The underlying issues are clear as a bell. By kicking the case back to the lower court for another look, the court simply deferred its ultimate responsibility.But affirmative action is all in the timing. The Court manufactured delay the first time the issue came around. Then it did Bakke, giving schools a clue on how to move forward. (Say "diversity," and be like Harvard.) Then it let things ferment for 25 years, at which point, it said:
It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased... We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.Even if 25 years had already passed — it's only been 10 — the argument would be for an extension.
Like a schoolmarm, William insists "The underlying issues are clear as a bell."
That paper was due 40 years ago.
I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time.
Posts
62 comments:
The real answer, or the Court's answer?
Grade inflation and the "renorming" down of SATs, GREs, etc., have also proceeded apace.
The longer this "remedy" goes, the harder it is to justify.
AA said:
I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time.
posted by Ann Althouse at 12:04 PM on Jun 24, 2013
That should have been Lincoln's argument in 1860. "Black people aren't ready for freedom. We need more time."
And yes I am aware Lincoln didn't want to actually end slavery. So Ann and he were thinking along the same lines! Don't bother trying to rebut the fact affirmative action hurts the people it is trying to help. This has always been about creating a permanent underclass for democrats to exploit and according to the author we need a few more years of exploitation.
We need more time
And the "we" of course being race-obsessed white liberal baby boomers.
You people lead a rather sad existence.
Well done.
The Constitution be damned, "We Need More Time!" We Shall Overcomeeem, We Shall ....
Jay wants to cunt punch a black female NOW, damn it!
garage mahal said...
Jay wants to cunt punch a black female NOW, damn it!
6/24/13, 12:19 PM
So, a bigot shows his disgusting little face. Got anything useful to add Garage or are you going to project your hate on others with useless posts like this?
I don't think any white person supports race based affirmative action. many will admit they don't. others who claim to don't act like they do. they could easily prove me wrong, but they never do.
Who is this "we," White Woman?
It's not my answer. I'm just explaining the Court's answer.
It's crushingly obvious. Don't fret: why won't they tell us?
They've been telling us over and over, consistently, fro 40 years.
That IS the answer.
AA should have been struck down years ago. I find the request for more time about as convincing as the suggestion that the Supreme Court should give the states more time to evolve on gay rights before stepping in and ending discrimination. It makes no sense to me.
X said...
I don't think any white person supports race based affirmative action. many will admit they don't. others who claim to don't act like they do. they could easily prove me wrong, but they never do.
6/24/13, 12:21 PM
The point isn't to gain support of white people. They point is to divide us into smaller groups. From there it is a hop skip and jump towards maintaining a permanent set of race based underclasses.
THis is a real problem in a declining, ossified America that resembles the decaying Muslim civilization of 1400-2000 more than we may wish to admit.
There, all serious issues were never resolved by the people in a timely and efecient manner...but were left to Holy Clerics that interpreted the Sacred Parchment at their leisure. As the masses waited for their great wisdom ho how the Koran and those elites that interpreted it would decide..waiting for decades, for centuries.
Now in America, we have subverted democracy on the big issues ...to await how berobed lawyers tasked with the sole determinators of our Sacred Parchment...with more vacation time than human beings should be allowed to have drawing a plush government paycheck and benefit package...to
1. Decide.
2. Wait a year to punt for another 10-15 years on vital decisions.
3. Wait a year and decline to decide.
The Muslim clerics were experts at delay and saying nothing. Even as civilization fell around them and Islamic leaders were paralyzed thinking the Clerics could go to reading their Sacred Parchment and come back and say what they were doing was un-Islamic, even heresy.
Making it easier to understand why Islam has been mired so much in the 8th Century. It was the safest path to avoid Cleric's ire.
Now we have a similar path, thanks to lawyers that are the sole Diviners of our worshipped Sacred Parchment of the long-dead Holy Founders. And the people, once We the People that decided matters....have succumbed to Rule of Law(yers).
Leadership?
We don't need no stinking leadership.
Ann Althouse said...
I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time.
Because the next Congress might actually be one that fights for the interests of the American people and, if we do something silly, we could see all our sweet little perks and those cushy salaries get sequestered.
Ann Althouse said...
It's not my answer. I'm just explaining the Court's answer.
It's crushingly obvious. Don't fret: why won't they tell us?
They've been telling us over and over, consistently, fro 40 years.
That IS the answer.
6/24/13, 12:25 PM
You may be right. I am thinking that the government realizes that racism has lost it's appeal to a majority of the electorate.
