The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 29, 2023, 02:10:23 pm
-
Wow. SCOTUS ends affirmative action in college admissions. Majority opinion by Roberts.
TheLeoTerrell
@TheLeoTerrell
·
6s
Breaking and Good News: Harvard's Affirmative Action Program is DEAD!
-
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1674419938998755331
-
Good. Now to read the opinion and see what it actually does.
The opinion can be downloaded from the Court's website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Better get it while you can.
-
Several more rulings coming today...
-
Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40.
However, there is an "out" through which leftists and racists will no doubt attempt to drive a whole fleet:
Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race,
unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs
cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. Pp. 39–40.
There will be a whole cottage industry designed to provide applicants with b.s. narratives that tie their race to "a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university" and that will be used as the determining factor in admissions.
-
However, there is an "out" through which leftists and racists will no doubt attempt to drive a whole fleet:
There will be a whole cottage industry designed to provide applicants with b.s. narratives that tie their race to "a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university" and that will be used as the determining factor in admissions.
Majority opinion by Roberts. The guy is always trying to thread the needle and fails at everything he does.
-
BREAKING: SCOTUS tosses affirmative action at Harvard, UNC
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/06/29/breaking-6-3-scotus-tosses-affirmative-action-at-harvard-unc-n561452 (https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/06/29/breaking-6-3-scotus-tosses-affirmative-action-at-harvard-unc-n561452)
“Eliminating racial discrimination,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in today’s ruling, “means eliminating all of it.” That ruling released just minutes ago swept aside decades of affirmative-action programs at Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and likely everywhere — even if Roberts reserved a narrow test on other challenges.
The 6-3 decision comes nearly two decades after Roberts’ warning that affirmative action’s days were numbered. Day Zero has apparently arrived in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard. This comes from the syllabus:
Should have been 9-0!!! Racial discrimination is wrong, whether against Jews (a century ago and making a comeback), blacks, Hispanics, Asians (east , southeast, or south), or whites.
-
Student Loan forgiveness ruling will be tomorrow per Fox
-
https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1674432761019666435
-
Ergo, affirmative action in ANY instance is unconstitutional.
-
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1674419938998755331
Jennifer seems a little upset. I hope to see more wailing and gnashing of teeth....
-
THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!
Very happy with this. And one liberal voted to get rid of it too? Awesome!
Edit: i'm wrong, this was a total ideological split.
This will also set back DEI initiatives too.
-
Okay, I'm a little bit confused here because I evidently didn't understand what these two cases were about. So maybe someone can help a brother out here....
From everything I've seen -- and I've only scanned the opinion itself but it seems to back this up -- affirmative action in college admissions was invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment. But, the 14th Amendment by its own terms only applies to state actors -- i.e., the government. So exactly how does this decision eliminate race-based preferences at private schools...like Harvard? I didn't see any discussion of that in the decision, though it is admittedly quite long and as I said, I just scanned it.
It was my understanding that these were two separate cases, with the UNC case being a 14th Amendment case applicable to state schools, and the Harvard case being a Civil Rights Act case applicable to private schools. But I haven't seen any mention of the CRA in the Harvard discussion -- just more 14th Amendment stuff.
So...can someone explain this to me?
In any event, even if it is just a 14th Amendment decision, it is still huge because it will necessarily apply to race-based preferences of all kind at all levels of government. And that's just huge.
-
Majority opinion by Roberts. The guy is always trying to thread the needle and fails at everything he does.
Louder!
-
Okay, I'm a little bit confused here because I evidently didn't understand what these two cases were about. So maybe someone can help a brother out here....
From everything I've seen -- and I've only scanned the opinion itself but it seems to back this up -- affirmative action in college admissions was invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment. But, the 14th Amendment by its own terms only applies to state actors -- i.e., the government. So exactly how does this decision eliminate race-based preferences at private schools...like Harvard? I didn't see any discussion of that in the decision, though it is admittedly quite long and as I said, I just scanned it.
It was my understanding that these were two separate cases, with the UNC case being a 14th Amendment case applicable to state schools, and the Harvard case being a Civil Rights Act case applicable to private schools. But I haven't seen any mention of the CRA in the Harvard discussion -- just more 14th Amendment stuff.
So...can someone explain this to me?
In any event, even if it is just a 14th Amendment decision, it is still huge because it will necessarily apply to race-based preferences of all kind at all levels of government. And that's just huge.
The government considers any school that allows any federal funding (like loans) to be in its jurisdiction. Only a few truly private schools escape that jurisdiction, like Hillsdale College.
-
The government considers any school that allows any federal funding (like loans) to be in its jurisdiction. Only a few truly private schools escape that jurisdiction, like Hillsdale College.
:yowsa: Every $ comes with strings attached. You can only avoid them by refusing to accept ANY federal $$$.
