- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court & the affirmitive action vote
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:02 pm to dewster
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:02 pm to dewster
It seems that this (overturning affirmative action) will still need to be found to be acceptable under each state's constitution. I would think it should be easy to say that a prohibition in a state constitution against discrimination would strike down all race based preferences. So this may be the beginning of the end of affirmative action completely.
0
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:03 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I believe that King would celebrate today's ruling.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:04 pm to MisterSenator
quote:You would think so..
I believe that King would celebrate today's ruling.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:05 pm to UGATiger26
quote:What the frick does that have to do with anything. Is that her LEGAL reasoning?
quote:
As a result of the ruling, she said, minority enrollment will decline at Michigan's public universities, just as it has in California and elsewhere. "The numbers do not lie," she said.
I mean crap woman. At least PRETEND you give a crap about law.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:08 pm to wickowick
Surprisingly, no one from the left is arguing for it...yet.
Oh, they will, wick. This is a setback and antithetical to the Statist "spread the wealth around" principle. But just like out in Nevada...one battle; and the war remains.
Oh, they will, wick. This is a setback and antithetical to the Statist "spread the wealth around" principle. But just like out in Nevada...one battle; and the war remains.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:09 pm to UGATiger26
quote:Completely agree.
Now the most qualified applicants will be granted admission regardless of race.
But it's impossible to reason with someone who thinks that every race should be equally represented at each university.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:14 pm to goldenbadger08
quote:
Completely agree. But it's impossible to reason with someone who thinks that every race should be equally represented at each university.
On the basketball court and football field too?
God forbid! 
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:18 pm to wickowick
quote:
Surprisingly, no one from the left is arguing for it...yet.
The ruling is being distilled through DU and the Daily Kos. The usual left wing suspects should be here soon enough with their talking points.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
What the frick does that have to do with anything. Is that her LEGAL reasoning?
To be fair, when Affirmative Action was originally declared constitutional the Court acknowledged that it was a major exception to a very hard line stance against public segregation/racial preference under the Equal Protection Clause. Justices even commented that it was intended to be a temporary boost and would need to be done away with eventually.
Sotomayor seems to be simply arguing that the "fix" isn't ready to be lifted. The precedent is not well grounded in law so I can at least understand why her argument today also deviates from a discussion centering on legal principle.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:22 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:I had never thought of this argument before… What if..
On the basketball court and football field too?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:33 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
To me, the "content of [your] character" includes the value you place on educating yourself and working to achieve grades that would put you in a position to be accepted into a institution of higher education.
Agree
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:35 pm to GumboPot
DU seems to be more about "Uncle Tom" jokes with regard to Justice Thomas with respect to this ruling.
Not much to say. It was a 6-2 decision and a huge win for equal rights and equal opportunity advocates.
Not much to say. It was a 6-2 decision and a huge win for equal rights and equal opportunity advocates.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:35 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The ruling is being distilled through DU and the Daily Kos. The usual left wing suspects should be here soon enough with their talking points.
Yessir... It's only a matter of time before the bots come here to argue what they've just read.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:45 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Yes. However. There is a WIDE gulf between saying it is ok if a state or other organization has AA, it is ok, and saying failure to have AA is illegal.
To be fair, when Affirmative Action was originally declared constitutional the Court acknowledged that it was a major exception to a very hard line stance against public segregation/racial preference under the Equal Protection Clause. Justices even commented that it was intended to be a temporary boost and would need to be done away with eventually.
Sotomayor seems to be simply arguing that the "fix" isn't ready to be lifted. The precedent is not well grounded in law so I can at least understand why her argument today also deviates from a discussion centering on legal principle.
Overturning the Michigan case would be tantamount to declaring AA to be constitutionally REQUIRED.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:53 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Sotomayor
This case involves this last chapter of discrimination: A majority of the Michigan electorate changed the basic rules of the political process in that State in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.
I of course do not mean to suggest that Michigan’s voters acted with anything like the invidious intent of those who historically stymied the rights of racial minorities. But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:16 pm to goldenbadger08
quote:
Sotomayor
If the same standards of review applied to other candidates (eg Robert Bork) had been applied to Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings, she would never have sniffed the Supreme Court. She's a racist for all intents and purposes. She's just a leftist racist, so nobody on the left cares.
What else do you expect from her? This is who she is.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:19 pm to goldenbadger08
quote:
Sotomayor
The weird thing is she wouldn't have needed affirmative action with her academic record. I wonder why she's for it's use when it clearly uses race to determine if someone should get into college or not?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:22 pm to L.A.
It just makes my head hurt that she is 1/9 of the reviewers of the supreme law of the land.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:34 pm to goldenbadger08
Of the 3 majority opinions I'll bet the one by Scalia and Thomas is the most solid.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:38 pm to gthog61
Scalia kills it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News