Supremes to look at Affirmative Action again next year

[Voltaire 5,523]

So the Abigail Fisher decision last time was a big deal about nothing, they bounced it down to a lower court to look at again.

 

The lower court sided with the University of Texas saying race was used properly in Fisher's case. The Supremes are going to bring Fisher's case back up to Washington for another look. Kagan will again recuse herself.

 

Apparently, a book author with ties behind the scenes said The Supremes were ready to ban it last time but Sonia Sotomayer constructed the punt and got Anthony Kennedy to agree to send it back down to a lower court. I'm of course hopeful that Kennedy sees that schools have totally ignored his attempts to reduce race in admissions, that they've continued to carry with their blatantly, openly race conscious admissions policies and piss on his fig leaf. Hopefully this time he'll grow a spine and put his foot down and eliminate it once and for all.

 

It's got to be this court with this makeup that does it. Once Hillary is sworn in, it's a liberal elite future. We'll only be seeing more and more liberal Supremes unless the GOP ever gets it's head out of it's ass.

[NewbieJr 541]

You can't hurry love

[Frank M 181]

You can't hurry love

 

No, you just have to wait.

[frank 2,355]

 

No, you just have to wait.

I didn't know you guys liked Phil Collins.

[NewbieJr 541]

I didn't know you guys liked Phil Collins.

LOVE Phil Collins. He's an easy lover

[lickin_starfish 2,027]

Affirmative Action is a racist policy, and it needs to end. Anyone who supports it is a racist.

[RLLD 4,282]

Affirmative Action is a racist policy, and it needs to end. Anyone who supports it is a racist.

 

Agree, to a point, I do think it provided a needed boost for minority access, but I also think that its time has passed. I think it is time to pull that policy back and return to a place where ones individual merit and accomplishments are the primary factor in access and achieving success.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

Agree, to a point, I do think it provided a needed boost for minority access, but I also think that its time has passed. I think it is time to pull that policy back and return to a place where ones individual merit and accomplishments are the primary factor in access and achieving success.

I agree. AA was a much needed policy when it was enacted. At this point, it's time has passed.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Agree, to a point, I do think it provided a needed boost for minority access, but I also think that its time has passed. I think it is time to pull that policy back and return to a place where ones individual merit and accomplishments are the primary factor in access and achieving success.

 

Definitely...things needed to change...and seemingly have as far as real % goes.

But merit needs to come back to the forefront.

[Herbivore 1,222]

 

Agree, to a point, I do think it provided a needed boost for minority access, but I also think that its time has passed. I think it is time to pull that policy back and return to a place where ones individual merit and accomplishments are the primary factor in access and achieving success.

 

agreed as well.

[MDC 8,085]

I honestly don't know much about the first case and don't care enough to look it up, but I'm curious whether the race-based admissions include quotas or lower standards for minorities? Or if it's a call for universities to chose a minority among two otherwise equal candidates?

 

I ask because I don't support the former but I'm on the fence with the latter.

[porkbutt 897]

they gotta end that one so they can start one for the gays.

[KSB2424 3,174]

I still don't understand how they don't force NFL teams to hire white running and corner backs.

[parrot 790]

they gotta end that one so they can start one for the gays.

 

It's a game of give and take.

[JTB 52]

Affirmative Action is a racist policy, and it needs to end. Anyone who supports it is a racist.

Wait a minute. I don't support it and I'm a racist. Hmmmmmmm. Everyone a racist?

[Voltaire 5,523]

Wait a minute. I don't support it and I'm a racist. Hmmmmmmm. Everyone a racist?

Personally I think the supporters are racist. Also it's so blatantly unconstitutional as well. I've no idea how some folks can spin equal protection under the law into 'privileged minorities are more equal than everybody else'.

 

 

 

AMENDMENT XIV of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[GobbleDog 1,018]

Personally I think the supporters are racist.

 

In the old days "racist" implied real hate. Like the KKK or similar hate monger groups.

 

Apprently the definition now covers the hate groups, along with anyone who merely doesn't love all demographics, supports/dislikes certain laws, or tells a an off-color joke. I'm sticking with the old definition, but admitidly I'm old fashioned.

[tanatastic 2,062]

Seriously I read the op twice and still don't know if this is about the group The Supremes or some court thing. I truly don't know.

[rholio 340]

As written, AA is fine. It's how it's used that is completely racist.