Some "protester" tossed a suspicious package on the steps of the SCOTUS.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-w...rd-education-schools

Biden doesn't like it, so we know it's the right decision.


Biden attacks Supreme Court: ‘not a normal court’ over affirmative action ruling.

President Joe Biden attacked the Supreme Court as “not a normal court” on Thursday after the court ruled race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional.

“Is this a rogue court?” a reporter asked the president.

After a long pause, Biden responded, “This is not a normal court.”

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the majority.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Roberts wrote in majority opinion. “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

A number of other prominent democrats also slammed the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, including former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions–it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts,” Obama wrote in a statement.

Pelosi accused the court of narrowing “access to higher education” and “the crucial ladder of opportunity that it provides.”

“Its impact will be felt imminently, diminishing hard-fought progress for racial justice,” Pelosi tweeted, adding in a follow-up tweet that Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion “does violence to justice and fairness in America.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion does violence to justice and fairness in America.

In contrast, Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent is inspiring to us, as we continue to fight to widen the path to success for all Americans.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 29, 2023

https://americanmilitarynews.c...5D&mc_cid=47b8585f0e

PSA: In common acronymity, USSC = United States Sentencing Commission. SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States.

-Rob

Cry me a fuckin' river. Typical disingenuous behavior by the mack daddy of all the world's hypocrites, leftists.

When they get what they want, they speak in reverential tones of "our wise and learned supreme justices."

When they don't get what they want, we get comments from them such as we've had today.

There's no honesty in these people. They have no actual respect for the court. If they did, they would realize and accept that they can't always get what they want, and when they don't get it, it doesn't automatically mean that the justices are stupid or evil or "not normal" whatever the fuck that means.

Such childish, phony behavior. I'm so sick of these tantrum-throwing infants.

quote:

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion does violence to justice and fairness in America.

— Nancy Pelosi

Of course, Words are Violence, And their Violence is Speech!

Hey, the Fake Indian who was able to advance her own career with affirmative action by claiming to be what she is not is calling Foul.

https://twitter.com/NadyaByzne.../1674488052876451843

Leftist will just declare the court illegitimate. You absolutely must think like these people or you are evil.

quote:

Originally posted by WingedMedic:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Color me skeptical. There is no punishment prescribed for ignoring or sidestepping a SCOTUS decision. Academia will not just roll over and accept this. They'll find workarounds. The only way this decision will be enforced is with civil lawsuits by folks who didn't get into a school, despite having far better academic credentials. And that would take a long time.

They are already doing so. I'm filling out MD/PA school applications right now, and now they ask dozens of questions regarding the socioeconomic, familial, geographical location of your upbringing/schooling (percentage of high school that graduated, percentage that qualified for reduced/free lunch, rural/suburban/urban upbringing, single parent household, etc.). I guarantee all these questions are so they can claim they "want diverse socioeconomic/geographic upbringings" which just happen to correlate to race.

quote:

Roberts said higher education institutions could still consider applicants' discussion of personal race-based experiences as part of their admissions essays.

“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise," he wrote. "But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

Admissions offices are going to go so far over the edge in their quest to curate & cull each application, while eschewing common testing measures, that the student body they are left with, will be unprepared for the rigor of university life and the work load.

In a few years, they'll start crying for a standardized test to screen applicants , the'll reinvent the SAT, MCAT, GMAT, GRE, etc...

Clarence Thomas took Ketanji Brown Jackson to school

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dismantled his colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's "race-infused world view" as part of the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to outlaw race considerations – also known as affirmative action – in the college admissions process.

Thomas, the second black justice to sit on the bench, sided with the 6-3 majority ruling Thursday saying the court's decision "sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes."

Thomas said that "Justice Jackson's race-infused world view falls flat at each step."

"Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their live," he said.

Thomas wrote a concurring opinion "to offer an originalist defense of the colorblind Constitution" and to "clarify that all forms of discrimination based on race—including so-called affirmative action—are prohibited under the Constitution; and to emphasize the pernicious effects of all such discrimination."

In doing so, Thomas slammed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in which she called the ruling a "truly a tragedy for us all" with "ostrich-like" logic.

