Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges, says schools can’t consider race in admission

The Republicans abolished the SCOTUS filibuster during the Gorsuch nomination.

 

It is so on brand for you to act like there is no difference between fighting to end slavery and fighting to give Black people reparations (most of whom never experienced Jim Crow and all of whom never experienced slavery) and preferences in college admissions at the expense of White people (all of whom had nothing to do with slavery and most of whom had nothing to do with Jim Crow).

 

But Reid abolished it for judicial picks.

 

Its on brand for you to excuse your reactionary nonsense by blaming other people for making you this way

 

Whenever I see or hear a sentence start off with "most minorities" or "most (ETHNIC GROUP) people" all the red flags start flying.

 

Let me guess escalation is fair game because turnabout

 

It's reactionary, it's far from nonsense.

It's turnabout and a refusal to yield control over the country and culture to a bunch of spoiled condescending anti-religious power-hungry jackasses.

 

I'm not sure of the inner workings of the agreements, but don't the Tribes have this right as Sovereign nations?

 

No, you don't get to narrow the rule to such a degree to only apply to a particular set of circumstances because it's convenient to you, then get mad when your opposition does exactly the same thing for something else.

For example, if Democrats get a big enough coalition in the Senate, perhaps they pack the Court.

If that happens, are Republicans suddenly hypocrites for packing the Court two seconds later or are they just playing by the new rules?

 

Or by cops/CBP stopping people because of their color/ethnicity.

 

No, I understand how politics works, and I have opposed the filibuster in all cases. I think I explained to you how futile arguing hypocrisy is, I mainly wanted you to get the facts straight - the filibuster for supreme court nominees was abolished during the Gorsuch confirmation.

 

But it was abolished for judicial picks by Harry Reid.

You think if the roles were reversed that Democrats just would've drawn the line at Supreme Court picks if they didn't have the votes to get their nominee in?

Why? Since when have they shown restraint on something like that over the long-term consequences. They only ever narrow a rule so that it can be a one-off thing to get what they want without it ever being used against them. Republicans call bullshit on that stupid game and Democrats lose their marbles.

 

LMAO!!!

You're whole damn side ain't nothing but regurgitated talking points by like 50 posters over and over again.

I got half the board on ignore, and don't miss a beat bc of the repetitive redundancy.

 

QFT.

Sadly.

 

I’m not sure that the logic in this idea follows. Why would the make up of a college student body naturally represent the population dynamics of the state? It seems to me that the only way that could be achieved naturally was if the acceptances were chosen randomly from the pool of applicants, with no other qualifications required besides merely applying.

However, that alone would not be enough. The pool of applicants would need to represent the demographics of the state. Not the general demographics of the state, but the demographics of each year’s high school graduating class.

Looking at North Carolina, because that was the focus of the Supreme Court decision, the graduation rate in 2019 was Asians 95%, Whites 90%, Blacks 83%, and Hispanics 80%.

So right off the bat the pool of potential applicants is skewed towards Asians. In the case of UNCCH, do the people who even want to go there represent the demographics of high school graduates of the state?

High School Graduation Rate in North Carolina

 

Judge Thomas got his:

Four decades before he was among the conservative Supreme Court justices who restricted the use of affirmative action in higher education, Clarence Thomas told staffers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that “God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles on equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years,” Thomas, the EEOC chairman, said in 1983."

 

Yep. Agree

 

That was my point. *If* we had a colorblind society such discrepancies would not exist. They do exist. Can you explain them?

 

I understand the argument you mean to make here, but it just does not hold up historically. First, is the “race-based” angle. Slavery, as we understand the term today, has always been a function of “us and them”: We are never to be enslaved, but is okay to enslave them. Best illustration of this concept is in the Old Testament. Now the Bible might not make for a great history book, but it does provide insight as to how people thought in ancient times. Note that the ancient Hebrews did not have a moral outrage with slavery per se; they very clearly kept slaves both before and after the period in Egypt, did not proscribe the practice in their very comprehensive list of laws that regulated almost every other aspect of ancient life, and every mention of a slave (they owned) is as casual as any other form of livestock. What they had a moral outrage about was being the slaves. And that I completely empathize with that. I note also that Egyptians did not enslave other Egyptians but Nubians, Kushians, Arabs, and most famously Hebrews. If we want an example that has more actual historical and less religious evidence, then I give you the Spartans. I recently reread Thucydides to get ready for school, and I could see no discernible difference between between the form of slavery practiced by the Spartans over the Messenians than that practiced later in North America. You might instinctively say, “Aha! That’s not ‘race-based.’ Both groups were ‘white.’” But that’s applying a modern understanding of race instead of the one they held at the time. To a Spartan, a Messenian was just as different and just as worthy of the seemingly contradictory feelings of contempt and fear as 18th Century white plantation owners saw in their black slaves. I also fail to see much of a moral distinction in the race-based angle. I could never imagine, for instance, being a slave of the Germans and telling myself, “It could be worse. At least I’m not enslaved because of the color of my skin.” The practice is still just as horrifying for the slave and just as morally toxic for the slaveholder.

The second point about “chattel” is even less distinctive in my opinion. Chattel in simple terms just distinguishes slaves (and their future generations) as property of the ruling people as opposed to other forms of involuntary servitude, such as serfdom, indenture, convicted criminal, etc. As far as I can tell, what you refer to as “chattel” slavery is the norm throughout history, and others are the exception. In the two ancient examples above, there is no question that the slaves and their offspring were the property of the ruling people. And they had no rights under the law (whatever the law was) apart from the mercy of their owners.

Emotionally, I understand why we want to hold the practice of slavery in North America distinct from the practice that had existed everywhere in the world in an unbroken manner for at least 3000 years (and that is just when the records really begin; it probably predates the written word by thousands years more). We need a situation where we can hold modern white people accountable for the sins of white people who lived hundreds of years earlier (and to whom they may or may not actually be related) but at the same time absolve all other peoples for the sins of their ancestors. And the only way to do that is to say, “This situation was different. Those other situations were just the product of the natural evolution of human civilizations, but the slavery of the early United States was pure evil.” But the truth, backed up by historical record, seems to be that all slavery is both evil and the product of societal evolution.

 

Yep, Clarence “I got mine, F you” Thomas