anyone here think that they will overturn Affirmative Action?

I'd like to see it gone

Hope so, although the question might be, if they do, what happens, do we see congressional action of some sort, states changing laws on contracting, how will the left respond...

Of course they should overturn it. It’s discrimination.

Affirmative action is very obviously unconstitutional and it will be overturned.

Too bad they couldn't have gotten rid of it when I was young, but OTOH, if it weren't for affirmative action, I probably would have never started my company, something that has been extremely good for me and my retirement.

I once won a local gov't. contract on a competitive bid, not because my price was the best (it was the worst), but rather I was the only bidder who had completed the AA paperwork correctly. They called and sullenly said they had to award it to my company, but asked if we'd work with them on price some more. That's your tax dollars at work.

Are there any cases percolating up the judicial food chain that would hit the SCOTUS any time soon? That would be a prerequisite for them to rule on it.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Are there any cases percolating up the judicial food chain that would hit the SCOTUS any time soon? That would be a prerequisite for them to rule on it.

Arguments are scheduled for 10/31/22 on two such cases…

AA is a tool that is useful when there is a current active discrimination policy in place. It has been a long time since I've seen it used as intended. I would like for it to be nuclear option for courts to have if there is a case of it happening again, but it should be reserved for cases when discrimination is clear.

I would love the Court to send a signal that AA is not needed in everyday America, and any preference/set aside for minorities is over and everyone competes on a level playing field, AKA Equality.

On a policy basis I could buy this. On a legal basis I don't. Either it's a form of discrimination or it isn't. If it is, and it's allowed, it's saying that discrimination, especially one way discrimination is legal. I don't know how that doesn't violate the equal protection clause.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
AA is a tool that is useful when there is a current active discrimination policy in place. It has been a long time since I've seen it used as intended. I would like for it to be nuclear option for courts to have if there is a case of it happening again, but it should be reserved for cases when discrimination is clear.

I would love the Court to send a signal that AA is not needed in everyday America, and any preference/set aside for minorities is over and everyone competes on a level playing field, AKA Equality.

This is a good example of why any law should have an expiration date. Want it 'forever'?, it should be a constitutional amendment.
Discrimination (by Gov't entities) was a real thing, not so much now. The law has been perverted for gain of those who wish to use it for gain.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
AA is a tool that is useful when there is a current active discrimination policy in place. It has been a long time since I've seen it used as intended. I would like for it to be nuclear option for courts to have if there is a case of it happening again, but it should be reserved for cases when discrimination is clear.

Nope!

If a person is wronged, that person is due a correction. If a person does wrong, that person is due penalties.

Just because a person who can be categorized in some particular way is wronged by somebody in another category does not mean persons of the first category are due extra goodies to be denied those in the second category simply because they are in those categories.

Your kind of logic is why there are wars ongoing for centuries. Rights given because of group affiliation and rights denied because of group affiliation are offensive to the very concept of Rights.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Are there any cases percolating up the judicial food chain that would hit the SCOTUS any time soon? That would be a prerequisite for them to rule on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...ion-harvard-unc.html

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Affirmative Action at Harvard and U.N.C.

The court’s new conservative supermajority may be skeptical of admissions programs that take account of race to foster educational diversity.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are lawful, raising serious doubts about the future of affirmative action in higher education.

The court has repeatedly upheld similar programs, most recently in 2016. But the court’s membership has tilted right in recent years, and its new conservative supermajority is almost certain to view the challenged programs with skepticism, imperiling more than 40 years of precedent that said race could be used as one factor among many in evaluating applicants.

“Affirmative action has repeatedly been administered last rites during the last five decades,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale. “But these two cases unmistakably pose the gravest threats yet to affirmative action’s continued vitality.”

The case against Harvard accused it of discriminating against Asian American students by using a subjective standard to gauge traits like likability, courage and kindness and by effectively creating a ceiling for them in admissions.

Lawyers for Harvard said the challengers had relied on a flawed statistical analysis and denied that the university discriminated against Asian American applicants. More generally, they said race-conscious admissions policies are lawful.

In the North Carolina case, the plaintiffs made a more familiar argument, saying the university discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones. The university responded that its admissions policies fostered educational diversity and were lawful under longstanding Supreme Court precedents.

quote:

Originally posted by snidera:
This is a good example of why any law should have an expiration date. Want it 'forever'?, it should be a constitutional amendment.
Discrimination (by Gov't entities) was a real thing, not so much now. The law has been perverted for gain of those who wish to use it for gain.

Great point. Term limits & sunset clauses are two changes which would rapidly improve our system.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
anyone here think that they will overturn Affirmative Action?

I'd like to see it gone

Yes. It's done for. Count on it.

It's racism, pure and simple. But. the left will twist it to fit their narrative.

https://americanliberty.news/c...ism/pcrespo/2022/10/

“Quotas” were restyled as “affirmative action.” The goal was still to give special benefits to some groups to achieve desired outcomes.

Now “affirmative action” has also become toxic, rejected most recently by voters in deep-blue California. Hence, the new name, “equity.”

Instead of making their case openly and honestly, advocates of equity twist and turn to avoid revealing their radical goal of re-engineering society through coercion.

This is the ultimate goal of the left — using the term ‘equity’ to mask a coercive socialist agenda intended to ‘fundamentally transform’ American society

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
anyone here think that they will overturn Affirmative Action?

I'd like to see it gone

Yes. It's done for. Count on it.

Yup. More Leftist heads are going to explode this term than the last.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race - is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” ... ― Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
Of course they should overturn it. It’s discrimination.

Somewhere between most and all discrimination I've witnessed has been reverse discrimination, in that if you were well qualified, you were left out of consideration or not chosen because you were 1) white, 2) male, and 3) well qualified. Having been in the workforce myself for a very long time, this has been my personal experience over the years. It was frustrating when it happened. One time my boss told me I was the best programmer in the entire organization (large IT dept), but he couldn't promote me for those reasons, and he said there wasn't anything he could do about it. This happened other times in the past as well, but was unspoken. So for myself I've seen reverse discrimination lots, not much of the other if at all. It depends on when you were born and which part of the country you worked in. These things are changing all the time.

I saw a news piece about an Asian man who had a PERFECT SAT score. 4.0 grade point average. All kinds of awards. Letters of recommendation from teachers, his local mayor, and an employer. He was denied admission at every single Ivy League school that he applied to. All of them. He will do just great at a State University or other school. But this was just flat out discrimination. Apparently the Ivy League schools feel they have too many Asians and it's time to cut back. Can't find a link, but there is another Asian male who is suing regarding his rejection from several Ivy league schools. They will have no problem finding other people who got accepted with lower qualifications. It is true that Asians are over represented in Ivy League Schools. Why? Because they have better grades as a group and academically excel. Do I have a problem with the higher percentage of Asians in Ivy League schools. Hell no. They earned it. It's a sad day when hard work and superior performance is punished instead of rewarded.