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 ...
She ignores the ability of Asians, who have been historically discriminated against, to overcome discrimination and achieve income and status above the average white person.
She ignores the ability of black people who immigrate (from Nigeria) to overcome discrimination and achieve income levels above average white people.
She ignore strong evidence that affirmative action and similar programs have a deleterious effect on black culture and achievements.
Ah, the one who can’t give us a definition of a woman. The one who I am sure is an affirmative action product. The one who is racist in every fiber of her being. That one. I rarely if ever hear Justice Thomas discussing race. He limits himself to far more important and salient topics. It’s marginal people like her who trot out their dog-earred race card at every sign of a threat. Threat being defined as being called upon for some truly intellectual pondering—which ain’t in her lane.
She has voided herself on anyone listening to anything she ever has to say, on any subject.
So incredibly ignorant that she couldn’t define what a woman is in her confirmation hearings.
If anyone listens to her on anything, they’re a fool’s fool.
We have a genuine racist on the Supreme court who simply can’t read or understand the Constitution and her name isn’t “Clarence Thomas”.
Lashing out because SHE got where she is because of Affirmative Action, and it makes her look very bad.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Deny it all you want, it’s still the truth.
“This is a worldview we will be at war with for at least a century.”
Not that long. The entire society will collapse much sooner than that.
This idiot should be changing sheets in a Best Western in Indiana..
Thank God for Clarence Thomas.
I am hopeful that a Republican President, House and Senate can impeach that woman. She is woefully unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.
She's an affirmative action justice as is the so called "wise latina". Imagine a white guy saying we need a wise white dude on the court. Worlds would collide.
I thought she’d still be focused on identifying a woman.
< spit >
Never in a billion years would the Senate vote to remove her.
Doesn’t understand three way balance of power among branches.
What a phony she is-had well-off parents, and is married to an MD-who just happens to be a white guy-there is no way she knows about living poor, or without privilege, period-she shouldn’t be talking about Clarence Thomas-he is far above her in intellect and common sense...
I guess she doesn’t know the the Supremes aren’t supposed to openly attack one another.
I read Robert’s decision, Thomas and Kegs Kavanaugh’s concurrences, and Kagan and the Wise Latina’s dissents.
Jumanji’s dissent was unreadable.
The dissents were about outcomes. The majority opinions were about the Constitution.
Key finding: The XIV Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to whites.
No, she's a borderline illiterate scoundrel who is not capable of drafting a proper opinion.
Bet you can't define "racist" - she's not one.
Bad as she is, she knows how to stand up for her own people, something a lot of people around here could learn from.
Thomas bases ALL his decisions on the Constitution, which is his?supreme court’s job. These other Lib justices base all their decisions on their own political views.
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.