Hence a new plan: comprehensive immigration reform.
They will get the electorate they want one way or another.
Ann Althouse said...
It's not my answer. I'm just explaining the Court's answer.
It's crushingly obvious. Don't fret: why won't they tell us?
They've been telling us over and over, consistently, fro 40 years.
That IS the answer.
========================
And Ann, what is the power that allows them to jerk around all other institutions and the Will of the People?
Perhaps it is, like with Muslims and the Holy Book that should order all things.. our blind deference and obscene Veneration of a fucking piece of paper has subverted our democracy, decayed our culture and values, perverted swift and sure justice, and hobbled America's ability to prosper in a fast-changing world.
Haven't you heard?
New RINO AmnestyCare is probably dead for the year.
Considering sell-outs like Gabriel Gomez aren't getting any traction supporting it, it will be next year before they take it up and that will be when the real voters come out.
Achilles said...
I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time.
That should have been Lincoln's argument in 1860. "Black people aren't ready for freedom. We need more time."
Actually, until the Union Army ran out of money about the time of Antietam, that was his answer
edutcher said...
Actually, until the Union Army ran out of money about the time of Antietam, that was his answer
6/24/13, 12:41 PM
I know you read the rest of my post so you know there is no disagreement.
I just wanted to twist the knife a little. All of the AA supporters and various other bigots are gnashing their bitter little teeth today after getting completely destroyed by Justice Thomas.
You said: "I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time."
You then said: "It's not my answer. I'm just explaining the Court's answer."
I'm using quotation marks so that I'm clear. You were not clear.
So, a bigot shows his disgusting little face. Got anything useful to add Garage or are you going to project your hate on others with useless posts like this?
Same as it ever was: garage in, garbage out.
Ann Althouse said...
It's not my answer. I'm just explaining the Court's answer.
It's crushingly obvious. Don't fret: why won't they tell us?
They've been telling us over and over, consistently, fro 40 years.
That IS the answer.
And I thought Air Force Space Command (unoffical motto: "God forbid anyone make a decision!") was bad. And in another 20, 30 or 40 years, what will be their excuse, "We've always done it this way"?
No, we don't need more time. Because what you're doing with the time is teaching and practicing racism. The more time we give you, the worse you make the situation.
With "Affirmative Action" the government is saying that skin color matters. That where your ancestors came from matters. That we shouldn't judge a person by his or her accomplishments, but by his or her skin color.
You can't get rid of "embedded racism" by embedding it even more deeply within our society. They way you get rid of it is by pulling it out, and holding it up as something you don't do.
End all programs based on the skin color or nation of origin of an American citizen's ancestors. Or else admit that you aren't actually offended by racism, you're just offended when it's aimed at the "wrong" people.
Always welcome to hear about a court ruling from a fake lawyer. Wait, the fake lawyer never opines about the law. Wonder why!
If you play for time, you can keep winning time, and maybe you never have to win on the merits.
Consider the Night Stalker, dying of liver disease on death row.
There are a million things like this in life.
they don't need more time. they need more guts.
The Professor is sometimes obtuse in her effort to be subtle.
This, I think, is the essence of the lawyer problem. They (lawyers) think they are smarter than we. The professors are way smarter than even the practicing lawyers! And then there's the SCOTUS, where stupid people get to decide stupid things written by erudite and clever clerks, and in some strange fashion that mirrors religion, even the professors are supposed to believe that what some idiot (*cough* Ginsberg *cough*) said is gospel.
they don't need more time. they need more guts.
We've had 40 to 50 years of affirmative action, but I fail to see how it has made a difference.
The schoolmarm is touchy today I see. She should be in better mood that her dearly held affirmative action wasn't struck down entirely and instead punted on by the useless supreme court.
Perhaps Thomas struck a nerve with her, or perhaps just woke up on the wrong side of the menopause today.
Ugly ugly ugly.
My take is that today's result is indeed the result of very deliberate, very patient, and very long-term-oriented leadership on the SCOTUS — and in particular, of Justice Kennedy, by Chief Justice Roberts.
This isn't tug-'o-war, it's four-dimensional chess/poker.
garage mahal said...
Always welcome to hear about a court ruling from a fake lawyer. Wait, the fake lawyer never opines about the law. Wonder why!
6/24/13, 1:03 PM
Another pointless addition by a bigot. You must hate the fact you can't even read Thomas's decision much less come up with an argument against it.
Ann Althouse said...
If you play for time, you can keep winning time, and maybe you never have to win on the merits.
Consider the Night Stalker, dying of liver disease on death row.
