Supreme Court agrees to hear case on Affirmative Action next year

[Cigar]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday waded into a new major battle over the future of affirmative action in university admissions by agreeing to take up for the second time a challenge to the process for picking students used by the University of Texas.

The justices agreed to hear a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the entering class of 2008. The court will review a July 2014 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the university.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-is-next-major-battle-supreme-court-will-tackle/

Justice Kagan recuses herself because she participated in the case as solicitor general as it was being argued in the 5th circuit.

This will be the second time the court has heard this case. The first time around the court decided to punt on it and send it back to the lower courts with instructions. But now it's coming back.

[Captain Obvious]

You mean "equality through discrimination" might be a SCOTUS issue?

[zelmo1234]

The U of Michigan ruling will play a huge role in this.

Affirmative actions is starting to be viewed as discrimination, even by the courts.

[Cigar]

The U of Michigan ruling will play a huge role in this.

Affirmative actions is starting to be viewed as discrimination, even by the courts.

So what you're saying is, sucks when it happens to you. :laugh:

[midcan5]

How does one measure discrimination? Consider 'who you know' as one way, is that not often discrimination against someone else? Or say letting George W. Bush into Yale and Harvard? Discrimination, definitely if we are to be honest. Affirmative action violates the privileges of whites to an expected outcome, thus it must be discrimination if another should gain access and they don't. Right? Let's forget racism for minute shall we. Sure thing.

http://origins.osu.edu/review/when-affirmative-action-was-white-untold-history-racial-inequality-twentieth-century-america

'MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.'

'FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated."'

Edit: https://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=806824&confid=1031

"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley

You already know the vote, why pretend there are important constitutional issues at risk. Five to four tells us lots, don't you think.

"In predictable ways, Republican judicial appointees differ from Democratic judicial appointees on all of the great constitutional questions of the day, including affirmative action, campaign finance regulation, gun control, abortion, and sex discrimination. On many issues, the positions of Republican and Democratic judicial appointees look uncomfortably close to their respective party platforms." http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/oct/09/hidden-stakes-election/

White privilege.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9ndyej7YUU

Whites appear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

[Peter1469]

I expect the court will look to see whether the locality at issue has sufficiently addressed the reasons for affirmative action in the first place, and if so say it is time to stop with the affirmative action.

[Captain Obvious]

I expect the court will look to see whether the locality at issue has sufficiently addressed the reasons for affirmative action in the first place, and if so say it is time to stop with the affirmative action.

Depends on what racial issues are flavor of the day at the time, if/when the issue is heard.

[The Sage of Main Street]

How does one measure discrimination? Consider 'who you know' as one way, is that not often discrimination against someone else? Or say letting George W. Bush into Yale and Harvard? Discrimination, definitely if we are to be honest. Affirmative action violates the privileges of whites to an expected outcome, thus it must be discrimination if another should gain access and they don't. Right? Let's forget racism for minute shall we. Sure thing.

http://origins.osu.edu/review/when-affirmative-action-was-white-untold-history-racial-inequality-twentieth-century-america


Edit: https://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=806824&confid=1031





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc What kind of logic links discrimination in favor of Preppies with discrimination in favor of Whites who aren't Preppies?

[waltky]

SCOTUS upholds reverse discrimination...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_omg.gif
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action program
June 23, 2016 WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld the use of racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas Thursday, giving an unexpected reprieve to the type of affirmative action policies it has condoned for nearly four decades.


The 4-3 ruling did not address all programs designed to attract a diverse student body at colleges and universities, which the court endorsed twice in 1978 and 2003. But Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court's more liberal justices said Texas' unique method of singling out some minority students for admission to its flagship campus in Austin was constitutional. The dramatic decision was made without Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13, and Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself because she worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general before joining the court. It was the second time the high court had considered it; in 2013, the justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court with instructions to more closely scrutinize the university's program, but that court again sided with the school.


http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/44e04401b7756e2eb2adb3cbcab73328aa7d02a3/c=67-0-2734-2005&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/04/19/USATODAY/USATODAY/635966760646806836-AP-Affirmative-Action-Texas.jpg
Abigail Fisher and one of her attorneys, Edward Blum

This time, it appeared during oral argument that a majority of justices were prepared to rule that the school's use of race violated the Constitution's equal protection clause by giving minority students a leg up. The university already uses a system where a set percentage of top-ranked students from all high schools that use such rankings are admitted, including those in heavily minority neighborhoods. The case had threatened the use of racial preferences not only at the University of Texas-Austin but across the nation, since the court's ruling could have cast doubt on most affirmative action policies. In that sense, the narrow decision targeting only the Texas policy amounted to a partial victory for proponents of affirmative action.

