In another thread here, I learned that there's a legal precedent that racism and affirmative action will end before the eyes of the law in the year 2028. Now, I think the race will be on to provide as many reparations as possible to minorities for crimes of the past before the law becomes a legal barrier to reparations ever taking place. Politicians, are you listening and taking notes??
Well, once the descendants of slaves are greased for things that never happened to them by people who weren’t alive at the time, then we’ll move on to the next voting block and wokesters. The grievance industry never sleeps, after the above reparations are paid off, that’s when the next group will want their payouts. Who’s next? Could be gays, Indians, women, illegals, short people or any group the woke blow chunks over.
Not sure what you mean by "legal precedent that racism" ... "will end before the eyes of the law in the year 2028". AA laws should definitely end sooner rather than later. At this point its doing more harm than good. It was needed at one point, now its causing more problems than its worth.
I don't remember what thread I saw that in, but racial-based quotas for college admission are ending in 2028 because a judge ruled it as so. And I think that it will set up a legal precedent for other race-based legal arguments in the future.
I think you are referring to a Supreme Court case on Affirmative Action in which a Justice opined that it shouldn't be needed by then, but that doesn't mean it's automatically gone. Although that actually could happen this coming May. But that's totally separate from reparations. The legal case of reparations is totally independent from the legality of affirmative action since AA is explicitly race based while reparations are about compensation for a wrong. It's a totally different animal in a legal sense.
Oh no, reparations are most definitely race based. If they weren't then they would be going after the source of black slavery in the US. Not just blaming only white people for slavery.
Don't think it was "ruled on" in that way. It was an opinion attached to a ruling as far as I know, not a ruling in and of itself.
They are about compensation because they are about compensating the descendants of US slavery. Sure, they are almost all black, but there are plenty of black people in the US who were not descendants of US slavery and therefore have no possible claim to reparations. Affirmative action applies to skin color regardless.
Two things. 1: If reparations happen then it will be given to all black people. It MIGHT have an exception to those only born in the US after X date. There will be no need to prove your ancestors were even enslaved...or even in the US during the time of slavery. 2: It ignores parts of history. Such as the fact that there were also black people who owned slaves in the US and black people in the US who sold black people. Think their desendents deserve reparation?
Got no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like the "other thread here" was garbage, or you utterely misunderstood it-- got a link? Your words don't even seem to make sense-- maybe it's just a communication problem? And "precedent" is something that has already happened. So how could there be a "precedent that racism... will end (legally) in the year 2028?" Do you think you have explained that concept well enough, that it doesn't sound like complete nonsense? If so, think again.
Well if they end up just giving all black people money, then that really wouldn't be reparations (although they might call it that). That would simply be giving black people money. That's why a legitimate program would have people prove slave ancestry. Otherwise it's just another give away.
They won't accept that because not everyone who's ancestors were enslaved can prove such. They just have stories handed down by family. I'm sure they'll find other excuses also. The call for repatriations isn't actually about repatriations for "elites". It's about votes, money, and power.
I don't know how you misunderstood this, as you had 14 articles to read from, and I got a clear picture of it, just reading from one section, of one of the articles (the 2nd link offered). It does not say that Affirmative Action and "racism," will be gone after 2028. In short, the Supreme Court noted that anything to address a particular situation, is only Constitutional while that situation is still in effect-- I have a funny side note, relating to that, but I'll save it for the end.* In 1978, when AA began for college admissions, the Court added a 25 year stipulation. All this meant was that, if the Court deemed racial prejudice to have been remedied, by 2003, then the practice of AA, would end. Only the dumbest Justice of them all, read that 1978 stipulation as a prediction, to be treated as a fact (i.e., that the 1978 Court could know that racism would be beaten, by 2003). Instead, there was a reaffirming of AA in 2003, in a couple of college admissions cases, and the 25 year caveat was extended, for another 25 years. IOW, only if the Court decides, in 2028, that racist discrimination against minorities has been vanquished, will there be an end to Affirmative Action, constitutionality. It seems unlikely that this will be the fact, on the ground, five years from now; but granted, with the current Court, I wouldn't bet on how they will see it. I pick up with more, after the Snip. Anyway, here are the two pages that address the question, the 11th & 12th pages of that article (pgs. 180 & 181). https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1589&context=concomm <Snip> The Court added that "the durational requirement can be met by sunset provisions in race-conscious admissions policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve student body diversity." But the Court did not stop, as it had in the past, with generally expressing the need for an end to race-conscious affirmative action. Rather, the Court continued: It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased .... We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. 