[Congressman Billybob]

I just heard from my Editor at UPI that this is on the wire. Doesn't show on GoogleNews, yet, so I can't see their revisions if any (though they are slight, if any).

Enjoy. Comment as you will.

John Armor / Congressman Billybob

[ApesForEvolution]

"By contrast, the rare student who achieved a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test received only 5 points for that."

These colleges ought to be shut down. Forbid they find out that you're a Jesus freak - they'll dock you big points for that if not totally disqualify you.

[Principled]

Good article- thanx for posting...

Every member of the target race got the advantage, without any consideration of whether it was appropriate. However, for law school applicants the advantage was individually considered. For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage – that child of a doctor and a lawyer, attending good schools in good neighborhoods, would be expected to perform at the same level as any Caucasian or Asian American student.

How will they discover this information? INvestigations? Interviews? Essays?

[ewing]

'Critical Mass' for racial preferences sounds like a cop out to me, could be any number some University wants to pick out of a hat.

[freekitty]

Thanks for posting this informative article.

These people are just plain sick. They have no idea what common sense tells you.

I can only hope that aa is dead before 25 years.

[apackof2]

University of Michigan asserted that it had a legitimate educational purpose of "diversity" in the student body.

Diversity is in the unique soul and spirit of each person
Why is this always based on race?
If "diversity" is necessary to obtaining educational excellence than all black college students are significantly less capable than their "diversified" peers or all Christian schools, all girls schools etc.

People are "diverse", not race

[mcenedo]

As always, we appreciate the insightful comments from Congressman Billybob.

Folks over at CNN are treating this like complete victory for affirmative action. Perhaps they haven't seen your analysis yet.

[facedown]

Grutter

Gratz

[deport]

What is going on here? Has the Supreme Court turned schizophrenic, approving racial discrimination in one case but rejecting it in the other?

No. There is one critical difference between the two cases. For undergraduates, the advantage for certain students was absolute and solely race-based. Every member of the target race got the advantage, without any consideration of whether it was appropriate. However, for law school applicants the advantage was individually considered. For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage – that child of a doctor and a lawyer, attending good schools in good neighborhoods, would be expected to perform at the same level as any Caucasian or Asian American student.

There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional. - 30 - About the Author: John Armor practices civil rights law in the Supreme Court, and is filing his 17th brief there this month.

[kesg]

If I understand you correctly, the Supreme Court just made Marxism a part of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. What entities an otherwise less qualified black person to enter a universe is not solely the fact that he is black, but also the fact that he needs admission more than a more qualified person (including a more qualified black person who comes from a more well to do family). The applicant with ability is essentially sacrified so that his spot can be taken by a more needy, less well qualified applicant from a favored racial or ethnic group. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- in addition to the tinge of government-enforced racism that permeates all affirmative action cases.

Excuse me for stopping here, but I need to run to the restroom...

[SoCar]

Thank you!! Great article. I feel much better about the whole thing.

[firewalk]

bttt

[Ken H]

There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional.

I don't think Justice O'Connor's opinion says that race preferences will necessarily be unconstitutional 25 years from now. She was just voicing an expectation.

O'Connor wrote:

The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Pp. 21—31

IOW, if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

[Sandy]

the bottom line conclusion of these two cases is clear – affirmative action is dead in American universities in no more than 25 years.

I think you're stretching it quite a bit here. The Court's expectation of what will or will not be necessary in 25 years doesn't exactly amount to a time limit.

[Unknown Freeper]

If it will be unconstitutional in twenty-five years, why isn't it unconstitutional now?

[TankerKC]

...the rare student who achieved a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test received only 5 points for that.

I thought is was 12 points for a perfect SAT.....

[mhking]

Good article, John; I'll admit that I see your point, but I'm still not there yet. This looks completely schizophrenic entirely. Not only that, it looks like it'll be back before the justices in a few years in another form...

[Gritty]

I can't wait to see how the Usual Suspects rule on "Campaign Finance".

Do you think they'll put a 25 year time limit on letting that Law ride before upholding the clear intent and purpose of the 1st Amendment? This ruling certainly suggests such a precedent!

[dennisw]

Not too shabby!

[wardaddy]

Simply Crap.

[wardaddy]

It's no longer about redress.

It's about diversity.