- 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 12:20 pm to ShortyRob
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.
2
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 2:08 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Sotomayor seems to be simply arguing that the "fix" isn't ready to be lifted.
For many, that time would never come.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News