law and its practice, with the very narrow exceptions as noted above. Thomas is unsparing in his rebuttal to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, accusing her of attempting to exchange the 14th Amendment with racial determinism:'

'Yet, JUSTICE JACKSON would replace the second Founders’ vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, on her view, almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race. Post, at 24–26. This is so, she writes, because of statistical disparities among different racial groups. See post, at 11–14. Even if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks, what matters to JUSTICE JACKSON is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household. Post, at 11.6'

'This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, “the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh-and-blood human beings.” T. Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics 333 (2016). Worse still, JUSTICE JACKSON uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.'

 

No. AA was banned today. Older race oriented admissions were legal and, in fact, promoted by government. Today that is over until the Universities find a way around it.

 

Potentially. It's the reason it was instituted in the first place and contrary to popular belief, racism hasn't disappeared from the world, let alone the US. We shall see though.

Ah well, I eagerly await the opponents to non-merit based admissions to move onto Rich Person AA. Equality for all, right?

 

My answer is simple. Those with a brain in their head will understand that actual knowledge and performance have become the criteria for jobs, educational opportunities and economic advancement and better lives and will take the appropriate actions. Simple really.

 

In what state did the person who got the most votes did not win?

 

As far as race and sex yes. Why do you support racist policies?

 

the United States, Trump got fewer total votes then Hillary

 

It is unconstitutional. But you still can't see gays, women, religious people are white.
But hey, to each their own.

 

White males are elated. Back to legal discrimination.

 

The United States did not vote (hint: it never has), States voted. In what state did the winner get the fewer votes?

 

Strawman. Where did I say I supported it?

I just thought that equality meant equality. Not 'Equality for all, and a leg up for the academically challenged yet financially flush'.

 

How is ending discrimination on the basis of race going "back" to legal discrimination?

 

The United States is a union of states after all.

 

You are putting words in my mouth again. It is not the way to argue with me.