The court's conservative justices made clear, however, that they were impatient with the continued use of affirmative action, more than a decade after a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor upheld racial preferences in college admissions but said they should be unnecessary in 25 years. Justice Samuel Alito announced his dissent from the bench, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas agreeing. Scalia, whose sudden death and Senate Republicans' refusal to consider a successor until next year, has left the court in limbo. During oral argument in December, Scalia expressed the most controversial opinions. Citing briefs that suggest African Americans may fare better at "less advanced" or "slower-track" schools, he said, "*I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."


http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/51e8ca9e7672098d222930ab38de3b5922406b97/c=241-0-3954-2792&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/04/19/USATODAY/USATODAY/635966758821595136-XXX-USAT-Affirmative-Action-134080-20151117-134752-5442.jpg
Students fill the sidewalks between classes in November at the University of Texas-Austin.

The court's liberal justices stood firmly behind the continued use of racial preferences, something the high court upheld in California in 1978 and then in Michigan a quarter century later. They argued that the university at least should be able to prove its case at a fact-finding hearing in Texas before the court considers striking down its program. That left Kennedy, as usual, as the swing vote. He complained that, more than two years after his 7-1 opinion sent the case back to a federal appeals court for closer scrutiny, little had changed. "We're just arguing the same case," Kennedy groused. "It's as if nothing had happened." The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman denied entry to her state's flagship university. She ultimately graduated from Louisiana State University but had continued to press her case with the aid of the Project on Fair Representation, a conservative legal group.

The school's first method of integration — accepting the top students from every high school that uses class rankings — wasn't challenged, even though it "trades on the de facto segregation that still exists in Texas" to pull in minorities, the school's Supreme Court brief noted. What was contested is the second method — a topping-off of each freshman class by focusing on a variety of factors, from special talents and extracurricular activities to socioeconomics, race and ethnicity. Those last factors are used to produce what the school calls "diversity within diversity" — a representative mix of minority students, rather than just those from segregated communities with similar backgrounds and experiences.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-university-texas-affirmative-action-race/83239790/

[Mac-7]

I expect the court will look to see whether the locality at issue has sufficiently addressed the reasons for affirmative action in the first place, and if so say it is time to stop with the affirmative action.

I doubt is the liberal judges will look at anything except a nose count.

if a 5th liberal joins the court thst judge will vote with the other liberals.

no thought is required for that

[birddog]

I believe in Equal Rights for all. Special rights for minorities and quxxrs in this day and age should not be.

[silvereyes]

SCOTUS upholds reverse discrimination...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_omg.gif
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action program
June 23, 2016 WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld the use of racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas Thursday, giving an unexpected reprieve to the type of affirmative action policies it has condoned for nearly four decades.

I see that Necromancer the Great is here today. :)

[silvereyes]

I believe in Equal Rights for all. Special rights for minorities and quxxrs in this day and age should not be.

The most foul "queers" are the ones that still use the word "queer." Well, lookie what that makes YOU.

[donttread]

I believe in Equal Rights for all. Special rights for minorities and quxxrs in this day and age should not be.

Simplest thing in the world but Washing has to complicate the hell out of it.

[Standing Wolf]

How is it that an even moderately educated adult human being in the 21st Century can fail to understand that when a minority is forbidden access to a public institution, it is the majority that is being given "special rights"?

[Common]

The most foul "queers" are the ones that still use the word "queer." Well, lookie what that makes YOU.

You complain me and peter are sarcstic lol

[birddog]

The most foul "$#@!s" are the ones that still use the word "$#@!." Well, lookie what that makes YOU.

In your opinion, but that doesn't amount to much. If you are a quxxr, I will be happy to use the word homosexual. I can't help being a nice guy, but I do tell it like it is. I'm not being offensive, or at least certainly less than you.

[Common]

I really dont care about affirmative action, if it does help a few minorities I see that as a good thing.
I dont think its really used that much in the first place.

[Subdermal]

How is it that an even moderately educated adult human being in the 21st Century can fail to understand that when a minority is forbidden access to a public institution, it is the majority that is being given "special rights"?

I take serious issue with your statement.

Claiming 'forbidden access' is just your attempt to spin the issue. Can you produce an actual minority who was 'forbidden access'?

