Replies

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

I hate to be the one to point this out, but.....This is the way it has to be.

Everyone wants to see the glass as half empty, but it is not.

UM had been using a darn Point System, so that members of a favored subgroup, were awarded more based on melatonin,
than they could get by a perfect SAT score.

This is now Clearly illegal. That is a victory for right.

Now on to the Law School.Keeping in mind, that we already have 50% of the battle in this case won.

OConnor, long known as a swing vote on social issues sticks to her known tendencies, provided the swing to allow race to
be considered, as part of a lesser consideration.

this is still not a colorblind society, but....

As it is pointed out, her own writing expresses the fact that this is a dying light..... that is in and of itself, half a victory in half the
case...

at the end of the day, The principles of Right walked away with 75% ......And gave the left nothing to campaign on....a side
bonus...

this is more of a victory than people are willing to admit.

In terms of thinking long, more people need to study the way the Chinese think...instead of letting their intellect be driven by this
pseudo-madisonavenue-fastfoodculture style of thinking....

Hispanic is not a race. A Cuban such as Desi Arnez is 100% white of Spanish decent. Fidel is white. Many of the elite Mexican's are white, Fox is white. Many of the South American countries have a signicant number of people that are of French decent but speak Spanish. I think that a good case can be made if someone complains about a white Hispanic getting preferance at one of these schools.

If you give a group of university professors who want to discriminate against whites the slightest opportunity they will. And they will have the intelligence to dream up all sorts of ways to discriminate that will appear to be "fairer" or "less biased" than the old, forbidden way. Buit, they will always manage to achieve the same result as the old way. They will just have to jump through more hoops to do it.

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.

I don't think that the current court can mandate the action of a future court.

Plus this is a huge defeat for conservatives. It appears to me to that the court has here decided the "living constitution" vs. "strict constructionist" debate clearly in favor of the "living constitution". Even worse, not only has the court said that the constitution is living and changing right before our eyes, but that we know exactly how it is going to change.

Right now the constitution says one thing, twenty five years from now it is going to say an entirely different thing. And, we can tell you exactly what it is going to say in twenty five years.

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

Are you unfamiliar with the sarcasm tag? Surely you can't be serious.

This is just one more example of "compassionate conservatism". May God grant you a twenty-five year toothache!