There are a million things like this in life.
6/24/13, 1:04 PM
Funny how all of these progressive causes are implemented and it takes time to listen to the will of the people and remove them. Then when removed they take a different form only to take years to get rid of.
First eugenics, then genocide, now state sponsored abortion.
First slavery, then Jim Crow, now affirmative action.
Always they find something new to call it. Then They implement it. Then they fight the will of the people until finally they give it up. Then they call it something new.
Eventually we will get smart and ship them all to China.
You must hate the fact you can't even read Thomas's decision much less come up with an argument against it.
I'm sure it was all very inspiring.
One man's "leadership" is the next man's "activist judges". Poor SCOTUS can't get no respect whatever way they go.
This is a pursuit of power. The Court has gone back and forth on the question of when executive or legislative pursuit of power has gone too far. The Court is not reliable on these questions.
In affirmative action cases, as in many other cases these days, the pursuers seek power from the perception of guilt among people not in the action. This guilt is not that hard to find.
In the words of the immortal Tommy Duncan, Founding Father of Western Swing and The Texas Playboys, "Time Changes Everything.
I agree with Ann. They are playing for time; however, perhaps not entirely for the reason that Ann is suggesting. Yes, if this sort of thing drags out for another generation or so, the problem could well 'fix itself'. Frankly, it would have been better had the court exercised the same reserve in Roe and kicked the can down the road so that a political solution could be reached that could form the basis of a societal consensus.
In Fisher, the underlying decision was formed at summary judgement. It's very unlikely that uncontested evidence had been adduced, when viewed in a light most favorable to Fisher, that the implementation of the program...and the use of race factors....could actually survive strict scrutiny.
The outcome may well have been a prediction of the justices that the Court of Appeals will have to further remand the case for trial on this point. That will certainly buy time, but it may also result in the failure of the University to prove up its legal case.
In that regard, there may have been a majority available to toss Grutter, but the compromise among them, a compromise that Ginsburg was unable to stomach, was to let this program fall at a level below their pay grades. This would be in the same category as the decision on Obamacare. A deference to the other branches to sort out essentially political issues rather than Court activism. I'll take that any day of the week.
That said, I think Justice Thomas is a rock star. Anyone who doesn't take his dissent to heart is entirely missing the boat on issues of race preferences. The goal of 'diversity' is most certainly not a compelling state interest and doesn't pass muster when it comes to rights that have been "purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering".
- Krumhorn
garage mahal said...
You must hate the fact you can't even read Thomas's decision much less come up with an argument against it.
I'm sure it was all very inspiring.
6/24/13, 1:26 PM
You should go back to your KOS and Mother Jones echo chamber for bigots. You obviously don't have the intellectual ability to carry on a conversation here on this topic.
Maybe Ritmo will do a better job outlining why we need progressive racist policies.
Am I correct in thinking that the appeals court will now have to make a judgment as to whether or not UT's diversity need represents a compelling government interest? That is, compelling enough to allow that interest to override the equal protection clause.
That could be interesting to watch. Like a train wreck is interesting to watch.
You obviously don't have the intellectual ability to carry on a conversation here on this topic.
Obviously, neither do you, or your fake lawyer sidekick. You posted 6 times, mostly just bellyaching, as per usual.
The arc of history is long, after all.
Which is more stinging to a lower court?
Having their decision overturned?
Or having the Supreme Court hand it back to them, saying, you failed to even use precedent correctly?
To me, the 2nd is slightly more stinging.
The first is just a disagreement over legal views, can a lower court can maintain self-esteem by complaining about the ideology of the Supreme Court or consoling itself that SCOTUS was convinced by brilliant argument not given to the lower court.
But the second has an implication of: you aren't doing your job correctly. Go back and do it over.
The second may well have longer-reaching repercussions of making lower courts look at cases in front of them with a different perspective.
Or maybe that doesn't make sense.
I guess I just think that overturning a lower court's decision is like saying "You are wrong in this one case", but refusing to rule and handing it back to the lower courts saying "You failed to properly apply the right scrutiny"is like saying, "Your fundamental approach is wrong across the board."
Mr. Alexander, re what the lower courts' reaction will be:
Pretty much every federal district and circuit judge can imagine, and has imagined, himself on the SCOTUS. They're respectful but not awed of the High Nine.
The more likely reaction from the lower court judges who'd ruled in favor of UT-Austin is not "Ouch that stings!" but "Oh what a load of rubbish!" Followed by: "And oh yeah, what Justice Ginsburg said too!"
