But I’m not sure your characterization of AA is correct. There’s strong arguments in favor of it.
Every one of these controversial cases are along party lines. When things are so predictable, you know it’s not a matter of a fair assessment of evidence — it’s foregone.
Why do you think there are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500? — NOS4A2
I have no idea how such a determination may be made But the statement that a person must not be treated on the basis of race seems rather clear. — Ciceronianus
In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. — Majority Opinion
Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. — Majority Opinion
What Justice Gorsuch concludes regarding Title VI, in this case, is no more binding on a court (and of no more importance to me) than is the ass of a rattus rattus. — Ciceronianus
What Justice Gorsuch concludes regarding Title VI, in this case, is no more binding on a court (and of no more importance to me) than is the ass of a rattus rattus.
— Ciceronianus
Of course it's not binding, nowhere did I say it was. — Voyeur
Well, try to understand I've never before been asked to render a legal opinion on what a court didn't say in deciding a case, or about a holding it didn't make. It's not something that's come up in my practice. I assumed you were trying to address the actual decision in question. — Ciceronianus
According to the majority, those making the admission decision may consider the impacts of discrimination against the applicant because of race (e.g. because the applicant is black) in coming to a decision. — Ciceronianus
But, the admission decision cannot be made because the applicant is black, despite the fact that there would have been no discrimination, the impacts of which may be considered, had the applicant not been black. — Ciceronianus
Where does the black go? — Ciceronianus
Applicant X should be admitted because of characteristics and abilities arising from discrimination against the applicant because the applicant is black (characteristics and abilities which presumably would not have arisen but for the racial discrimination), but that doesn't mean the fact the applicant is black figured in the decision to admit? It doesn't work, I'm afraid. — Ciceronianus
To dismiss those dissents (as well as concurring opinions), because they have little current use in the courtroom is to miss the point of the dissents/concurrences altogether. They are not written for the courtroom, they are written on and for the issue. Otherwise why write them, if they have no value? — Voyeur
Do you treat all black people the same? Because all black people are black? Or do you treat them differently based on their personal characteristics, many of which are directly derived from their racial/cultural experiences of being black in a world of systemic racism? — Voyeur
It DOES mean the fact that the applicant is black figured into the decision. — Voyeur
As a non-lawyer I suspect that if this lawsuit rises to the level of SCOTUS review, the Supremes will vote 6-3 in favor of pro-"legacy preference", etc. — 180 Proof
Perhaps they'll turn out to be useful, sometime. — Ciceronianus
I think the majority contends that the Equal Protection Clause provides that all applicants must be treated the same. — Ciceronianus
Now, though, it's necessary that in order for the race of an applicant to be considered, the applicant must establish that they have those qualities due to their race. — Ciceronianus
Yes. Race is necessarily a factor, as those having the qualities the majority thinks merit consideration will have them because they're black. — Ciceronianus
Do you treat all people the same? Or do you acknowledge that some of them should be treated differently "based on their personal characteristics, many of which are directly derived from their racial/cultural experience of being black in a world of systemic racism?" — Ciceronianus
...they state that the Equal Protection Clause allows some of them to be treated differently due to "their racial/cultural experience of being black (for example) in a world of systemic racism." It would seem to me essential that one must be black to have the "racial/cultural experience of being black in a world of systemic racism." — Ciceronianus
According to the Supreme Court, being black in and of itself does not CAUSE you to have certain qualities, but it CAN cause you to experience circumstances that (by means of your response to those circumstances) creates those certain qualities. — Voyeur
For normal people who want to live in a country not ravaged by periodic outbreaks of foodborne illness, the end of the administrative state as we know it is bad news. But this slurry of confusion, delay, and incompetence is exactly what the conservative legal movement hopes to bring about.
Killing Chevron is a two-for-one deal for Republicans, who do not have an affirmative vision for regulation so much as they oppose the very concept, because they want to keep their billionaire cryptkeeper benefactors unburdened by any obligation to protect factory workers from getting maimed by heavy machinery. Burying understaffed chambers in terabytes of non-OCRed PDFs will make the day-to-day task of running this country even harder than it already is. It will also turn conservative dogma about the evils of Big Government into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: To the extent that government works right now, it won’t anymore, because conservatives made sure of it.
But yeah, throwing away votes in protest back in 2016 was definitely worth the temporary feeling of moral righteousness. — Mikie
It really feels like they're gambling the interests of future generations on the selfishness of a few incredibly stubborn old people. — Mr Bee
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.