44 The 25 year expectation for the end of affirmative action was curious, even to other Justices on the Court. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg challenged the limitation: "it was only 25 years before Bakke that this Court declared public school segregation unconstitutional, a declaration that, after prolonged resistance, yielded an end to a law-enforced racial caste system, itself the legacy of centuries of slavery."45 Because of the deficiencies in the public education of many minorities in the modern United States, she cautioned that "[f]rom today's vantage point, one may hope, but not firmly forecast, that over the next generation's span, progress toward nondiscrimination and genuinely equal opportunity will make it safe to sunset affirmative action." 46 In sum, Justice Ginsburg was considerably less certain than Justice O'Connor that the need for affirmative action would evaporate within 25 years. Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent bluntly contended that "the Law School's program fails strict scrutiny because it is devoid of any reasonably precise time limit on the Law School's use of race in admissions." 47 While the majority offers a 25 year 43. Gructer, 539 U.S. at 342. 44. /d. at343 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 45. /d. at 345 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citations omitted). Justice Breyer joined the concurrence. See id. at 344. 46. /d. at 346 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Justice Ginsburg stated, how- ever, that "[t]hc Court's observation that race-conscious programs 'must have a logical end point,' ... accords with the international understanding of the office of affirmative action." /d. at 344 (citation omitted). Justice Ginsburg thus differed with Justice O'Connor about the length of time that affirmative action would be needed. 47. /d. at 378,386 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (emphasis added). 2004] THE LAST 25 YEARS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? 181 limit, the law school is "more ambiguous" about the existence of any time limit,48 which Chief Justice Rehnquist believed was constitutionally fatal. Similarly, Justice Kennedy in dissent found that "it is difficult to assess the Court's pronouncement that race-conscious admissions will be unnecessary 25 years from now."49 Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Thomas read the majority's 25 year language expansively to "hold[] that racial discrimination in higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years"50 and chastised the majority for effectively sanctioning constitutional violations for at least 25 years. 51 To Justice Thomas, "[t]he majority does not and cannot rest its time limitation on any evidence that the gap in credentials between black and white students is shrinking or will be gone in that time frame. "52 At the same time, he did not see two-and-a-half decades as sufficient time to increase African American representation at the top law schools without affirmative action.53 Reading between the lines, Justice Thomas's opinion reflects skepticism about, if not disdain for, university administrators' race-conscious affirmative action efforts while also seeking to maintain the school's elite status. 54 The various opinions raise legitimate questions about the time limit conjured up by the majority in Grutter. The next section analyzes some of those questions II. THE LAST 25 YEARS? The new 25-year limit on affirmative action, which stuck out in the Supreme Court's opinion in Grutter, was widely reported 48. /d. at 386-87; see infra text accompanying notes 56-69 (discussing cases requiring that affirmative action programs have time limits). 49. /d. at394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). 50. /d. at 351 (Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (emphasis added); see id. at375 ("!agree [with the majority]that in 25 years the practices of the Law School will be illegal . ... ) (emphasis added). Justice Scalia joined most of Justice Thomas's opinion, including the discussion of the 25-ycar end of affirmative action. See id. at 346 & n.* (Scalia, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). 51. See id. at349 (Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). 52. /d. at 375-76 (footnote omitted). 53. See id. at 376. 54. See, e.g., id. at 349-50 ("Like [Frederick] Douglas, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.") (emphasis added); id. at354-55 & n.3 (rejecting the law school's claimed interest in diver- sity as interest in a racial "aesthetic"); id. at 355 n.3 ("[T]hc Law School's racial discrimi- nation does nothing for those too poor or uneducated to participate in elite higher educa- tion and therefore presents only an illusory solution to the challenges facing our Nation."); id. ("[T]he Court upholds the usc of racial discrimination as a tool to advance the Law School's interest in offering a marginally superior education while maintaining an elite institution"). <End Snip> We should remember that "Affirmative Action," applies to both education and hiring and, while each of those is theoretically limited, the SCOTUS will decide each one separately, through cases on each of those things. IOW, there will be NO blanket statement from the Court, in 2028, that ALL AA is now unconstitutional. So your initial assumption, of your OP, was wrong. It is, of course, possible that the SCOTUS could, at any point, declare racism in (government) hiring, or in school admissions, to be things of the past, & end AA. I would think it not unlikely that some will try to get another school admissions case in front of them, in '28. I don't know the legal history of AA hiring cases; maybe a Right wing group will try to get a case about that, before the Court in '28, as well, or maybe even sooner. It is impossible to guess how the Court would rule. It is interesting to look at the various opinions cited, however. