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.
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. Right, they will not expand the specific to a general, as some here think Bush should have argued for. What will happen is, if they find for the complaintants in the UM case, it establishes once and for all that using race in any way on admissions is a violation of equal protection.
They only have to rule on the one case, and it establishes PRECEDENT for all future cases. Once that happens, universities wishing to avoit being sued will adjust their rules. A few may be sued, but with the precedent established, the colleges would lose.
This is the way it always is with the Supremes. For example, Roe v. Wade was a ruling on a specific case, but it set a precendent for abortion litigation across the country.