Justice Kennedy, whose vote would most likely decide the appeal’s fate, is already being pressed from the right to man up...ADDED: What do you think of Greenhouse's use of the phrase "man up"? Does it serve her cause of preserving affirmative action or does it undercut what she is saying by presenting support for affirmative action as unmanly? I suspect Greenhouse would say that she's attacking the righties who are pressuring Kennedy: They are the bullies who are taunting Kennedy by questioning his manliness.
Note that I’m predicting only that the court will sidestep Fisher redux, not that the justices won’t deal again with affirmative action.... The stakes are too high, the disappointment in some quarters — and some Supreme Court chambers — over the pallid outcome of the Supreme Court’s Fisher case too deep, the issue too mobilizing for it to fade away.
Here's the post from a couple weeks ago where I discussed the phrase "man up."
AND: I wanted to add some discussion of whether the righties really did indulge in any insinuations about Kennedy's masculinity, but Greenhouse only cites a Wall Street Journal editorial and it's behind a pay wall. What the hell is the point of writing editorials — attempts to influence opinion — and making them hard to see? I mean, I know how to Google and get to the text, but it's so irritating.
Anyway, the WSJ said "Justice Kennedy blinked" in Fisher. Is blinking unmasculine?
Posts
13 comments:
...because Lefties didn't bitch about Roberts pre-Obamacare verdict incessantly.
Didn't this case involve a court directly ignoring the SCOTUS ruling? I can't fathom any way they'd allow that to stand.
I don't know the details of the lower court ruling, but this issue is going to keep coming back until the Supreme Court finally puts an end to this idiotic practice of judging people by their race and gender. With each passing year the pro-racialists sound more and more ridiculous as they try and justify an unjustifiable system. It finally reached peak stupidity with Sotomayor's dissent--where she actually argued not that judging by race was ok, but that judging by race is REQUIRED, and cited "microaggressions" as the reason why we must continue to use race to judge others.
The thing is young people, despite their liberalism, are less and less ok with racial quotas. The racialists will die out surely as the Jim Crow supporters did. Which is fitting because they really belong together.
Yes, it is unmanly and indecent to support "Affirmative Action."
Greenhouse is whistling past the graveyard. The SC is going to take it, and shoot down the "judges" again.
You can get past many paywalls (including this one) by Googling the title. WSJ doesn't want to mess with Google - if you come from there you get through.
Please remind me what Greenhouse has been correct about (that wasn't already blindingly obvious)?
I was struck by her use of the word "pallid," which among other things can mean "insipid" or "white."
When Jews are limited to 2% of the slots, or even 10% of the slots, at elite institutions, Greenhouse will change her tune. According to affirmative action principles, Jews are over represented, just as they are at the Supreme Court.
I don't question Kennedy's "manliness". I do question Greenhouse's self-respect. The phrase "man up" refers to accepting and overcoming shortchanges. While it is taken for granted in the natural order, it is challenged in the social order. There is no rational tolerance of selective discrimination under any name.
"Jews are over represented, just as they are at the Supreme Court."
If you're Jewish and want to get into a highly selective school, you should have the good sense to get out of the New York metro area (or anywhere else with a significant population).
Because, "We have enough smart Jews here already" sounds pretty bigoted bad, whereas "We seek geographic diversity" sounds so much nicer. Even if both "just happen to" produce the same outcome.
Well, there was a time when Harvard proposed a quota to limit the Jewish students accepted at Ivy League institutions, but it was promptly shot down.
The comment of the author I read, was that Harvard was the honest one in the crowd at the time; the rest of them actually had quotas, but would not admit it.
Years ago, when Grutter was pending before SCOTUS, I was in a class on the 1st Amendment with an eminent prof. After reading Redrup, I inquired of him if he thought something similar to redrupping could happen with AA cases, a sort of 'know it when I see it' standard...he dismissed the idea out of hand, saying the court would rule definitively and establish a clear test in Grutter. When the decision came down, I assumed he was right, but I'm starting to wonder if I'll get the last laugh...
Uh, no mention of her choice of "pallid" to describe the decision?
Was it a dark day when the ruling came down? Does it cast a pall over prospects for equality? Was the reasoning shadowy, dusky, or shady? Does Roberts risk being blackballed by his fellow Justices for ignoring the black letter law? Is the path forward murky in the inky haze of conflicting rulings?
I love reading about racist code words from concerned lefties like Greenhouse.
Rosemary combed her hair and took a carriage into town
She slipped in through the side door looking like a queen without a crown
She fluttered her false eyelashes and whispered in his ear
'Sorry darling, that I'm late', but he didn't seem to hear
He was staring into space over at the Jack of Hearts.
Post a Comment