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

I don’t disagree. I was responding to the idea that university enrollment would “naturally” reflect the demographics of a colorblind society. I was pointing out that it will never reflect the general dynamics of society because only high school graduates can get into university. If you had a population that was 10% Martians, but only one percent of Martians graduated from high school, you would not “naturally” have a university population that is 10% Martians without some other admission criteria being introduced.

 

There are a lot of Thomas quotes on the AA issues. In only one does he praise it, with effusiveness and sincerity, during his tenure as chairman of the EEOC. His thoughts on the matter evolve quickly after that.

 

Shocking

 

For the record I am not a fan of judicial filibustering or not filibustering. I believe the president should nominate judges and the senate should confirm the judges and I think that if the parties are opposing, they should come up with a list that they can agree on.

But Schumer decided that a great idea would be to just start filibustering judges and this is where it got started.

This did not start with Mitch McConnell.

Once you start playing games and using new strategies that are unilateral, you must be ready to accept the reality that eventually the shoe is going to be on the other foot.

Here is an opinion piece that gives a little more background:
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...crats-stole-the-nations-lower-federal-courts/

 

Not even relevant to the point I made.

 

Oh well. Cry about it.

 

Highly misleading. Doesn't even mention the Blue Slip or significant other aspects of the process. Way, way more history. Don't condescend without cause

 

I think you're using graduation as the only factor in your analysis.

If 10% the population of NC is Asian and 95% of them graduate and 100% had the interest, means, ability and preparedness go to college, the pool of Asian college candidates would be 9.5% of the state's population. If 30% were white and 90% of them graduate and only 20% had the interest, means, ability and preparedness, the pool of white college candidates would be 5.4% of the state's population. These are made up numbers but demonstrates that one group can have +5% graduation rate yet represent almost twice the gross number of candidates. The only way for graduation rates to be a proxy for candidate pool size is to assume all groups are equal in all other traits.

 

You can educate yourself by reading your own linked article. Harry Reid along with Chuck Schumer did away with filibuster for nominees for lower federal courts (District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal); Mitch McConnell did away with filibuster for the US Supreme Court. There is a huge difference and it's more than one of degree. Decisions of lower courts may be appealed. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final and become the law of the land.

 

Yeah, saying that Democrats are concerned about the long-term institutional ramifications of abolishing the filibuster... I have my doubts, especially considering they did it first.

This is just sour grapes.

 

Republicans controlled the Senate and if McConnell was interested acting in an ethical manner he would have allowed a vote on Garland's nomination. If the Republican majority didn't think that Garland was fit they could have voted not to confirm him. Mitch didn't allow a vote because he knew that Garland who was considered to be a moderate undoubtedly would have been confirmed especially considering that his nomination to the Court of Appeals was confirmed by 76-23 margin.

 

Please tell us why it would not.

 

No, he didn't bring it to vote because they didn't have the votes.

Also, you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you're saying that abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court picks is different from other picks. On the other, you're saying a vote to confirm a judge in the Court of Appeals in 1995 will have a similar vote for the Supreme Court in 2016.

 

In other words he didn't have the votes to stop Garland's confirmation. So you're essentially agreeing that he pulled the clearly unethical and unprecedented stunt of not allowing a vote because he knew that Garland would be confirmed.

 

No, I'm saying he didn't bring it to vote because Garland would have been rejected.

This sort of thing happens in Congress all the time. Somebody wants to put something up for a vote. They talk behind the scenes and start counting who they have. Then they make the decision on whether to bring it to vote based on whether they have the numbers. That's not how the system should work, but that's how the system has worked for my entire lifetime.

 

Ah...so you agree with Biden that they ain't black. They are Uncle Toms and Oreos. Got it.

 

No I’m just certain that you don’t know any black people that said that. Such a weird thing to lie about.

 

If McConnell thought that Garland would have been rejected he would have brought the nomination to a roll call vote. He refused to allow a vote on the nomination because he wanted to keep the seat open. Keep in mind that votes on confirmation of SCOTUS nominees strictly on party lines although more common now are the historic exception rather than the norm.