[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

[MJY1288]

Thanks for the excellent analysis, I didn't consider this a win for the AA crowd either.

If the quota system is taken out of the undergraduate enrollment, it sure isn't going to be there for the post graduate enrollment

[fight_truth_decay]

University of Texas starts work on new admissions policies

By Jim Vertuno

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, June 23, 2003

AUSTIN — The University of Texas will draft new affirmative action admissions policies that include race as a factor as allowed by Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, school President Larry Faulkner said Monday.

Statesman.com

Students at the University of Michigan celebrated Monday after the Supreme Court handed down a decision narrowly upholding affirmative action.

[mikenola]

Justice O'Connor really showed her activist bent with this ruling. Couldn't this 25 year sunset in effect violate separation of powers, ie. stepping on the toes of the legislative branch?

How can the citizens address this activist judiciary? We've tried amending the constitution, but it was basically ignored today. What does the congress do, pass another saying "hey we really meant it with the 14th"?

I admit I haven't read the decisions , but this whole thing stinks to high heaven. Because the liberals will always split hairs and postpone the moment when we are "diverse enough".

[Common Tator]

Remember the media believes they are always right on every single story ... with the possible exceptions of the ones where we know better.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage"

This is laughable, to think that an advantaged black would get no preference. Laughable.

[Carolinamom]

Thanks for your sane and reasoned explanation. The hysteria has been rampant, so your calm and clear voice is welcomed.

[budwiesest]

I'll check Bakke later bump

[Constitution Day]

BUMP

[proud American in Canada]

bump (please put me on your ping list if you have one)..

thanks for an (as usual) excellent insight. :)

[Reagan Man]

Good article John. Thanks for posting it.

I thought Jonathan Turley, Ward Connerly and Fox News' own Andrew Napolitano had some of the best comments on todays SC decision.

Connerly said that "subjective judgement" is okay, but the Gratz v Bollinger decision would "tighten the noose on race preferences".

Turley said he thought that the pro-AA side shoudln't be "jumping for joy". The slim 5-4 victory could be overturned with a political change in the court.

Napalitano nailed it all the way, calling the Grutter v Bollinger decision for what it was. "Racism".

[reed_inthe_wind]

According to the Supreme Court, students learn as much from each other than they do from their Professors. What's wrong with the Professors?

Has anyone measured what students learn from each other? Is the transmission of knowledge from student to student maximized when the ability of some of the students is reduced by a racial selection process? If I brought my Grandmother to class would my fellow students learn still more? Are white people so homogenous, that only a minority student adds to the diversity? Is the Court relying on myth and superficiality to underpin their arguments?

I am not trying to hurt other people- but I would like my children to have a fair chance. Why isn't the court compelled to uphold the 14th amendment?

[Steve Eisenberg]

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.

I read the decision and did not get this out of it at all. Fact is, all the schools have to do is to say that they pattern their system on that of either Michigan Law or Amherst (latter made clear in Kennedy's non-dissent law school dissent), and any case against such a school will lose at the appeals court level and never recieve Supreme Court review.

Affirmative action practioners always favor the Huxtable types because they are less likely to flunk out. Affirmative action to favor ghetto blacks over those from the suburbs was tried for a few years at the start of AA, but was dropped because of the disasterous flunkout rates. Thomas was right in his dissent to emphasize the elitism of the majority law decision.

[rdb3]

*

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for your opinion. I was wondering what you thought when I heard a decision had been made.

[Steve Eisenberg]

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.

More on this. This majority did say that some blacks with high scores have to be non-admits in order to show that simply being black doesn't get you in. However, they did NOT require that the few high-scoring black non-admits be from stable and affluent families. Instead these high-scoring black non-admits could, and more likely would, be young men and women who rub the admissions people the wrong way. Just guessing, but which political party do you think those kind of rub-the-libs-the-wrong-way high-scoring blacks would be more likely to affiliate with?

Also, Justice Kennedy was on to something when he wrote that some of the liberals don't want Cubans included with Hispanics because Cubans vote GOP. Thus we may see some bright Cuban non-admits who in fact would have been admitted if white!

[lepton]

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

Is that the case? I have been hearingagain and again that the number is 12 for a perfect SAT.

[Lancey Howard]

So, what about shade? Are blacks with very light skin accorded the same preferrential bonus as blacks with very dark skin? Or what about a person who is half Asian, half black - - do they cancel each other out?

O'Connor and the rest of the liberals on the United States Supreme Court are disgraceful, pandering, political whores.

[Lancey Howard]

Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years."

How lame is that? Is that like saying all firearms ownership will be illegal - - for the next twenty-five years? Or, newspapers may not be published unless there is government approval of their content - - for the next twenty-five years?

Clearly, some members of this Supreme Court, not counting the known scumbags like Souter and Breyer, are way too old to think clearly. Are there any provisions which allow dottering, senile old fools to be removed from the bench involuntarily?

[htjyang]

1. The bad news is that the Constitution is whatever 5 people in black robes say it is.

But the good news is also that the Constitution is whatever 5 people in black robes say it is. If the Court's membership changes in the right direction soon, race preferences won't have 25 years. Let's hope President Bush will appoint the right people.

2. I heard that Alberto Gonzalez was the one who watered down the Administration's brief. With this outcome, there's no chance he'll be considered. (That is, unless one of the libs retires.)

3. The current president does bear some responsibility. He's the one who appointed Gonzalez to the position of White House counsel giving him a position to influence the Administration's brief, which would have been stronger if the Solicitor General Theodore Olson had his way.

The SG is also known as the Tenth Justice precisely because of his influence with the Court. There's the possibility that had the brief been stronger, we would've gotten rid of this nonsense. (Admittedly a slim possibility, but it existed. And, after all, it was a 5-4.)

More despicable, however, is the way the Administration celebrated the ruling. Jeb Bush put out a much better statement.

Did he really have to come out and say everything has gone merrily?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Is it accurate to regard the law school decision as a decision in equity rather than in law? I find decisions in equity to be horrendously frightening. They trump the law on a whim and make it impossible to predict the law, thus destablizing society and providing judges with an avenue to legislate. Would not society be better off if we abolished equity?