It's time to get rid of lifetime appointments

[Skydog Deac]

I realize they aren't really given lifetime appointments, but to me Scalia violates Constitutional "good behavior".

http://q13fox.com/2015/12/09/scalia-suggests-black-students-should-attend-a-slower-track-school-where-they-do-well/

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia raised eyebrows on Wednesday with a comment he made during the court’s hearing of an affirmative action case, in which he seemed to suggest some African-Americans belong in lesser colleges.

Scalia was questioning the attorney for the University of Texas, which is defending its use of race as a factor in admissions in the case before the court.

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said, according to the transcript. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.”

The attorney, Gregory G. Garre, tried to interject, but Scalia continued.

“They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them,” Scalia said. “I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some — you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less.”

 

[Junebug]

Huffpo should be ashamed.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Why has Kagan reused herself from this case but not the PPACA case a few years ago?

Also, does anyone have a link to the transcripts from today?

 

[Liquid Karma]

Huffpo should be ashamed.

What did they do?

 

[Junebug]

What did they do?

They insinuated in their opening line that black students do not matter to Scalia and then went on to cite, as "support," him quoting what others said and asking questions at oral argument.

It's shameful, and they probably know better but want clicks.

 

[Junebug]

They insinuated in their opening line that black students do not matter to Scalia and then went on to cite, as "support," him quoting what others said and asking questions at oral argument.

It's shameful, and they probably know better but want clicks.

Also, I just realized the title of the fucking article is:

Justice Scalia Thinks Black Students Belong In 'Slower-Track' Schools

 

[TownieDeac]

It's fun to see what gets Junebug riled up.

 

[Skydog Deac]

Ok butthead, I changed to OP link to something from a Fox outlet. Amazingly I couldn't find it on Fox News online. How about addressing his comments instead of bitching about Huffington Post?

 

[Skydog Deac]

It's fun to see what gets Junebug riled up.

They are the masters of deflection.

 

[Junebug]

They are the masters of deflection.

Why don't you check the other thread where it is, you know, being discussed?

 

[Junebug]

Ok butthead, I changed to OP link to something from a Fox outlet. Amazingly I couldn't find it on Fox News online. How about addressing his comments instead of bitching about Huffington Post?

CNN should also be ashamed, although their article is much less inflammatory than Huffpo's.

I would have thought even the SCOTUS dilettantes would have learned not to read into justices' questions after justice Roberts asked the question about sex discrimination at the obergefell argument and everyone breathlessly reported that the decision was going to be 6-3.

 

[Strickland33]

CNN should also be ashamed, although their article is much less inflammatory than Huffpo's.

I would have thought even the SCOTUS dilettantes would have learned not to read into justices' questions after justice Roberts asked the question about sex discrimination at the obergefell argument and everyone breathlessly reported that the decision was going to be 6-3.

Do you care to address Scalia's comments or offer any sort of substantiation? I'm sure you can find some sources from the annals of eugenics and phrenology.

What a colossal joke.

 

[Junebug]

Do you care to address Scalia's comments or offer any sort of substantiation? I'm sure you can find some sources from the annals of eugenics and phrenology.

What a colossal joke.

He didn't make any comments. He repeated what someone else stated and asked a question about it. There is no substantiation needed because there is no there there.

You idiots act like you've never been to an oral argument in federal court before.

 

[Strickland33]

He didn't make any comments. He repeated what someone else stated and asked a question about it. There is no substantiation needed because there is no there there.

You idiots act like you've never been to an oral argument in federal court before.

He didn't make any comments? That's seems odd given the comments that he made.

You idiots act like you've never been to an oral argument in federal court before.

SICK BURN, BRO

 

[RChildress107]

He didn't make any comments? That's seems odd given the comments that he made.

Not really. Saying "there are those that contend" or "one might argue" is not the same thing as saying "I contend" or "I would argue". Especially in the context of an oral argument.

Scalia was responding to an argument by UT's counsel that if UT lost this case, diversity would plummet at schools like UT. Most charitably to Scalia, the argument he was posing to UT's counsel was:

1. Black students, on aggregate, have been disadvantaged their whole lives, especially at school.
2. Thus, on aggregate, they finish High School less qualified (by traditional metrics) and less prepared than their white peers. (otherwise, in theory, AA wouldn't be needed to achieve a diverse student body)
3. While not condoning the discrimination that led to this discrepancy, we should enact policies that help black students overcome the gap that exists at the end of high school.
4. The best way to do that might not be to place these students at schools they would have been prepared for absent 18 years of disadvantage, but instead at schools they are actually prepared for.