The actual discrimination visible to the public eye wrt this issue are examples like that of the OP: qualified white kids who are being passed over for equally - or less - qualified minorities simply to fulfill quotas based upon skin color, instead of merit-based approval.

There is no fairness in that. The white kid passed over because of preferential policy as a result of skin color is a blatant violation of that kid's Constitutional right to equal treatment.

[Mac-7]

How is it that an even moderately educated adult human being in the 21st Century can fail to understand that when a minority is forbidden access to a public institution, it is the majority that is being given "special rights"?

Minorities are not "forbidden access" to public institutions.

But a healthy academic system must give preferential treatment to the most qualified applicants not admit less qualified people because they happen to be black.

[Common]

Minorities are not "forbidden access" to public institutions.

But a healthy academic system must give preferential treatment to the most qualified applicants not admit less qualified people because they happen to be black.

I dont think affirmative action is about taking less qualified people, its about assuring they dont pass people that are qualified for other reasons.

[Mac-7]

I dont think affirmative action is about taking less qualified people, its about assuring they dont pass people that are qualified for other reasons.

Do you mean "dont pass over" minorities because they are black?

Because AA makes room for minorities in spite of their qualifications

[Common]

Do you mean "dont pass over" minorities because they are black?

Because AA makes room for minorities in spite of their qualifications

Mac a few black kids getting into college is the LEAST of our problems. Affirmative action in the workplace is just about dead. You cant complain black kids cause problems and commit crimes and then you begrudge them when they want and are trying to get ahead. Lifes not easy being poor I lived it. I say if you can give a kid a boost and keep him from thugdom im good with it.

[Mac-7]

Mac a few black kids getting into college is the LEAST of our problems.

Affirmative action in the workplace is just about dead. You cant complain black kids cause problems and commit crimes and then you begrudge them when they want and are trying to get ahead. Lifes not easy being poor I lived it. I say if you can give a kid a boost and keep him from thugdom im good with it.

Its a problem for the more qualified white girl in this case who was denied admission so that a less qualifed black person could get that seat.

she is a real person with aspirations too

[Common]

Its a problem for the more qualified white girl in this case who was denied admission so that a less qualifed black person could get that seat.

she is a real person with aspirations too

I agree with you there totally, they should have taken her too, not replaced her

[Mac-7]

I agree with you there totally, they should have taken her too, not replaced her

The school cant take everyone.

the UT campus is already larger than most small towns in the state

[Common]

The school cant take everyone.

the UT campus is already larger than most small towns in the state

Then she has to go elsewhere or wait a year. Look it was the law and the challenge was defeated.

Affirmative action in one form or another has been around since the late 60s. It started as a quota system

[Mac-7]

Then she has to go elsewhere or wait a year. Look it was the law and the challenge was defeated.

Affirmative action in one form or another has been around since the late 60s. It started as a quota system

Why cant the less qualified black person go somewhere else?

[Common]

Why cant the less qualified black person go somewhere else?

Because the LAW says he doesnt have too and the supreme court upheld it.

Mac, the law is the law for everyone whether you like the law or you dont like the law. We dont get to pick and choose which laws we will abide by or not.

Scotus is the last stop for EVERYTHING, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, obamacare. You name it the buck stops there.

[Mac-7]

Because the LAW says he doesnt have too and the supreme court upheld it.

Mac, the law is the law for everyone whether you like the law or you dont like the law. We dont get to pick and choose which laws we will abide by or not.

Scotus is the last stop for EVERYTHING, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, obamacare. You name it the buck stops there.

I thought we were discussing the merits of case not pounding everyone into submission.

just because 4 unelected assholes in black robes issue a decree does not make it right.

or end the debate

[Common]

I thought we were discussing the merits of case not pounding everyone into submission.

just because 4 unelected assholes in black robes issue a decree does not make it right.

or end the debate

We are discussing the merits but in discussing the merits you have to consider that the decision of right and wrong, up or down is made for us.

Let me be blunt so you get this. Doesnt matter what you like mac the law is the law and scotus said so. Thats what it all boils down too. There is NO DEBATE about affirmative action, its over. Move on to something you have a chance to win

[Mac-7]

We are discussing the merits but in discussing the merits you have to consider that the decision of right and wrong, up or down is made for us.

Let me be blunt so you get this. Doesnt matter what you like mac the law is the law and scotus said so. Thats what it all boils down too. There is NO DEBATE about affirmative action, its over. Move on to something you have a chance to win

That is quite blunt.

