SCOTUS case could end affirmative action policies once and for all

[SugarDaddy1]

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear a challenge to affirmative action policies in a case that will consider wither the admissions process at certain universities discriminates against students of Asian descent.

The court agreed to hear two companion lawsuits brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group that believes policies that use race as a factor in college admissions unconstitutionally discriminate against certain students in favor of others.

The group claims that Harvard's undergraduate admissions process discriminates against Asian-Americans and that UNC's discriminates against both Asian-Americans and white students. The lawsuits were brought against both a private and a public university to challenge the affirmative action policies at both kinds of institution. Lower courts have rejected these challenges, ruling that Supreme Court precedent upholds the right of colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions as a way to promote diversity.

Students for Fair Admissions is asking the court to overturn the 2003 ruling, arguing that Title VI of U.S. code prohibits federal funding recipients from using race in admissions.

Source

 

[Bud_Spencer]

At this point, only SCOTUS can do this. They need to overturn Bakke, Grutter and every other baby-splitting decision they've thought would solve the issue.

 

[GothTalk]

They should given the importance of equality under the law is Constitutionally prioritized over equity of outcome.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

They should given the importance of equality under the law is Constitutionally prioritized over equity of outcome.

Even Chief Squish John Roberts recognizes the need to end official discrimination.

 

[pecksniff]

It would take a lot more than any ruling in this case to end affirmative action.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It would take a lot more than any ruling in this case to end affirmative action.

The SCOTUS can use this to issue a broad prohibition on the use of race in employment, admissions, contract awarding, etc.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the SCOTUS is about to put their boot in Harvard's ass.

 

[KeithD]

It seems that even the Supreme Court doesn't deal in the "once and for all."

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It seems that even the Supreme Court doesn't deal in the "once and for all."

More's the pity. The more they try to finesse these issues, the more they try to, well, legislate, the worse things get. The law is clear, they just have to take it seriously.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In 2018, Harvard rescinded rapist "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh's guest lecture privilege after his long documented history of sexual assault arose.

Do you think Kavanaugh will recuse himself from this case?

 

[ll74]

In 2018, Harvard rescinded rapist "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh's guest lecture privilege after his long documented history of sexual assault arose.

Do you think Kavanaugh will recuse himself from this case?

He should, but recusal is a rare breed on the SCOTUS. (not party specific)

I honestly believe recusals should be much more sensitive for cases across the Judicial branch.

 

[GothTalk]

In 2018, Harvard rescinded rapist "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh's guest lecture privilege after his long documented history of sexual assault arose.

Do you think Kavanaugh will recuse himself from this case?

You mean the history of sexual assault there wasn't the slightest shred of evidence nor documentation to support????


https://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2238119/85785671.jpeg

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

In 2018, Harvard rescinded rapist "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh's guest lecture privilege after his long documented history of sexual assault arose.

Do you think Kavanaugh will recuse himself from this case?

“Documented.” By Michael Avenatti and Christine Blassy Ford.

 

[ll74]

“Documented.” By Michael Avenatti and Christine Blassy Ford.

The point is about the University taking action against a justice and any impact it may have on a ruling involving them.

Whether the accusations were correct or accurate is irrelevant.

 

[GothTalk]

The point is about the University taking action against a justice and any impact it may have on a ruling involving them.

Whether the accusations were correct or accurate is irrelevant.

Well they should have thought about that before trying to smear a justice with nothing to support their accusations.

May Gawd have mercy on their racist souls.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You mean the history of sexual assault there wasn't the slightest shred of evidence nor documentation to support????


https://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2238119/85785671.jpeg

If only she could have remembered the year, the location, and who was there. If only someone could have corroborated her story. Hopefully she still has her “beach friends.”

 

[Sean Renaud]

We know it happend

 

[GothTalk]

We know it happend

No, you WANT TO BELIVE something there isn't any evidence of.

Big difference.

 

[ll74]

No, you WANT TO BELIVE something there isn't any evidence of.

Big difference.

The school took action based on that belief.

Recusal is based on their action, not the accusation and discussion surrounding it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The point is about the University taking action against a justice and any impact it may have on a ruling involving them.

Whether the accusations were correct or accurate is irrelevant.

I understand the point. My comment was directed at the silly assertion of “documented” allegations.

 

[ll74]

I understand the point. My comment was directed at the silly assertion of “documented” allegations.

Yep, and that is already moving the thread, which is why I commented as such.

The entire accusation will never die, whether accurate/proven or not. His role on the bench will end up being more of the focus, for him, regardless.

 

[GothTalk]

The school took action based on that belief.

Recusal is based on their action, not the accusation and discussion surrounding it.

Their action taken directly because of the accusation and discussion surrounding it.

And actions have consequences, no need for recusal, he should fucking CRUCIFY them to the fullest extent that he can for being the racist and sexist bigot scum that they are. Then rub their face in it in front of everyone.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, you WANT TO BELIVE something there isn't any evidence of.

Big difference.

No I don't want to believe. I just know and so do you.

 

[The_Trouvere]

In 2018, Harvard rescinded rapist "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh's guest lecture privilege after his long documented history of sexual assault arose.

Do you think Kavanaugh will recuse himself from this case?

Brett Kavanaugh was never convicted of anything.

 

[The_Trouvere]

It would take a lot more than any ruling in this case to end affirmative action.

Affirmative action is an obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It never should have been allowed.

Affirmative action was introduced in a 1965 commencement address by President Johnson that was given at Howard University. It was presented as a temporary expedient to help a race that was a priori considered to be intrinsically equal to whites.

Since then affirmative action has become a permanent entitlement for any demographic that by objective criteria tends to be of below average capability.

Affirmative action has been justified as a means of achieving diversity, but the tangible advantages of diversity have never been listed and explained.