Posted on 06/29/2023 8:58:12 PM PDT by bitt
Senator Elizabeth Warren had the audacity to complain about the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action in higher education on Thursday.
This is a woman who lied about her ethnic background in order to advance her academic career. Maybe she isn’t the best person to speak out on this particular issue.
She posted this on Twitter:
An extremist Supreme Court has once again reversed decades of settled law, rolled back the march toward racial justice, and narrowed educational opportunity for all. I won't stop fighting for young people with big dreams who deserve an equal chance to pursue their future.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 29, 2023
It did not go well for her. Check out some of the reactions:
Elizabeth Warren claimed native American status while at Harvard, taking credit for being the first native American woman of color hired by Harvard Law School. https://t.co/zyswtFTBgu
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) June 29, 2023
Elizabeth Warren fights for racial justice with no reservation. https://t.co/pc2mNbnNcj
— NeverTweet (@LOLNeverTweet) June 29, 2023
Everyone knows her history these days.
Elizabeth Warren claimed she was Native American for like 20 years. Harvard Law School touted her as a diversity hire in the 90s. Sit down Liz. https://t.co/CJ6ajYwApP pic.twitter.com/iTS8whMIJC
— Call Charles (@CallCharles) June 29, 2023
REMINDER: A 1997 Fordham Law Review article described Elizabeth Warren as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color."
Maybe she should sit this one out. https://t.co/CsVYrGjyJR
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 29, 2023
These are facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I had no idea she was a U of H Cougar. Dang, I’m disappointed in U of H.
That doesn’t look like she is drinking the beer...
In his interview, the President also insisted that one has to “look at how it’s ruled on a number of issues that are — have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes, and that’s what I meant by not normal.”In reality, the Court’s decisions on affirmative action in education have been muddled and conflicted for decades. In 1977, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court barred affirmative action in higher education. However, it allowed some consideration of race as part of a holistic admissions process.
In the decades that followed, the Court remained sharply divided. By 2003, the Court was ready to issue the very decision that it issued this week. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supplied the fifth vote to uphold the use of race by the University of Michigan. Yet, O’Connor wrote that the court “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was roughly 20 years ago.
It is also ironic to hear the President bewailing the reversal of precedent since the greatest advance in racial equality was the reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson and the doctrine of “separate but equal.” That was the governing precedent from 1894 to 1954, but few denounced the Supreme Court for reversing the precedent in Brown v. Board of Education. It was a decision to eliminate different treatment on the basis for race.
LOL :)
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.