Posted on 04/08/2017 7:41:53 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
Tuesdays Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didnt sit well with the courts self-described Wise Latina, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her 58-page-long dissent made clear that shell be the last line of defense for affirmative-action policies at the highest court in the land.
But a look at the dissent as well as her own history, makes clear that the lady doth protest too much. Immigrants and their children simply have no claim on affirmative action if anyone does. To the contrary, these policies hurt their intended beneficiaries.
The court didnt rule on the merits of affirmative action, but on whether voters can opt to ban its use in public universities. Sotomayor tried to do several things as she fought a rear-guard battle.
She sought to equate affirmative action with voting rights, which didnt fly. More interestingly, she also vainly tried to read this policy into the Constitution, the better to save it from future challenges.
The Constitution, she wrote, guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.
In other words, one of the highest Hispanics in the land argues that, without preference policies, minorities cant hope to reach a proportionate participation in universities.
Can you imagine what reading this opinion would do to a young Puerto Rican or Mexican-American girl full of hopes about her own abilities? As Linda Chavez once put it, Ultimately, entitlements based on their status as victims rob Hispanics of real power.
Its heartening that by a 6-2 majority, the high court didnt let such nonsense go unchallenged by the voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Leftists just can’t decide who is the bigger victim.
Hope you’re right.
Dr. Thomas Sowell had often written about studies that have shown that Blacks admitted to competitive colleges, because of affirmative action, often flunk out because they can’t keep up with the competition. They would have been much better served if they had gone to a second-tier college, where they could have graduated. A recent book, entitled “Mismatch” also addresses this subject. So the answer is “Yes”, there have been studies done on this subject that show that Blacks (and Latinos) are often HURT by affirmative action in college admissions policies.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, old, decrepit, and failing in every possible sense of the word. She's determined, apparently, to stay alive until another liberal is elected president. Hard to tell whether she IS actually alive, as she's always slumped over. Perhaps drooling. Perhaps not.
This means two liberal justices joined this ruling.
Why post under NEWS-—it happened over 2 years ago?
.
Liberals badly wanted more and more of this far left making it up as you go. Trump, when done, will have at MINIMUM as 6-3 conservative majority, entirely possibly 7-2. It seems so simple: Interpret the laws and the constitution according to the law or the constitution. If you don’t like the law, change the law. If you don’t like the constitution, change the constitution. It’s not nor was it ever meant to be judge’s being creative and manufacturing laws. It’s not about making sure that one side or the other has “enough” victories.
Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg the Living Corpse think that it’s their job to guarantee a certain number of wins, and that’s sad and maddening at the same time.
It’s interesting that in the New York Post article, Sotomayor is quoted as saying that her grades were NOT equal to her classmates at Princeton or Yale. In other words, she was admitted into those schools because of affirmative action. And she is on SCOTUS only because of affirmative action and by being nominated by an affirmative action President. Discrimination allows incompetents to rise to positions of power that they do not deserve (eg. Obama & Sotomayor).
she’s an outright racist...if you remember when she was on the lower court she mocked the New Haven firefighters case, which was ruled in favor of the firefighters on SCOTUS as she was being nominated...
Total potted racist plant aka DemocRAT ...
She’s a knucklehead and nowhere near being qualified to be on the SCOTUS.
The Faces-of-Evil.
Beauty may be only skin-deep; but Ugly goes all the way to their dark souls.
We’ll see if she still thinks that way when/if Whites become the minority.
She's dead.
Yes. First, she would start with the premise that preferential treatment is owed to her because of white privilege, then she would game the system for all it's worth.
Our Constitution guarantees Equal Rights under the Law.
It does not guarantee Special Rights under the Law unless a Wise Latina with mush for brains thinks it does.
58 page dissent?
lol
I bet a capable mind with a valid dissent could put it in 7 pages or less.
58 page? a Page and a half of one off legal decisions and 56.5 pages of liberal screed is probably what she wrote.
Sorry. Repudiated. In a hurry. Reudiated is when a retarded person says or writes it, like me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.