Its lucky for black people that you were not directing traffic after the Dred Scott decision.

[Subdermal]

How does one measure discrimination? Consider 'who you know' as one way, is that not often discrimination against someone else? Or say letting George W. Bush into Yale and Harvard? Discrimination, definitely if we are to be honest. Affirmative action violates the privileges of whites to an expected outcome, thus it must be discrimination if another should gain access and they don't. Right? Let's forget racism for minute shall we. Sure thing.

Your entire post is a fallacy. You cannot assume the challenged premise as fact within your stupid definition of terms.

No, Afffirmative Action isn't a 'violation of privileges of whites to an expected outcome'. That's contrived bullsht. What AA does is supercede qualifications for skin color.

Your claim that "it must be discrimination if another should gain access and they don't" can be flipped on you very easily, only in the example of flipping it back on you, we don't have to establish as fact a contrived skin-color based reason for the decision: you've already admitted it.

If too many Hispanic kids have already been admitted to a college, and the college is looking to fill a quota and needs more blacks, how just is it to the Hispanic kid with better grades and scores to be passed over to fill a quota?

You're every bit as bad as the racists you imagine behind every corner. You are one yourself, deluding yourself into imagining all sorts of injustices to justify your own.

[Common]

That is quite blunt.

Its lucky for black people that you were not directing traffic after the Dred Scott decision.

Ok tell me your plan to over ride the supreme court mac

[Subdermal]

AA needs to be abandoned. Employment of AA is codified racism; it is literally making skin color the determinant of award.

That makes the system inherently racist. At least before, acts of racism fell upon individuals and private entities, and we were free to condemn them for their naked actions.

I can tell you firsthand this takes place. My daughter - white (though I am partially Hispanic by nationality, though she benefits from it by only being able to claim 1/8th Hispanic as a result), and a well-rounded high achiever (~15 college AP credits going into her first year, ACT score of 33, with 35 in Math and English, 4.0+ student, 4 year varsity volleyball 3 year team captain, Classic 8 Conference Player of the Year, etc) - was a finalist for a substantial college scholarship.

She lost it to a black girl whose resume wasn't even a shadow of my daughter's. Not even close. Try to convince us that political correctness didn't have a major role in that decision, and you'll fail. It wasn't even close. It was obvious to everyone that the girl's skin color played the primary role in the determination of award.

A Caucasian girl without a racist bone in her body suffers racism as well, as it is an individual pain. There is no justice in this policy.

[Subdermal]

Ok tell me your plan to over ride the supreme court mac

Justice Stevens had always taken the other side in this matter - until this time. The logic for reversing is clearly tortured, if you read his statement. He actually wrote that skin color can be ONE of the factors that determines merit, just not the ONLY factor.

Yeah. No one could drive a lynching bus through that tortured hole of logic.

He literally John Roberts' this decision.

The answer to your question is to continue to keep this topic alive for the rank example of codified racism that it is, and continue to vote for politicians who will result in Conservative appointments to SCOTUS.

[Mac-7]

Ok tell me your plan to over ride the supreme court mac

Pass a new law banning affirmative action

or better yet repeal the laws its based on now

[Standing Wolf]

I take serious issue with your statement.

Claiming 'forbidden access' is just your attempt to spin the issue. Can you produce an actual minority who was 'forbidden access'?

The actual discrimination visible to the public eye wrt this issue are examples like that of the OP: qualified white kids who are being passed over for equally - or less - qualified minorities simply to fulfill quotas based upon skin color, instead of merit-based approval.

There is no fairness in that. The white kid passed over because of preferential policy as a result of skin color is a blatant violation of that kid's Constitutional right to equal treatment.

That's my fault - I should have been more specific about which comment I was responding to. I was referring to the (really, off-topic) remarks of a couple of posters to the effect that Gay people were being afforded "special rights" by recent legal changes granting them access to such public institutions as civil marriage and adoption. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

I am of the same opinion that you are on the current topic. Discrimination on the basis of race, when practiced by a public institution, was wrong fifty years ago and is wrong now.

[donttread]

So what you're saying is, sucks when it happens to you. :laugh:

No, I believe he is saying something closer to "you can't fix discrimination via legislated discrimination. Much of this stems from liberal racism. At least conservatives believe minorites can compete on a level playing field , libs don't. Also, if minorities do compete equally on a level playing field a huge portion of the liberal platform dies