The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 31, 2022, 04:47:54 pm
-
Affirmative action on the line as Supreme Court hears Harvard and UNC admissions case
By Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter
& Jeremiah Poff, Education Reporter
October 31, 2022 06:05 AM
Colleges across the United States are preparing for a future without race-based admissions policies as the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to end decades of affirmative action precedent.
The legal effort was brought to the high court by the conservative group Students for Fair Admissions, which argues that nearly four decades of affirmative action precedent have disproportionately harmed Asian American applicants and that institutions should amend their policies to adopt "race-neutral" standards. The justices will hear two cases Monday over admissions policies at the public University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the private Harvard University .
Edward Blum, the 70-year-old head at SFFA and a longtime critic of affirmative action, said the group represents nearly 20,000 students who are asking the high court to overturn its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed the partial use of race in admissions at the University of Michigan in a 5-4 opinion in 2003, so long as it didn't rely on race as a sole deciding factor.
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/affirmative-action-supreme-court-hears-harvard-unc-admissions-case
-
October 31, 2022 12:11pm EDT
Ketanji Brown Jackson clashes with anti-affirmative action lawyer during Supreme Court arguments
Jackson pressed lawyer over if use of race as a factor in admissions in enough for 'standing' to sue
By Tyler Olson | Fox News
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Monday clashed with a lawyer for a student group seeking to end affirmative action in college admissions, as the justice challenged whether the group has "standing" to sue.
"Why is it that race is doing anything different to your members' ability to compete in this environment," in comparison to a number of other factors involved in admissions, Jackson asked Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge.
"It's in the context of all of the other factors…the admissions office is looking at," Jackson added. "You haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race. They're looking at the full person."
Jackson also said that SFFA seemed to be looking for "special standing" in the case. Standing is a legal term for the "harm" suffered by one person that allows the person to sue in court to have it remedied.
more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-clashes-anti-affirmative-action-lawyer-supreme-court-arguments
-
If they didn't already have 'standing' they would not be in the court?
-
Why did fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blone Elizabeth Warren list her race as American Indian? What more was she hoping to gain by not listing her race as white?
(https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MT5TG7RJU4I6TGCNTOH3UAB6QE.png)
-
October 31, 2022 12:11pm EDT
Ketanji Brown Jackson clashes with anti-affirmative action lawyer during Supreme Court arguments
Jackson pressed lawyer over if use of race as a factor in admissions in enough for 'standing' to sue
By Tyler Olson | Fox News
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Monday clashed with a lawyer for a student group seeking to end affirmative action in college admissions, as the justice challenged whether the group has "standing" to sue.
"Why is it that race is doing anything different to your members' ability to compete in this environment," in comparison to a number of other factors involved in admissions, Jackson asked Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge.
"It's in the context of all of the other factors…the admissions office is looking at," Jackson added. "You haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race. They're looking at the full person."
Jackson also said that SFFA seemed to be looking for "special standing" in the case. Standing is a legal term for the "harm" suffered by one person that allows the person to sue in court to have it remedied.
more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-clashes-anti-affirmative-action-lawyer-supreme-court-arguments
Is she really that stupid? If race is used as a factor in admissions, then it necessarily follows that someone who was of the "wrong" race was denied an admission that would not have been denied if race had not been a factor. That is precisely the sort of injury in fact that is necessary to sustain standing.
-
Supreme Court leans toward ending affirmative action in college admissions
NBC News, Oct 31, 2022
WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court justices indicated Monday that they are willing to end the explicit consideration of race in college admissions as they weighed cases challenging affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University.
Members of the court's conservative majority questioned the legal rationale for allowing the practice and probed to what extent colleges and universities could enact new "race neutral" admissions policies aimed at improving racial diversity. Some justices, however, indicated they would be willing to allow applicants to discuss their racial identities in some form as part of essays touching upon their experiences, such as examples of overcoming discrimination.
Liberal justices, who are in the minority, defended the use of race in admissions, citing the importance of diversity on campus and the difficulty of achieving it without any consideration of race.
More: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hears-challenges-affirmative-action-college-admissions-rcna54564
-
Justice Thomas Unloads on Lawyer Defending Affirmative Action: ‘Diversity Seems to Mean Everything for Everyone’
National Review, Oct 31, 2022
Justice Clarence Thomas pressed North Carolina’s solicitor general to explain how the University of North Carolina defines diversity during oral arguments on Monday in a Supreme Court case centered around the use of race as a factor in college admissions.
"I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don’t have a clue what it means,” said Thomas. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has challenged the race-based admissions policies of both Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), accusing both schools of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. The cases were initially merged, but are now being heard separately after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case because she had previously served on the university’s board of overseers.