Or put another way:
If you want to see whether even very sharp SCOTUS rebukes have much effect on the circuit courts, you need look no farther than the Ninth Circuit's track record over the last 15 or so years.
This wasn't a slap-down of the lower courts by any means, and it certainly won't be taken personally by the Fifth Circuit judges on the panel or those who voted against rehearing, nor by the district judge (before whom the case is likely to return quite soon).
They've been telling us over and over, consistently, fro 40 years.
That IS the answer.
If the Court believes AA remains good for the country, why didn't the majority join Ginsburg? We know why Thomas didn't join her, but what about the others?
To answer my own question, I think this decision shows that even Breyer and Sotomayor are questioning the results of affirmative action. I think Thomas' arguments AND life experience are proving persuasive. I don't think AA will last another ten years.
The argument for the value of diversity of student body, assumes said students interact and thus partake (by osmosis? - they don't say) of the diversity vibe.
But how much does that actually happen on campus. Seems to me, folks self-segregate quickly and willingly.
garage mahal said...
You obviously don't have the intellectual ability to carry on a conversation here on this topic.
Obviously, neither do you, or your fake lawyer sidekick. You posted 6 times, mostly just bellyaching, as per usual.
6/24/13, 2:07 PM
Dry your tears bigot. You will get other opportunities to impose racism and tyranny. Progressives will just call it something else next time.
Beldar has an interesting take on Fisher, worth reading. Here's an excerpt:
This is, in both form and substance, a loss for the University of Texas in this case, and for those who support race-based preferences more generally. But it is a mostly-procedural loss, not a blockbuster opinion. It is a signal of things to come, but not an earthquake.
Checking around the web I see a range of legal opinion on Fisher that it either punts or makes small incremental progress against affirmative action.
Sandra Day Oconnor from a January 2010 news story:
"Having held in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that diverse college enrollments have proven educational benefits but that colleges should not need race-conscious admissions policies 25 years down the road, a retired associate justice — Sandra Day O'Connor — is now singing what some hear as a different tune.
In an essay written with Stewart J. Schwab, who had served as one of her Supreme Court clerks and is now dean of the Cornell Law School, Justice O'Connor argues that the majority opinion she wrote in the 2003 affirmative-action case should not be seen as imposing a deadline on the use of race-conscious policies or as relieving the need for more research showing such policies have educational benefits.
"When the time comes to reassess the constitutionality of considering race in higher-education admissions," the essay says, "we will need social scientists to clearly demonstrate the educational benefits of diverse student bodies, and to better understand the links between role models in one generation and aspirations and achievements of succeeding generations."
"social scientists" - as if they are really scientists. They are the reason we are in this dilemma.
Charles Manson's Sugar says:
"Am I correct in thinking that the appeals court will now have to make a judgment as to whether or not UT's diversity need represents a compelling government interest?."
Yes, AND whether their AA plan is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest.
If yes to both, then it might pass the test, whatever the test might be then. Or maybe not. Depends if SCOTUS thinks they need more time in 5 years or whenever the case is back.
Althouse said: "I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time."
Barbara Grutter said: "That's not fair...that's not fair at all...I ran out of time..." The Althouse Zone #2
Is the Court supposed to lead? Isn't it supposed to interpret the laws?
You can't lead if your job is to interpret the tea leaves, can you? Change the Court's opinion? Have another cup of tea.
It's absolutely clear, a moron is offended.
Roberts was a great advocate. He reasons like one, hewing as close as possible to existing precedents and textual language. He's seldom bold in striking out to new territory. But is there more going on beneath the surface?
Or, perhaps, is that simply the best way to put the Court back in its place, as one of three equal branches?
Is the Supreme Court supposed to lead?
Over time some issues fester and other issues evaporate. Perhaps the sharp edges of this issue will grow duller over time. There are lots of prominent and wealthy black people in this country. I don't understand why their kids should be given a leg up for their entry into college. If Obama's kids can't make it into Harvard, that's not the fault of our racist society....l can see a compelling interest in having a representative police and fire dept, and maybe the government should have some kind of outreach program to enlist whites in the post office, but what's the point to having x number of blacks on this or that campus. I've got the feeling that affirmative action on Ivy League campuses serves mostly to screw Asians.
I'd say the answer is crushingly clear: We need more time.
The longer it goes on, the worse it's going to be for Blacks when it stops. The Supreme Court is mostly old folks. They figure if they keep kicking the can down the road the fallout will be someone else's problem.
I didn't realize the constitution had sunset provisions.
Post a Comment