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion, supporting the practice. She was apparently expectant, that 2028 would be the sunset for this decision (which I assume is why it is called the "O'Connor Sunset"). Justice Ginsburg, while siding with the majority, wrote a dissenting opinion on the idea that this could be predicted, 25 years in advance. She had thought that this could only be hoped to be the case, at that point. Interestingly, even though Justice Kennedy seems to have voted against the law school's AA policy, he had been even more dubious than Justice Ginsburg, about being able to predict a timeline for the rectifying of race imbalances. Chief Justice Rehnquist had voted against the majority, specifically because "no reasonably precise time limit," had been set (by the school). Clarence Thomas's position was odd. He'd said that he didn't expect AA practices to even things out, between the races, even in another 25 years (from 2003) and yet he'd still felt that the one 25 year stint (1978 - 2003) should have been the end to the practice, nonetheless. Regardless of whether or not any members agree with him, his thought process was idiotic. Let me spell it out: He accepted that the 1978 Court could put in 25 year stipulation, perhaps believing that it would no longer be necessary beyond that point, or perhaps only marking this as a point to review if it was still required. Thomas felt that even if the first 25 year timeframe did NOT accomplish what it had been intended to-- ending the severe racial lopsidedness, in admissions to top law schools-- it was all that was permitted, for addressing the problem. Not only would he vote against extending it beyond 2028, he had voted against extending it beyond 2003. Odds are, I'd say, that he would have voted against this, even back in 1978. I don't see why Rehnquist, logically, should have had a problem with there not being a time limit, since it is clearly impossible to know the future. But the way that these things work, is that once conditions change so that someone thinks the justification no longer applies, they challenge it, and Courts then make that decision. *Here is the funny part, I mentioned, at the top, as my final note: So all the Justices seem to agree that any change in the normal treatment of people, as through Affirmative Action, needs be limited, to the length of time, only, when there still exists the situation, which had brought the new program into being. Yet, the SCOTUS just voted to put a stay on ending Title 42, so they can hear the case, next May. Title 42 is the government's suspending of the right of immigrants to apply for asylum, because of the Covid public health emergency. But there is no longer any "emergency." The government is no longer keeping businesses shut down, or enforcing widespread mask mandates. And the Court had even ruled against the Biden Administration's moratorium on evictions. So the standard that Conservatives had been so adamant about applying to AA-- that the practice was only Constitutional while the problem exists-- they are not applying to Trump's exceptional use of Title 42, specifically because of the health emergency.
You should probably tell the Biden administration that its no longer an emergency then. Fact is, the Biden Admin wants it both ways at the moment. One moment Biden will talk about how there's still an emergency, and the next he'll say that it has ended. Indeed not long after admitting that "the pandemic was over" the Biden Admin extended the COVID-19 public health emergency through at least the spring of 2023. LINK: U.S. extending COVID public health emergency through spring 2023, per official (yahoo.com) . This is generally referred to as talking out of both sides of the mouth. This is just another example of how politicians used Covid for politics rather than it being treated the way it should have been treated.
All right-- thanks for the link. I will have to admit, you have a point. It is clear that "emergency" is a word, that does not have as specific a definition, as one would expect, or at least hope-- because it is also clear, that our Covid situation is far less dire, and is being addressed with nothing like the exceptional government mandates, with which it once was. Hospitals are no longer at capacity, and unable to handle more cases. The population is far more vaccinated-- when Title 42 was initially invoked, I don't think there even was, yet, a vaccine ready; it certainly had not yet been widely distributed. So the urgency of the situation, has certainly changed, since the imposing of Title 42. But, if there is still, technically, a "state of emergency"-- though I would be very curious as to what this status entails, and how it differs from any governmental special powers, which were in effect, earlier on, in the pandemic-- then I guess one can make a case, anyway, for Title 42. Because of the significant effect of this policy, however-- preventing the internationally accepted right of people to claim asylum-- I will change my criticism, to that the Court should have expedited the case's hearing, not just put it on their regular 2023 docket, not to be heard for another five months (and then who knows how many months more, before the Court issues its opinion). I think it is well worth noting the warning of Justice Neal Gorsuch, who sided with the minority, in this 5 to 4 decision, to impose a stay. Gorsuch makes the important distinction, that "the current border crisis is not a Covid crisis." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...le-42-ruling-dangerous-business-1769811?amp=1 <Snip> "Courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency, only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency," Gorsuch wrote. "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort."