Thomas asked Ryan Park, the North Carolina solicitor general, to offer a specific definition of diversity in the context of UNC and provide a clear idea of what the educational benefits of diversity at the school would be.
"First, we define diversity the way this court has, in its court’s precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race,” said Park, before adding that there are “many different diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race.”
“I didn’t go to racially diverse schools but there were educational benefits,” replied Thomas, before again pushing for Park to list specific educational benefits.
Park said that there is a “truth seeking function of learning in a diverse environment,” and pointed out that certain studies have found that racially diverse groups of people making stock trading decisions perform at a higher level, and make more efficient trading decisions.
“The mechanism there is it reduces group think and people have longer and more sustained disagreement and that leads to a more efficient outcome,” Park explained.
Thomas said he doesn’t “put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.”
More: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-thomas-on-affirmative-action-case-diversity-seems-to-mean-everything-for-everyone/
-
Democrats. Opposing Equal Protection since 1836.
-
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FOR THE WIN
Powerline, Oct 31, 2022, STEVEN HAYWARD
I listened to all five hours of the Supreme Court oral argument today while on a long car drive home, and am hoping to post a special podcast tomorrow going over the whole scene, but for me, one single moment especially stands out. Seth Waxman, the primary attorney defending Harvard (a former solicitor general under President Clinton), was going head-to-head with Chief Justice John Roberts about whether race is a “minor” factor in admissions, or a decisive factor, as the defenders of race-conscious admissions were trying to have it both ways all day. Let’s just pick up the dialogue in the midde:
MR. WAXMAN: No, I know. I’m –I’m attempting to answer your question.
There is no doubt that for –as the testimony showed, that for applicants who are essentially so strong on multiple dimensions, so extraordinarily strong on multiple dimensions that they are sort of on the bubble, that they might –they have a real candidate for admission, African American –being African American or being Hispanic or in some instances being Asian American can provide one of many, many tips that will put you in.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, people say that, yes, but you will have to concede, if it provides one of many, that in some cases it will be determinative.
MR. WAXMAN: I do. I do concede that.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So we’re talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard.
MR. WAXMAN: Race in some –for some highly qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being the –you know, an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah. We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.
I nearly drove off the road in delight at this reply. If the case turns out the right way, I think this will be one of the key moments where Harvard lost the case.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/10/chief-justice-roberts-for-the-win.php
-
Why did fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blone Elizabeth Warren list her race as American Indian? What more was she hoping to gain by not listing her race as white?
More importantly. Why does it matter? Why is there a box for race in the first place?
The only word I ever write in that box is the word 'American'.
-
Justice Thomas Unloads on Lawyer Defending Affirmative Action: ‘Diversity Seems to Mean Everything for Everyone’
National Review, Oct 31, 2022
Justice Clarence Thomas pressed North Carolina’s solicitor general to explain how the University of North Carolina defines diversity during oral arguments on Monday in a Supreme Court case centered around the use of race as a factor in college admissions.
"I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don’t have a clue what it means,” said Thomas. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has challenged the race-based admissions policies of both Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), accusing both schools of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. The cases were initially merged, but are now being heard separately after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case because she had previously served on the university’s board of overseers.
Thomas asked Ryan Park, the North Carolina solicitor general, to offer a specific definition of diversity in the context of UNC and provide a clear idea of what the educational benefits of diversity at the school would be.
"First, we define diversity the way this court has, in its court’s precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race,” said Park, before adding that there are “many different diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race.”
“I didn’t go to racially diverse schools but there were educational benefits,” replied Thomas, before again pushing for Park to list specific educational benefits.
Park said that there is a “truth seeking function of learning in a diverse environment,” and pointed out that certain studies have found that racially diverse groups of people making stock trading decisions perform at a higher level, and make more efficient trading decisions.
“The mechanism there is it reduces group think and people have longer and more sustained disagreement and that leads to a more efficient outcome,” Park explained.
Thomas said he doesn’t “put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.”
More: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-thomas-on-affirmative-action-case-diversity-seems-to-mean-everything-for-everyone/
Bravo Justice Thomas!
-
More importantly. Why does it matter? Why is there a box for race in the first place?
The only word I ever write in that box is the word 'American'.