"Though Justice Jackson seems to think that her race-based theory can somehow benefit everyone, it is an immutable fact that ‘every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race,'" Thomas wrote.

"Justice Jackson seems to have no response—no explanation at all—for the people who will shoulder that burden. How, for example, would Justice Jackson explain the need for race-based preferences to the Chinese student who has worked hard his whole life, only to be denied college admission in part because of his skin color?" Thomas questioned.

"With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the people of our Nation proclaimed that the law may not sort citizens based on race. It is this principle that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in the wake of the Civil War to fulfill the promise of equality under the law," Thomas wrote.

And it is this principle that has guaranteed a Nation of equal citizens the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws. To now dismiss it as ‘two-dimensional flatness,’ is to abdicate a sacred trust to ensure that our ‘honored dead . . . shall not have died in vain,’ Thomas said, quoting Justice Jackson and a portion from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

"Yet, Justice Jackson would replace the second Founders’ vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, on her view, almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race," he continued.

"Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, 'the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh-and-blood human beings," Thomas said.

"Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds," Thomas scolded.

"A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism," Thomas said.

"While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law," Thomas wrote.

The court's landmark decision stemmed from lawsuits against two of the country's most prestigious private and public universities: Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Both schools claimed that their admissions standards have a larger societal goal, one endorsed for decades by the courts: to promote a robust, intellectually diverse campus for future leaders.

But a student group of Asian Americans sued the schools, saying that their admissions criteria discriminated with a "racial penalty," holding them to a selectively higher standard than many Black and Hispanic students."

In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected the arguments of the universities and said the use of race as a factor in college admissions is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that both admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative man­ner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points."

"We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today," he said.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Cry me a fuckin' river. Typical disingenuous behavior by the mack daddy of all the world's hypocrites, leftists.

When they get what they want, they speak in reverential tones of "our wise and learned supreme justices."

When they don't get what they want, we get comments from them such as we've had today.

There's no honesty in these people. They have no actual respect for the court. If they did, they would realize and accept that they can't always get what they want, and when they don't get it, it doesn't automatically mean that the justices are stupid or evil or "not normal" whatever the fuck that means.

Such childish, phony behavior. I'm so sick of these tantrum-throwing infants.

Mark Levin recently said the worst of democrats are evil, as in, evil individual human beings. I think there's quite a bit of truth in that. Just watch any video of someone like Adam Schiff talking shit. All he needs are some horns growing out of his head. There are lots of evil people like that on the Hill. If they weren't wearing suits and ties they would be drug dealers, human smugglers, and worse. They just found an easy way to make a living on the Hill.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
I assume this is just affirmative action in college admissions and not across the board for everything?

That’s not how I read it. School admissions was one of very few areas where race was allowed to be used as a factor and this decision eliminates that practice. But the test it adopts for deciding whether similar practices violate the 14th Amendment is pretty much impossible to satisfy. The limiting factor is that this applies to discrimination by the government or by private institutions that take money from the government (the latter being why this applies to a private university like Harvard).

In the early 80's, the Government stated that minorities should make up 10 percent of the work force.
As a results, minority engineers got a premium.

Some were OK, but we had three individuals that took advange of the system. They never came to work on time, took long lunch breaks, and milked a job or had problems completing the job. So how are they going to get rid of them? One Department Head transferred to another department when he couldn't get them to comply.

Then it happened. They were caught working on a job outside the company without the company's permission. They were escorted off the premises by Security. Security went through their office belongings and found stolen property.

You can sum up affirmative action into this:

“If someone gets admitted because of their race alone, then someone was NOT admitted because of their race alone.”

That IS the definition of prejudiced racism.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

That’s not how I read it. School admissions was one of very few areas where race was allowed to be used as a factor and this decision eliminates that practice. But the test it adopts for deciding whether similar practices violate the 14th Amendment is pretty much impossible to satisfy. The limiting factor is that this applies to discrimination by the government or by private institutions that take money from the government (the latter being why this applies to a private university like Harvard).

The holding of the case tells you what it applies to. The holding is that that admissions processes at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional. This ruling does not apply directly to anything but those two admissions processes.

