[hchutch]

That is the WORST-case scenario as I see it, and even then it's not a bad outcome for us, simply because some things would enter into our favor:

1. The schools will KNOW that students discriminated against because they are not black/Hispanic/Native American will sue.

2. The schools generally wish to avould lawsuits, particularly if the folks suing them will have a very good chance of winning.

3. In this case, the folks who sue will have that very good chance, because the lower courts will follow the lead of SCOTUS.

In other words, the schools will go along - if only to avoid lawsuits. And if they don't go along, the suits will be won and appeals dismissed, citing this case.

[copycat]

Hey, bro, glad to see the adults are taking this thread back. In all probability, the lawyers for the students will be arguing that the UM policy is unConstitutional, and Bush has come out in public supporting that ideal. I'm sure SCOTUS is well aware of his speech.

By filing an amicus brief that only attacks the UM policy, but not the ENTIREITY of Affirmative Action, Bush shows the court a middle ground where they can rule without drawing heavy political fire. When SCOTUS rules against the UM policy only, and not against AA, critics in the media will report how this wasn't really a win for Bush, and that it was a narrow ruling. Shallow thinkers like TLBshow will deride for Bush and Terry Moran for punting.

But then comes the payoff...EVERY case that comes down the pike from here on out will reference the UM decision as PRECEDENT. Effectively, with the UM case as precedent, SCOTUS WILL have ended race-based preferences at all universities without allowing Big Race to accuse him of attacking or ending Affirmative Action.

Great tactic for those who think it through...even though the subtlety is lost on those who are unable to see the big picture.

FReegards...

[copycat]

Oops, meant to say that Terry Moran and Rush and TLBshow will deride Bush for punting on the overall issue,when in fact, the establishment of precedent will accomplish the same effect.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Thanks for different perspective. To a layperson like myself,yesterday's ruling seemed like a positive step,not an occasion for the rending of garments.To clarify a point about which I am still unclear-because no one has asked the SC to abolish AA,there is no way they will rule that way,using the Mich case as a springboard or opened door.So we won't see a hypothetical ruling like-"We believe the U of Mich violated the constitutional rights of the female students and any institution that follows this same pattern will be violating the rights of their applicants or employees." They won't take a specific and expand it to a general,because they were not asked to-even if every Justice felt AA was wrong.