• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

jhmd2000 said:
TLDR Post break.

Just finished reading the Majority and Alito's dissent for the second time each. The majority opinion is an utter embarrassment to the law. Seriously, this is from a majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court:

Petitioner’s final argument is that “there are numerous other available race-neutral means of achieving” the University’s compelling interest. Brief for Petitioner 47. A review of the record reveals, however, that, at the time of petitioner’s application, none of her proposed alternatives was a workable means for the University to attain the benefits of diversity it sought.

Excuse me, did you say "her"? I could have sworn you just said "her", as in the "Petitioner" "her", but there's no way you did that, right? You just concluded that Petitioner's proposed race-neutral objectives failed to achieve the same (undefined) critical-mass?

So the party without any burden of proof loses because she didn't propose an alternative that would achieve the Party who carries the heaviest Constitutional burden known to the law's goals. That's the law, now?

I remember a time when the SCOTUS could remember who has the burden of proof. This is the problem with lying. Once you start, you have to do so much of it just to keep up.
Click to expand...

Good lord, man.
 
RChildress107 said:
#BeckyWithTheBadGrades
Click to expand...

If that was true, they wouldn't need the preferences. Watch them argue that they do and try not to be amazed that this is America in 2016. Sorry Becky, but you don't have the right skin color for this public opportunity. Better luck next time.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If that was true, they wouldn't need the preferences. Watch them argue that they do and try not to be amazed that this is America in 2016. Sorry Becky, but you don't have the right skin color for this public opportunity. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

True, thanks for reminding us how easy it is to get into a state school.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If that was true, they wouldn't need the preferences. Watch them argue that they do and try not to be amazed that this is America in 2016. Sorry Becky, but you don't have the right skin color for this public opportunity. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Citizens are entitled to things simply because they exist? Duly noted.
 
RChildress107 said:
True, thanks for reminding us how easy it is to get into a state school.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's not very easy. To hear it told, there is no lesser, race-neutral way, despite how very, very, very hard the University of Texas tried to find one. They tried hard right, and all those measures failed, right? Because that's their burden to find a narrowly tailored solution to meet this compelling state interest, right? The Alito dissent recounts these Herculean efforts:

Notwithstanding these lauded results, UT leapt at the opportunity to reinsert race into the process. On June 23,2003, this Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s race-conscious admissions system. In Grutter, the Court warned that a university contemplating the consideration of race as part of its admissions process must engage in “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.” Id., at 339. Nevertheless, on the very day Grutter was handed down, UT’s president announced that “[t]he University of Texas at Austin will modify its admissions procedures” in light of Grutter, including by “implementing procedures at the undergraduate level that combine the benefits of the Top 10 Percent Law with affirmative action programs.”

[emphasis in the original]

They must have looked for other, race-neutral alternatives for what, hours? This is the problem with lying.
 
Maybe Becky should have gotten better grades, or pulled herself up by the bootstraps more.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Citizens are entitled to things simply because they exist? Duly noted.
Click to expand...

Citizens are entitled to Equal Protection under the law. I'm not nuanced enough to see how active, de jure racial discrimination in America in 2016 comports with equality.

Somebody remind me what would have be so horribly unacceptable about the Top 10% rule as a stand alone, race-neutral alternative. Seriously, why not? Oh that's right, the University said---and I'm not making this up, read the dissent---that would let too many of the "wrong kind" of minorities in. They actually said that.

Which ones are the "wrong kind" to our government?
 
Last edited:
i suppose there's a philosophical difference between 'equal opportunity' and 'equal outcome', both on a micro/personal level and a macro/humanity level

tumblr_mywejlIefq1t5l954o1_500.jpg
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i suppose there's a philosophical difference between 'equal opportunity' and 'equal outcome', both on a micro/personal level and a macro/humanity level

tumblr_mywejlIefq1t5l954o1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

Which feeds the false narrative to the point of obesity. Nobody says that we shouldn't help people who need help, but we should endeavor to do it in a legal way. I don't believe that you can't get diversity with race-neutral measures.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Which feeds the false narrative to the point of obesity. Nobody says that we shouldn't help people who need help, but we should endeavor to do it in a legal way. I don't believe that you can't get diversity with race-neutral measures.
Click to expand...

Human history says otherwise.
 
you're such a fervent defender the tenuous "evidence" on the Hillary/Bengazi situation yet are willing to ignore mountains of data about diversity in employment and education
 
ImTheCaptain said:
you're such a fervent defender the tenuous "evidence" on the Hillary/Bengazi situation yet are willing to ignore mountains of data about diversity in employment and education
Click to expand...

Data like the Mismatch Effect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top