Finally: Supremes kill Affirmative Action

[JustRalph]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/29/supr...admission.html

This shit went on way too long

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

And I blame the Teachers Unions for their failures

[Tom]

I DEMAND REPARATIONS!!!

[Inner Dirt]

Affirmative action = racism.

[rastajenk]

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

[formula_2002]

Thomas is quoted "the constitution is color blind". I dont think so. It's a false precedent. I doubt his judgement. The constitution protects all people. What is the supreme court giving up here. Why did they require two southern states to redistrict their voting districts? Why because it was not fair to blacks. Equal protection under the law. If it's color blind why have such a law.
Laws are required to be reinforced. The 14th amendment is not color blind.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Thomas is quoted "the constitution is color blind". I dont think so. It's a false precedent. I doubt his judgement. The constitution protects all people. What is the supreme court giving up here. Why did they require two southern states to redistrict their voting districts? Why because it was not fair to blacks. Equal protection under the law. If it's color blind why have such a law.
Laws are required to be reinforced. The 14th amendment is not color blind.

Thomas is a hypocrite. He wouldn’t be sitting on the bench except for affirmative action.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Thomas is quoted "the constitution is color blind". I dont think so. It's a false precedent. I doubt his judgement. The constitution protects all people. What is the supreme court giving up here. Why did they require two southern states to redistrict their voting districts? Why because it was not fair to blacks. Equal protection under the law. If it's color blind why have such a law.
Laws are required to be reinforced. The 14th amendment is not color blind.

Yeah it is. Even though there is still some discrimination against minorities, the solution is NOT to double down on it with more discriminatory policies.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah it is. Even though there is still some discrimination against minorities, the solution is NOT to double down on it with more discriminatory policies.

no need to double down. the 14th is the law

[formula_2002]

"Thomas argued in his concurrence that previous Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action allowed universities to discriminate against applicants in their admissions process. He wrote that the Constitution is “color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

“The Court today makes clear that, in the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence,” Thomas said. “Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so.”"

what!! LOL

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

"Thomas argued in his concurrence that previous Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action allowed universities to discriminate against applicants in their admissions process. He wrote that the Constitution is “color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

“The Court today makes clear that, in the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence,” Thomas said. “Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so.”"

what!! LOL

Is there a problem?

Are you now suddenly against concrete Supreme Court decisions?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Is there a problem?

Are you now suddenly against concrete Supreme Court decisions?

First;
NO PROBLEM AT ALL IN THE THOMAS WORLD.
concrete
clear and certain, or real and existing in a form that can be seen ...

evidence
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is ...


Thomas is saying “….I highly doubt any will be able to do so”
Sounds like he is highly doubtful there is any discrimination base on race in admissions.
The Thomas world is pure and fine..

So what happens when a lower court sides with the “concrete evidence” of a plaintiff? Can the supreme court over-rule it because the concrete evidence was not (HARD) enough.

Do I need to go to the Second?

No, not against CONCRETE Supreme Court decision. we all have to live with a certain amount of stupidity. but we'll work it out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

First;
NO PROBLEM AT ALL IN THE THOMAS WORLD.
concrete
clear and certain, or real and existing in a form that can be seen ...

evidence
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is ...


Thomas is saying “….I highly doubt any will be able to do so”
Sounds like he is highly doubtful there is any discrimination base on race in admissions.
The Thomas world is pure and fine..

So what happens when a lower court sides with the “concrete evidence” of a plaintiff? Can the supreme court over-rule it because the concrete evidence was not (HARD) enough.

Do I need to go to the Second?

No, not against CONCRETE Supreme Court decision. we all have to live with a certain amount of stupidity. but we'll work it out.

Oh, so now it has to be a "concrete" decision in your world.

Keep moving them goalposts.

[OntheRail]

Have no fear... the Briben Administration has already assembled a topnotch crack team to scheme a work around. Headed by the smartest people he knows. No expense will be spared to keep racism an intrical part of the democrats platform and governance. The left is the catalyst for systemic racism in America.

Hey maybe it would count as Community Service towards Hunter's sweetheart plea deal.

[rastajenk]

As usual, Formula lost me somewhere....