Posted on 06/29/2023 4:40:15 PM PDT by Mariner
The United States Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions in a 6-3 decision on Thursday, blocking higher educational institutions from considering race in admissions decisions.
The centrality of race to the case prompted a war of words between the Court's two Black justices in their respective opinions, with each offering starkly different views of the role that race should play in decision-making by policymakers writ large.
In his own 57 page long concurring opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas — a staunch conservative appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush — argued that "all forms of discrimination based on race — including so-called affirmative action" are prohibited under the US Constitution, offering a full-throated defense "colorblindness" in the founding document.
snip
Jackson's own 29-page dissent is dedicated to explaining the "universal benefits of considering race" in higher education, arguing that such considerations are important due to the "intergenerational transmission of inequality" that originated with slavery and continued through subsequent government policies in the decades since then.
"Given our history, the origin of persistent race-linked gaps should be no mystery," Jackson wrote. "History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today. By all accounts, they are still stark."
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
No, hes not asking for reparations. All the ones that think the country owes them personally for slavery. Cannot be saved. Votta go back to Wakanda paradise and out of this horrible racist country. I want to do them a favor and get them out of this terrible place.
The Affirmative Action hire who doesn’t know what a woman is weighs in.
Otherwise known as, “If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.”
Pool baby. She got owned and she knows it.
Justice Thomas does a much better job than I can. And, yes, she is. To wit:
Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.
JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the in-nocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Post, at 26; see also post, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring) (explaining the arbitrariness of these classifications). Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Post, at 26 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.
Unsurprisingly, this tried-and-failed system defies both law and reason. Start with the obvious: If social reorganization in the name of equality may be justified by the mere fact of statistical disparities among racial groups, then that reorganization must continue until these disparities are fully eliminated, regardless of the reasons for the disparities and the cost of their elimination. If blacks fail a test at higher rates than their white counterparts (regardless of whether the reason for the disparity has anything at all to do with race), the only solution will be race-focused measures. If those measures were to result in blacks failing at yet higher rates, the only solution would be to double down. In fact, there would seem to be no logical limit to what the government may do to level the racial playing field—outright wealth transfers, quota systems, and racial preferences would all seem permissible. In such a system, it would not matter how many innocents suffer race-based injuries; all that would matter is reaching the race-based goal.
Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants.
As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great great-great-grandparents? And what would JUSTICE JACKSON say to John when deeming him not as worthy of admission: Some statistically significant number of white people had advantages in college admissions seven generations ago, and you have inherited their incurable sin?
She’s not a biologist, ya’ know?
In a ruling re: the constitutionality of a question, Brown is totally unconcerned with Constitutional issues. For her the purpose of the USSC is to enforce some professor’s thoughts about Equity. She is either not smart or she is a totalitarian. I suspect it is not necessary to have a high IQ to graduate law school now if you have a stack of intersectional victim statuses to offset lack of knowledge and ability.
That, is a good one.
"She peppers her decisions with hyperbole. Witness AFGE v Trump (where also interestingly, she did not give the unions everything they wanted), particularly towards the end of a decision that she greatly overcomplicated, her flourishes punctuate every new paragraph:
- "For the grand finale, they reasons that clearly Congress must have intended for the President to employ this power to impact federal sector labor relations..."
- In so arguing, Defendants have (voila!) made a distracting shiny object out of an otherwise entirely unremarkable statutory exemption.
- "This Court now arrives at the final stop in the epic journey that the parties’ various claims and arguments have required it to consider."
- "The end is nigh. As explained in Part IV.D of this Memorandum Opinion, many of the challenged provisions of the President’s Orders..."
That reeks of Imposter Syndrome; at a minimum, don't expect Roberts to permit her to write much of anything -- including Dissents -- lest she embarrass the Wise Squatina and Keggers."
Ketanji.... Is this the “birthing person” who was unable to define a woman?
Is she the one who couldn’t define what a woman is? Yeah, good choice for a judge where she can’t even tell the difference between male and female, something even babies can do.
Jackson can’t even define what a woman is!!! And she thinks she can take on Clarence Thomas?!?
When pigs flap their wings and fly.
The moron can’t even define what a woman is yet it somehow got appointed to SCOTUS as an affirmative action hire.
Leftism is a mental illness.
This from an absolute moron who could not define a woman when asked. But hey, she is a warm bodied, brain-dead, single-digit IQ, affirmative action ideologue who will reliably vote for Leftism and not Constitutional compatibility.
Much Crying over the SCOTUS...
PBS Newshour
New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the implications of the Supreme Court’s major decisions this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6te04ZwhH8Q
LOL. Projection.
Most Americans approve of Supreme Court decision restricting use of race in college admissions: POLL
Most Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action.
Writing as a university gender studies prof, and a not a Supreme Court justice.
I don't suppose she addressed The Constitution or the law in her opinion?
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.