The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
scholars only: itt predict how badly SC will gape AA, VRA, SSM
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| slate glittery lay | 03/03/13 |
| mustard wonderful home private investor | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| Chest-beating carnelian garrison kitty | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| lemon range foreskin | 03/03/13 |
| mustard wonderful home private investor | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| Multi-colored Sadistic House | 05/23/17 |
| Shivering emerald stag film | 03/03/13 |
| red laughsome feces | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| Shivering emerald stag film | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| mustard wonderful home private investor | 03/03/13 |
| Ruddy Frum Brunch Boistinker | 03/03/13 |
| mustard wonderful home private investor | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
| mauve theatre incel | 03/03/13 |
| coiffed alpha | 03/03/13 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 3rd, 2013 12:32 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746279) |
Date: March 3rd, 2013 12:33 PM Author: slate glittery lay My semen tastes amazing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746284) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 12:54 PM Author: mustard wonderful home private investor AA-fucked, VRA-not sure, SSM-dismissed (no standing at least for prop 8) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746348) |
 |
Date: March 3rd, 2013 12:59 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746371) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:00 PM Author: Chest-beating carnelian garrison kitty The top 10% rule isn't what's contested. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746381) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:05 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746398) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:52 PM Author: lemon range foreskin The s.ct.'s past reasoning on aa is so fuct. Its ok to treat urm as a "plus factor," but if you actually just add 2 points to each urm's overall admission score, that is not ok. But, if you have a quota in all but name, that's fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746557) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:06 PM Author: mustard wonderful home private investor I know what you mean, but i think what is at issue in this case (and why they accepted cert) is that the the "critical mass" standard is entirely unworkable, it basically means nothing. So, I do think they will set forth some standard, but I'm not sure whether they say TX you have this 10% thing so under the standard you can't base admissions on race or how they deal with it.
In terms of how FUCKED AA is then, I don't think they are going to do away with it, I just think they will reign it in by getting rid of the shit "critical mass" standard |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 4:07 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22747468) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2017 5:42 PM Author: Multi-colored Sadistic House WRONG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#33378698) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:03 PM Author: Shivering emerald stag film AA-Kennedy rules against Texas but uses vague language that allows schools to keep using AA.
VRA-It won't be overturned
SSM-DOMA will almost certainly be struck down, greater than even odds that Kennedy or Roberts imposes SSM on conservative states. People forge that Roberts worked on Romer vs Evans pro bono in his younger days. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:08 PM Author: red laughsome feces sounds like a 3 wins for the libs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746406) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:09 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746410) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:13 PM Author: Shivering emerald stag film 5 justices will vote to keep things the way they are, duh.
It's hard to predict exactly how Kennedy will rule but I think that there is a 0% he completely gapes AA.
Kennedy has always been pro-gay, and he loves being on the "right" side of history. I think that he would love to be remembered as the justice who wrote the gay version of Loving vs Virginia, and that alone might be enough to put him in the liberal camp. Roberts is a smart guy and I think he supports state's rights to a reasonable degree; I don't think he believes that Alabama should be able to ban interracial marriages or disenfranchise minorities. I think it's reasonable to assume that he might feel the same way about gays. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 4:05 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22747457) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:13 PM Author: mustard wonderful home private investor After Clapper v. Amnesty (Court's most recent standing case) I don't see how the court finds an Art. III injury w/r/t at least the Prop 8 challenge. This is also probably the most interesting standing issue ever before the Court, because Cal. state courts do have standing, so by not finding standing the Court is essentially leaving the decision of the state's highest court unreviewable on important constitutional issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746426) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:15 PM Author: Ruddy Frum Brunch Boistinker Standing is such amorphous doctrine though. They have it when they want it and they don't have it when they don't want it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22746434) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:19 PM Author: mustard wonderful home private investor Entirely true, i should say i also think 5 justices would rather defer on this (especially Roberts). I mean it's also very hard to show particular, concrete injury--I mean what would that even be in this case? This is like the prototypical case to defer to the political process because all those who oppose SSM have entirely the same injury.
OTOH, i dont think the court likes ceding its power of judicial review; I don't know that it feels comfortable dismissing the case knowing the Cal Supreme Ct. can rule on it and that the SCT wont have the power to review that constitutional decision
I don't give a shit about gay marriage, but i am pretty excited to see how the Court comes out on the standing issue in this case. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 5:18 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22747907) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 1:39 PM Author: mauve theatre incel AA: strike down UT plan, vague language permits AA in some forms. Challengers didn't ask Court to overturn AA entirely, so the Court talks about how they shouldn't decide constitutional questions not presented, but gives enough reason to think an all-out challenge might prevail in the near future (assuming the 5 votes stay intact).
VRA: Coverage formula of Section 5 almost certainly gone, and 50% chance Section 5 is struck down entirely.
SSM: I think Kennedy sees SSM as different from the right to have gay sex so I don't think he's a sure vote to be "on the right side of history." It's looking more and more likely that one of the compromise solutions will win out even though they're somewhat incoherent -- a California only rule or an 8 state rule would basically fault states that have been solicitous to gays in all ways except giving them the title "marriage." I think 50% chance it will be a compromise result, 25% chance they strike down Prop 8 and declare a right to SSM that would apply to all states, 15% chance it's upheld in its entirety, 10% chance it's dismissed for lack of standing. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2013 7:20 PM Author: coiffed alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2197078&forum_id=2#22748857) |