REALLY? I always put NASCAR. :laugh:
-
NASCAR = Non-Athletic Southern Cracker's Attempt at Recreation
-
NASCAR = Non-Athletic Southern Cracker's Attempt at Recreation
YEP. That one. 03 till I die. :laugh:
-
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
If you want to talk about systemic racism in America, I say great, let’s start with Affirmative Action
9:06 AM · Nov 1, 2022 ·Twitter for iPhone
-
Posted on October 31, 2022 by Steven Hayward
Chief Justice Roberts for the Win
I listened to all five hours of the Supreme Court oral argument today while on a long car drive home, and am hoping to post a special podcast tomorrow going over the whole scene, but for me, one single moment especially stands out. Seth Waxman, the primary attorney defending Harvard (a former solicitor general under President Clinton), was going head-to-head with Chief Justice John Roberts about whether race is a “minor” factor in admissions, or a decisive factor, as the defenders of race-conscious admissions were trying to have it both ways all day. Let’s just pick up the dialogue in the middle:
MR. WAXMAN: No, I know. I’m –I’m attempting to answer your question.
There is no doubt that for –as the testimony showed, that for applicants who are essentially so strong on multiple dimensions, so extraordinarily strong on multiple dimensions that they are sort of on the bubble, that they might –they have a real candidate for admission, African American –being African American or being Hispanic or in some instances being Asian American can provide one of many, many tips that will put you in.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, people say that, yes, but you will have to concede, if it provides one of many, that in some cases it will be determinative.
MR. WAXMAN: I do. I do concede that.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So we’re talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard.
MR. WAXMAN: Race in some –for some highly qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being the –you know, an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah. We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.
I nearly drove off the road in delight at this reply. If the case turns out the right way, I think this will be one of the key moments where Harvard lost the case.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/10/chief-justice-roberts-for-the-win.php
-
AUDIO: Harvard Lawyer Struggles to Explain Why Asian Applicants Are Given Lower ‘Personal’ Scores
Breitbart, Oct 31, 2022
Seth Waxman, an attorney for Harvard College, struggled to explain to the Supreme Court on Monday why Asian American applicants were consistently given lower “personal” scores in admissions criteria than measures of other racial and ethnic groups.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed Waxman on the issue, which is at the core of a discrimination case brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard, alleging that its affirmative action policies discriminate against Asian American applicants. The Harvard case is being heard alongside a similar case, brought by the same plaintiff, against the University of North Carolina.
As Breitbart News reported in 2018, the trial at the district court level revealed a 2013 internal Harvard study that raised suspicions that the “personal” score used subjective and amorphous criteria that would allow the university to discriminate against Asians:
The study, as described by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, found that if admissions were based on academic performance and extracurricular activities alone, Asian-American applicants would comprise 43% of the freshman class. However, the actual percentage of Asian-American applicants was about half that.
The key appeared to be the inclusion of a “personality” component in evaluating applicants. Subsequent reporting by the Crimson revealed that traits included in “personality” were: “humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness and many other qualities.”
Alito asked Waxman to explain why Asian applicants scored lower on the “personal” criterion. Waxman tried to evade the question, then described the difference on the personal score as small, and finally resorted to citing the district court’s decision in Harvard’s favor, which concluded that there was no discrimination. However, he admitted that the district court had not had full access to the precise criteria used in evaluating an applicant’s personal score.
Waxman then argued that the personal score was merely a form of “triage” to manage a large number of applications, and had no statistical effect on the outcome.
“Then why do you do it?” Alito asked.
More: https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/10/31/harvard-lawyer-struggles-to-explain-why-asian-applicants-are-given-lower-personal-scores/
-
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah. We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.
:mauslaff:
-
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
If you want to talk about systemic racism in America, I say great, let’s start with Affirmative Action
9:06 AM · Nov 1, 2022 ·Twitter for iPhone
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
I'll just simply say.....
When hiring, I was asked by HR to hire minority/women if it was close between candidates..........
-
Ongoing disussion here @mystery-ak https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,483744.0.html
-
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah. We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players."
The woodwind section never gets any respect. It was always about drums and horns damnit.
-
Is she really that stupid? If race is used as a factor in admissions, then it necessarily follows that someone who was of the "wrong" race was denied an admission that would not have been denied if race had not been a factor. That is precisely the sort of injury in fact that is necessary to sustain standing.
YES! She really is that stupid!
Excellent post! @Kamaji
-
REALLY? I always put NASCAR. :laugh:
Stealing that.
-
Stealing that.
:beer:
-
Dershowitz: "I don’t believe that these universities are interested in intellectual, academic diversity. They're interested only in having a photograph that shows a significant number of people — it’s a quota system."
https://twitter.com/Logan_Ratick/status/1587460340505157637
-
If universities were really interested in diversity, they would hire more Conservative faculty members.
-
If universities were really interested in diversity, they would hire more Conservative faculty members.
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
If universities were really interested in diversity, they would hire more Conservative faculty members.
Exactly.
