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

Hereditary chattel slavery is definitely not the historical norm, nor was racial slavery (race itself as we know it is basically a 19th century idea). Also your take is pretty far removed from scholarly consensus about the transatlantic slave trade and how slavery operated in the Americas being a distinct phenomenon, whether it be in antiquity, medieval serfdom, Africa or the mideast. The scale and scope of slavery in the Americas would be inconceivable to people any period in prior human history.

 

How dare a Black man think differently.

 

I'm not sure I follow the logic of using graduation rates of differently sized groups with different socioeconomic characteristics. Not every graduate is interested in college nor capable of gaining entry, so using that metric as a proxy for college applicants seems like an unsupportable stretch.

 

Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for lower Federal court nominees because Mitch McConnell was using the tactic to block almost all of Barack Obama's judicial nominees. Reid specifically didn't eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to ensure the confirmation of all of Trump's nominees and let's not forget that Mitch put the fix in after the death of Antonin Scalia by holding Scalia's seat open not even allowing a vote on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland based on the rationale that in an election year a president shouldn't be able to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Interestingly, Mitch did a 180 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away even though Scalia passed away around 10 months prior to the 2016 election while Ginsburg's seat opened as the result of her death around six weeks before the 2020 election.

 

SCOTUS: Protected class status can only be used to harm class members not to benefit them.

 

You make very good points. And your last sentence is especially strong. And unlike many who bandy about the argument, you actually know your history. Nothing but respect.

That said, I still think there is a very strong argument that the legal regimen of race-based chattel slavery was at least not a pure continuity. A lot of the discontinuity may have been byproducts of changing times and capabilities.

If the proposition is: American slavery circa 1850 is the product of a more malevolent mindset among it's creators and maintainers than existed previously in humanity, I think you have a very solid point. Original sin, and all that. I can get on board with that.

But if we change the proposition to: Are the relatively unique characteristics (or degrees of emphasis) in American race-based chattel slavery and the supporting legal and "intellectual" infrastructure assembled to maintain the institution far more likely to create on an ongoing caste system that long survives the de jure termination of the peculiar institution, then I think there is a substantial difference, one highly relevant to discussions in 2023 about how our society should be constituted.

 

Lower court judicial picks not Supreme Court judicial picks keeping in mind there is no avenue of appeal for Supreme Court decisions.

 

Differently meaning "I had the benefit of affirmative action but since I'm against it in principle no one should benefit from the practice in the future."

 

Seems you’re mad at Mitch for disagreeing with Obama and Democrats. Democrats changed the rules cause they didn’t like it, now they’re living with the consequences.

I’ll go and find a violin for you.

 

This isn't about race. It's about self-serving hypocrisy.

 

Vouchers. Next question…..

 

I guess because affirmative action was perhaps justified at some point, it should always be justified because “Clarence Thomas got his.”

 

We’re in 2023, not 1980 talking about people who literally lived through Jim Crow.

 

I didn’t miss that… what the hell did you think I was responding to. Geez.

 

Giving credit where credit is due Mitch was and probably still is a master at manipulating the system to achieve his goals. He's also one of the least ethical majority leaders in the history of the Senate again citing his complete reversal with respect to the nominations of Merrick Garland by Barack Obama and Amy Coney Barrett by Donald Trump. Apparently you do not see the inconsistency in blocking a SCOTUS nomination 10 months prior to an election on the basis that the voters should play a role in determining the president who fills a vacant seat while pushing through the nominee for a vacancy that occurred a little over one month prior to an election.

 

I see the inconsistency, but I don't see the inconsistency where it matters most: Republicans controlled the Senate in both instances.

I used to think that he should've put it up for a vote and maybe he should have. But that's not why ya'll are angry. You're angry because you lost and the Court is now an obstacle as opposed to a weapon.

 

From 1980:
"Thomas first gained recognition as a lawyer and assistant to then-Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), and was described in The Post in 1980 as “a longtime supporter of Ronald Reagan, opposed to the minimum wage law, rent control, busing and affirmative action.”

Man, he was really talking out of both sides of his mouth, wasn't he?

 

You're using third-party characterizations of him to act like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

You have anything regarding his own statements? Why he changed his mind?

 

Please tell us why a colorblind society would lead to university acceptance rates that reflect the society’s demographics.

 

That's one way to look at it. I think there is another, in that you cant enslave someone without tacitly acknowledging their humanity, which leads to a struggle of sorts. To enslave a war captive or someone at your mercy is to acknowledge their humanity and let them live, which means some degree of empathy and not an 'us vs them' mentality per se. But the fact that you have enslaved someone also causes the slaver to loathe the enslaved for their condition, so there is a struggle of sorts between free and unfree conditions, because they are bonded and the enslaved wants to be free (and the free fears their own enslavement if they are too lenient to slave). Freedom is defined by slavery and vice versa. Its a dialectical relationship. American freedom cannot be defined without its carceral systems, whether its slavery, coerced labor, or our vast network of prisons now.