-
Good grief, that idiot Biden is bumbling his way through a reaction to the affirmative action ruling. He's repeating every damn thing he says.
-
However, there is an "out" through which leftists and racists will no doubt attempt to drive a whole fleet:
There will be a whole cottage industry designed to provide applicants with b.s. narratives that tie their race to "a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university" and that will be used as the determining factor in admissions.
They'll surely try, but there is decades of case law that developed where white racists attempted to find loopholes to still discriminate against black people, and all that case law and history will be there to fight against it. That includes things like in-person interviews that always seem to result in racial imbalances. So sure, some will slip through the cracks, but the pushback is so much easier now. And you'll definitely see lawsuits against schools and other government entities that try to evade this. Just for starters, very few government institutions can invest the time in creating the interview-based infrastructure and process that Harvard can.
This also means that they can no longer have policies or procedures promoting those means of obtaining "diversity". And perhaps most importantly, because race-based preferences of any kind are now out, anyone who protests against them will have legal protection from retaliation. The days of being able to cancel those who resist, at least on the state-actor level, are over.
-
Are there other cases before the court related to affirmative action in hiring and such as yet?
-
Okay, I'm a little bit confused here because I evidently didn't understand what these two cases were about. So maybe someone can help a brother out here....
From everything I've seen -- and I've only scanned the opinion itself but it seems to back this up -- affirmative action in college admissions was invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment. But, the 14th Amendment by its own terms only applies to state actors -- i.e., the government. So exactly how does this decision eliminate race-based preferences at private schools...like Harvard? I didn't see any discussion of that in the decision, though it is admittedly quite long and as I said, I just scanned it.
It was my understanding that these were two separate cases, with the UNC case being a 14th Amendment case applicable to state schools, and the Harvard case being a Civil Rights Act case applicable to private schools. But I haven't seen any mention of the CRA in the Harvard discussion -- just more 14th Amendment stuff.
So...can someone explain this to me?
In any event, even if it is just a 14th Amendment decision, it is still huge because it will necessarily apply to race-based preferences of all kind at all levels of government. And that's just huge.
The underlying claims against the two universities were brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes discrimination on the basis of race illegal for any institution that receives federal funds (generally speaking). See Gorsuch's concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions.
Furthermore, one of the schools - UNC - is a public university, and so the 14th Amendment should be directly applicable to it as a state actor without the need for Title VI.
-
Are there other cases before the court related to affirmative action in hiring and such as yet?
Not yet (to my knowledge), but they are working their way through the courts.
The one worrying aside in the Court's opinion in this case was in a footnote dealing with the U.S. government's claim that racial preferences were necessary in the military academies. That footnote specifically said that it was not considering whether there were separate issues that would justify racial discrimination in the military academies. See footnote 4 to the Court's opinion:
he United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military
academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.
It's fair enough to say that no military academy was a party to the action, but I fail to see what potentially distinct interests there might be, viz-a-viz Harvard and UNC, that would justify racist treatment of students in the military academies but not in the civilian schools.
Of course, the dissent latches onto that footnote like a drowning rat latching onto a floating stick.
-
The government considers any school that allows any federal funding (like loans) to be in its jurisdiction. Only a few truly private schools escape that jurisdiction, like Hillsdale College.
By law they are within the jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce its terms through appropriate legislation, and Congress enacted Title VI to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids discrimination consonant with the 14th Amendment's prohibition by any institution that accepts federal funds.
-
They'll surely try, but there is decades of case law that developed where white racists attempted to find loopholes to still discriminate against black people, and all that case law and history will be there to fight against it. That includes things like in-person interviews that always seem to result in racial imbalances. So sure, some will slip through the cracks, but the pushback is so much easier now. And you'll definitely see lawsuits against schools and other government entities that try to evade this. Just for starters, very few government institutions can invest the time in creating the interview-based infrastructure and process that Harvard can.
This also means that they can no longer have policies or procedures promoting those means of obtaining "diversity". And perhaps most importantly, because race-based preferences of any kind are now out, anyone who protests against them will have legal protection from retaliation. The days of being able to cancel those who resist, at least on the state-actor level, are over.
Hopefully.
-
It's fair enough to say that no military academy was a party to the action, but I fail to see what potentially distinct interests there might be, viz-a-viz Harvard and UNC, that would justify racist treatment of students in the military academies but not in the civilian schools.
Yeah, kind of weird. Maybe the need for military people who are native speakers of certain languages, or those with a certain heritage for a undercover assignments? Although I obviously have no idea if the military even has that kind of thing.
