re: Supreme Court & the affirmitive action vote

quote:

---

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. 

---

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.

Overturning the Michigan case would be tantamount to declaring AA to be constitutionally REQUIRED.