These turning-the-tables arguments don't always work out the way the table-turner thinks.

Ha! The men I know would be thrilled. pic.twitter.com/xWZxeabPKt

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) January 27, 2023

Via Gail Heriot on Instapundit. 

Now, that's a screen shot, not a working embedded tweet, and there are lots of Twitter accounts named "Women in Power." There's no "@" line. Did someone make a screen shot, then erase the "@" part?

I suspect that "Women in Power" is copying someone else's nicely drawn, well-conceived comic. Where is the artist's name? Also erased?

Anyway, isn't Heriot right that a lot of men would get a charge out of hearing these stray, lame compliments? But what happens next?! I'm predicting a shit show. 

ADDED: I searched Google images until I found one that identified the artist. It is Kasia Babis.

"One topic that the no one brought up at Monday’s Supreme Court oral argument on affirmative action was mismatch."

"Of the six conservative justices, not one was willing to bring up the research that suggests that students who receive an affirmative action leg up are actually made worse off by that supposed benefit. I think I know why: When Justice Scalia brought it up (very inartfully) at the 2015 oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas, he got clobbered for it in the media. The last thing they wanted was a media frenzy like the one Scalia had to endure."

Writes Gail Heriot (Instapundit).

I'm posting this for discussion. I haven't studied the very long transcript and can't say for sure that any given thing was not discussed. And I wouldn't assume I know the reason why something wasn't said.

Here's my contemporaneous discussion of Scalia's clumsy use of the "mismatch" idea. Scalia speculated that classes at the higher ranked schools might be "too fast" for some students who would be better off at "slower-track schools."

I said, "By pointing at the mismatch argument crudely, Scalia gave supporters of affirmative action a lavish gift."