- 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 12:05 pm to UGATiger26
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
3
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 2:54 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I mean crap woman. At least PRETEND you give a crap about law.
Nope, she's all about the proportions:
quote:
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
not about impartiality:
quote:And lest we forget:
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
quote:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
LINK
Boy do elections have consequences.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 6:03 pm to ShortyRob
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.
God she's horrible. The poor numbers for minorities should serve as a wake up call for us to get our act together. We shouldn't be preferred for admission only based on race.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News