-
U.S. Supreme Court likely to end affirmative action in college admissions: legal experts
'This proved to be a full-contact oral argument for both the advocates and the justices,' law professor Jonathan Turley stated to Fox News.
By Ian Miles Cheong | November 01, 2022
Supreme Court experts have said that the Justices are likely to end the use of affirmative action in college admissions.
Speaking to Fox News, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said, “This proved to be a full-contact oral argument for both the advocates and the justices,” and that “The challengers clearly had a better day before the court.”
The court previously heard two other cases on the use of race admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The activist group, Students for Fair Admissions, brought forward both cases, Fox News reported.
“Chief Justice Roberts at points appeared to be losing his patience with Harvard's counsel Seth Waxman due to his combative style in oral argument,” Turley said in an interview with Fox News Digital. “Waxman spoke over a number of justices who asked questions and did not appear responsive to direct questions from justices.” ... Rebel News (https://www.rebelnews.com/u_s_supreme_court_likely_to_end_affirmative_action_college_admissions)
-
Reading what KJB is saying is like a masters course in woke thinking. Mostly circular logic based on fictional, non-provable, or nearly faith based assumptions.
It's like arguing that cricknats are better than beztipuls.
-
Richard Hanania
@RichardHanania
In a discussion over affirmative action, Sotomayor ironically shows she doesn't know the basic difference between "de facto" and "de jure." It's not a slip of the tongue, they go back and forth, Alito tries to correct her and she proceeds to make the same mistake.
Someone observing the oral argument tells me that Kagan was trying to make a coherent point, and was interrupted by Sotomayor asking some nonsense question. Kagan then "immediately folded her head into her hands and then glared at Soto."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgfY1QvUAAAN4FZ?format=png&name=large)
-
Richard Hanania
@RichardHanania
In a discussion over affirmative action, Sotomayor ironically shows she doesn't know the basic difference between "de facto" and "de jure." It's not a slip of the tongue, they go back and forth, Alito tries to correct her and she proceeds to make the same mistake.
Someone observing the oral argument tells me that Kagan was trying to make a coherent point, and was interrupted by Sotomayor asking some nonsense question. Kagan then "immediately folded her head into her hands and then glared at Soto."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgfY1QvUAAAN4FZ?format=png&name=large)
That is a little shocking, to be perfectly honest. The only de jure discrimination in the U.S. at this point is the discrimination she is trying to defend - i.e., affirmative action.
-
"I don’t need affirmative action to be successful. Stop treating my blackness like it’s a disability.' (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/thecjpearson/status/1587503362597077000
-
AA should be on the line. In today's world, there should be no race issue. IMNSHO, the "race" question should not be on the application at all. Look at the qualifications, period.
-
That is a little shocking, to be perfectly honest. The only de jure discrimination in the U.S. at this point is the discrimination she is trying to defend - i.e., affirmative action.
Exactly. Justice Thomas said as much when one of the lawyers tried to defend racial discrimination in the form of preferences.
-
Richard Hanania
@RichardHanania
In a discussion over affirmative action, Sotomayor ironically shows she doesn't know the basic difference between "de facto" and "de jure."
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDXN7T3-Jrg)
-
:yowsa:
-
This could easily turn out to be the most significant court ruling made since the founding of America.
-
AA should be on the line. In today's world, there should be no race issue. IMNSHO, the "race" question should not be on the application at all. Look at the qualifications, period.
I have been saying that for years. If I have to check those boxes, the question is "Why?". None of those are supposed to be a factor in whether or not I am a qualified applicant, and let the best qualified applicant win.
-
I have been saying that for years. If I have to check those boxes, the question is "Why?". None of those are supposed to be a factor in whether or not I am a qualified applicant, and let the best qualified applicant win.
Operation "Bootstrap" should have been ditched 30 years ago.
-
YEP. That one. 03 till I die. :laugh:
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/u5gGuYlxRbuVfbUzDoOvXsxxtk8ebvfhZNQP14TR2Jc/rs:fit:533:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uz/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5u/RGQ3RFJNZHJwTG5T/UWpWbGhpVS13QUFB/QSZwaWQ9QXBp)
-
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/u5gGuYlxRbuVfbUzDoOvXsxxtk8ebvfhZNQP14TR2Jc/rs:fit:533:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uz/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5u/RGQ3RFJNZHJwTG5T/UWpWbGhpVS13QUFB/QSZwaWQ9QXBp)
:beer: :patriot: :seeya:
-
If you want to stop racial discrimination stop doing it!
Affirmative action is just racial discrimination by another name.
-
If you want to stop racial discrimination stop doing it!
Affirmative action is just racial discrimination by another name.
:thumbsup:
-
"Racism is wrong — always." (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1588245572263489536