-
They can still have diversity ... just not based on race ... which is become even more subjective as wokism allows each person to self-identify their racial indentities.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MT5TG7RJU4I6TGCNTOH3UAB6QE.png&w=540)
(https://www.yellowbullet.com/attachments/5abc095d2af424e9b4367325f29de127-jpg.65142/)
-
Of Course Ketanji Brown Jackson Supports Affirmative Action. It’s The Only Reason She’s A Supreme Court Justice
There’s no denying that the Biden administration handed Jackson a position on the highest court in the land based on her sex and race.
By: Jordan Boyd
June 29, 2023
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not pleased with her judicial colleagues’ ruling that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action admissions programs are unconstitutional.
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson insisted in her dissent in the UNC ruling. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”
Jackson’s assertion that the Students for Fair Admissions decision is “truly a tragedy for us all” is not the least bit surprising considering that her ascent to the bench reeked of race-based choosing.
No matter how hard the left tries to paint Jackson’s rise as “monumental,” there’s no denying that the Biden administration handed Jackson a position in the highest court in the land based on her sex and race.
Even before he became president, Biden made it clear that nominating a black woman to Supreme Court was a top priority. When the time came to fill a spot on the bench, Biden did not offer a list of potential SCOTUS picks. ... The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/29/of-course-ketanji-brown-jackson-supports-affirmative-action-its-the-only-reason-shes-a-supreme-court-justice/)
-
Unfortunately, we will now have to be on guard against renewed efforts to pack the Court in order to undo this decision and reimplement racism in college admissions.
-
Of Course Ketanji Brown Jackson Supports Affirmative Action. It’s The Only Reason She’s A Supreme Court Justice
<Snip>
The idiot lefties on Twatter are accusing Thomas of hypocrisy because he supposedly benefited from race based quotas when he was admitted to College. I'm not sure he did, but since when has that stopped a leftie from spewing bullshit?
-
Sotomayor’s biting dissent: Ruling rolls back ‘decades of precedent and momentous progress’
by Julia Shapero - 06/29/23 10:47 AM ET
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a biting dissent blasted the Supreme Court majority decision Thursday that gutted the use of Affirmative Action on college admissions.
In a fiery dissent that Sotomayor read from the bench to underscore its historic significance, the liberal justice wrote that the ruling “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”
“In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter,” Sotomayor said in the 69-page dissent.
“The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society,” she added.
more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4073495-sotomayors-biting-dissent-ruling-rolls-back-decades-of-precedent-and-momentous-progress/
-
Get ready for their media blitz justifying the need to stack the Court.
-
Unfortunately, we will now have to be on guard against renewed efforts to pack the Court in order to undo this decision and reimplement racism in college admissions.
Always. Congress has always resisted packing the SCOTUS, even when Mr. New Deal was in office in the 30's. Back then, everybody involved knew it would lead to tit for tat battles that would create a court with 50+ members rather than just the 9 we have.
Democrats have become completely unhinged in this regard of consequences. They seem to think they will always be in power. Maybe that is why they work so hard for institutionalized electoral cheating. This will not end well.
-
Thomas in rare occurrence reads affirmative action opinion from bench
by Jared Gans - 06/29/23 11:52 AM ET
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas read his concurring opinion from the bench Thursday, a rarity that underscored the importance he ascribes to the decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
Thomas, a conservative and one of two African Americans on the court, voted with the six-member majority that found the admissions programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He also filed his own concurrence, laying out his own reasoning for his decision, and chose to read it aloud, which does not usually happen.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor also read aloud her dissenting opinion.
The ruling from the court restricts the use of race in college admissions after decades of colleges and universities using affirmative action programs to consider race as one of several factors in admitting student applicants.
more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4073736-thomas-in-rare-occurrence-reads-affirmative-action-opinion-from-bench/
-
Here's a goofy thought! Maybe the colleges should just read the transcripts and qualifications of the applicants without seeing them or knowing their locations or economic status. Of course this is sarcasm...I've never been a fan of AA.
-
Here's a goofy thought! Maybe the colleges should just read the transcripts and qualifications of the applicants without seeing them or knowing their locations or economic status. Of course this is sarcasm...I've never been a fan of AA.
If only. Of course, they frequently can assume race from the applicant's given name.
-
Polly asked:
"Are there other cases before the court related to affirmative action in hiring and such as yet?"
Not sure of any on the docket right now, although there should be some soon.
But a thought:
If "race" cannot be used to discriminate in college admissions (per the 14th Amendment), then how can it [Constitutionally] be used to discriminate anywhere else?
-
Polly asked:
"Are there other cases before the court related to affirmative action in hiring and such as yet?"
Not sure of any on the docket right now, although there should be some soon.
But a thought:
If "race" cannot be used to discriminate in college admissions (per the 14th Amendment), then how can it [Constitutionally] be used to discriminate anywhere else?
Good question. There will be a plethora of lawsuits to sort that out.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzzTMBaXsAE-wNY?format=jpg&name=900x900)