While I think that is a bad argument for many reasons (and I don't think Scalia deserves to be read that charitably) it doesn't strike me as beyond the pale. I also thought the response from UT's counsel was great:

This Court heard and rejected that argument, with respect, Justice Scalia, in the Grutter case, a case that our opponents have and asked this Court to overrule.  If you look at the academic performance of holistic minority admits versus the top10 percent admits, over time,­­ they fare better.

And, frankly, I don't think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools.  I think what experience shows, at Texas, California, and Michigan, is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student body diversity in America.

 

[Strickland33]

Not really. Saying "there are those that contend" or "one might argue" is not the same thing as saying "I contend" or "I would argue". Especially in the context of an oral argument.

Scalia was responding to an argument by UT's counsel that if UT lost this case, diversity would plummet at schools like UT. Most charitably to Scalia, the argument he was posing to UT's counsel was:

1. Black students, on aggregate, have been disadvantaged their whole lives, especially at school.
2. Thus, on aggregate, they finish High School less qualified (by traditional metrics) and less prepared than their white peers. (otherwise, in theory, AA wouldn't be needed to achieve a diverse student body)
3. While not condoning the discrimination that led to this discrepancy, we should enact policies that help black students overcome the gap that exists at the end of high school.
4. The best way to do that might not be to place these students at schools they would have been prepared for absent 18 years of disadvantage, but instead at schools they are actually prepared for.

While I think that is a bad argument for many reasons (and I don't think Scalia deserves to be read that charitably) it doesn't strike me as beyond the pale. I also thought the response from UT's counsel was great:

Meh, I hear y'all. You don't have invoke every amicus brief, though, and Scalia is bringing up a really controversial argument while pretty badly trivializing the argument. On the referenced amicus brief:

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, defended Scalia, saying he wasn't implying black students are inferior.

"What Justice Scalia is referring to is the 'mismatch theory' popularized by Stuart Taylor and Richard Sander in their book," she said. "The idea is that if a student is admitted to a school they are not academically prepared for then they will not perform up to their own potential. This is a theory -- contested of course -- but I don't want people to get the idea that it means that all black students are not as smart as white students, or even that they are not as well prepared across the board."

"Students with an interest in science who are admitted to a very competitive school via a large preference tend to drop out of the sciences at a much higher rate than do otherwise similar students who attend somewhat less competitive programs," the brief said. "Competition mismatch appears to be a major factor in the low rate at which African-American students become scientists, despite high levels of interest in the sciences."

I've read some of the Taylor & Sander stuff (Sander is at UCLA Law) and it's hotly contested, to say the least. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's as intellectually dishonest as the Bell Curve or the Regnerus research, but the way that Scalia appears to be representing the material is pretty irresponsible. I guess these guys are bound by tradition to do whatever the hell they want, but presenting the argument in the way that Scalia presented it (and I would argue, "commented on" given his interpretation) is utterly inappropriate.

 

[RChildress107]

Meh, I hear y'all. You don't have invoke every amicus brief, though, and Scalia is bringing up a really controversial argument while pretty badly trivializing the argument. On the referenced amicus brief:



I've read some of the Taylor & Sander stuff (Sander is at UCLA Law) and its hotly contested, to say the least. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's as intellectually dishonest as the Bell Curve or the Regnerus research, but the way that Scalia appears to be representing the material is pretty irresponsible. I guess these guys are bound by tradition to do whatever the hell they want, but presenting the argument in the way that Scalia presented it (and I would argue, "commented on" given his interpretation) is utterly inappropriate.

I hear what you are saying, I just don't see it. If he comes out with anything close to that argument in a concurrence (or hopefully a dissent) I'm with you, but to me this is more an example of why the general media should be extremely careful parsing questions from the justices at oral argument.

 

[Strickland33]

I hear what you are saying, I just don't see it. If he comes out with anything close to that argument in a concurrence (or hopefully a dissent) I'm with you, but to me this is more an example of why the general media should be extremely careful parsing questions from the justices at oral argument.

This is definitely true and I think we've reached some common ground. I just wonder what the ethical implications, if any, in presenting research in this way.

You're right, though: we have to wait to see whether and how this perspective, if at all, emerges in his concurrence/dissent.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

so are we going to talk about lifetime appointments or what? it strikes me that it would be a terrible decision to do away with them but I'm interested in the arguments

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Awful idea IMO. If you want to put in an age cap I think that's slightly different. The court is intended to be isolated from public opinion and I think ending lifetime appointments (if the replacement is long set terms) would be a problem for that.