However, the logic of the case, and the interpretation of the law in it will give guidance to other, different factual situations. The closer the facts of some other situation are to the facts of this case, the more you can be sure this case will apply. So, if Stanford has a process almost just like Harvard's, they better change. But some other university may have a very different program, and it is possible that it is different enough to survive. It will be some lawyer's job to try to articulate a difference that will allow it to survive review.

Sometimes it takes a series of cases and rulings to completely flesh out the contours of "new" law.

If the context is completely different, like a hiring program, this case will be important and a guide (and maybe even a roadmap), but it is less likely to be directly applicable.

The logic in this case could certainly be applied pretty broadly. This isn't an overly narrow ruling, and we may learn that they mean to apply this logic to a lot of other contexts. I haven't read the opinion in detail yet, which will allow scholars and lawyers to begin to get a feel of where the court will go on similar questions. Some rulings are obviously very narrow, and some are more expansive.

As I said, the Courts generally tailor their rulings to be fairly narrow. You can use them to try to tell what they would do in another situation or case, but the holding of this case applies to this case only.

That is the way a common-law system works.

An actual tweet from a non-parody Democrat organizer type. This is what they actually think in their minds, that black people are just too dumb to get into college without a thumb on the scale:



Then I think she realized she fucked up and naturally tried to blame “ULTRA MAGA” for “misinformation” and followed up with this where she is currently getting ratioed off this planet:


https://twitter.com/ericarepor...ATrcntUVmjHy8YyHvPCg

Yeah, sweetie, and don't forget that they need help obtaining I.D.

'cause you ain't racist at all.

Hopkins, representing the Left along with host Krystal Ball, continue to parrot the old talking point that laws need to be created to 'right historical wrongs' while ignoring the cultural & domestic situations that Delano brings up.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

That’s not how I read it. School admissions was one of very few areas where race was allowed to be used as a factor and this decision eliminates that practice. But the test it adopts for deciding whether similar practices violate the 14th Amendment is pretty much impossible to satisfy. The limiting factor is that this applies to discrimination by the government or by private institutions that take money from the government (the latter being why this applies to a private university like Harvard).

The holding of the case tells you what it applies to. The holding is that that admissions processes at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional. This ruling does not apply directly to anything but those two admissions processes.

However, the logic of the case, and the interpretation of the law in it will give guidance to other, different factual situations. The closer the facts of some other situation are to the facts of this case, the more you can be sure this case will apply. So, if Stanford has a process almost just like Harvard's, they better change. But some other university may have a very different program, and it is possible that it is different enough to survive. It will be some lawyer's job to try to articulate a difference that will allow it to survive review.

Sometimes it takes a series of cases and rulings to completely flesh out the contours of "new" law.

If the context is completely different, like a hiring program, this case will be important and a guide (and maybe even a roadmap), but it is less likely to be directly applicable.

The logic in this case could certainly be applied pretty broadly. This isn't an overly narrow ruling, and we may learn that they mean to apply this logic to a lot of other contexts. I haven't read the opinion in detail yet, which will allow scholars and lawyers to begin to get a feel of where the court will go on similar questions. Some rulings are obviously very narrow, and some are more expansive.

As I said, the Courts generally tailor their rulings to be fairly narrow. You can use them to try to tell what they would do in another situation or case, but the holding of this case applies to this case only.

That is the way a common-law system works.

I understand the common law system pretty well - we spent a good bit of time on it in law school.

The very clear, objectively verifiable strict scrutiny test articulated in the majority opinion will be all but impossible to satisfy in cases where simple “check the box” racial identification is used as a proxy for other testable characteristics. Most of what we do as lawyers is apply decided cases to new facts through analysis and argument and my opinion is that this standard is so exacting-especially in its demand for evidence-that most programs will fall.

What will be interesting to see is how far this reaches into purely private enterprises. The Court was careful to limit the opinion to the 14th Amendment and government sponsored discrimination, but there are a host of civil rights laws that reach much further.

Can I be in the ULTRA MAGA?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Can I be in the ULTRA MAGA?

With Steroids or without?