[ncalburt]

The Supreme court already banned it years ago .

[Shadow44]

You still think we live in a country where precedent and rule of law apply.

Sadly, we don’t.

[NohSpinZone]

The SCOTUS outlawed quota-based admissions (starting with Bakke v. Regents) but never went far enough to ban affirmative action outright. Thanks to the heroic efforts of Ward Connerly, we here in California banned affirmative action in our universities through Prop 209. Like Prop 13, the libs HATE this law and will do whatever they can to kill it. Here's Mr. Connerly:

[V_TWIN]

You don’t really think that’s gonna stop em do ya? The US Constitution is for racists dontchaknow.

[Amendment10]

"The Supreme court already banned it years ago ."

Noting that I am not up to speed with the specifics of this issue, my impression is that states have never expressly amended the Constitution to prohibit themselves from doing things like this.

In fact, President Thomas Jefferson had officially clarified in a State of the Union address that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for the feds to have the power to stick their big noses into INTRAstate schooling (my wording), something that the states have never done.

• On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So not only were the post-17th Amendment ratification Supremes probably once again “amending” the Constitution from the bench when they unconstitutionally dictated policy on this issue imo, this University of California policy ultimately depends on the threshold of “pain” of legal majority California citizen voters if, and with all due respect to California Freepers, the good citizens of California wake up to what is going on, or the Constitution is appropriately amended.

Corrections, insights welcome.

Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!

Supporting PDJT with new patriot federal and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.

[taxcontrol]

I could not determine what you were refering to by “it”.

Were you referring to Grutter v. Bollinge? If so, I interpret the ruling as upholding race based admissions but for a lmited time. The ruling was 2003 and the time limit referenced by O’Connor was 25 years so it should be “completed” by 2028.

Or perhaps another ruling?