SCOTUS to rehear Fisher v UTexas. Chances Scalia croaks by June'16?
| fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | Jet Cerebral Office | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | flirting nursing home | 06/29/15 | | Aromatic Violet Lay | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | Aromatic Violet Lay | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | flirting nursing home | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | flirting nursing home | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | flirting nursing home | 06/29/15 | | Floppy Sooty Temple | 06/30/15 | | Glittery zombie-like hospital cuck | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | Aromatic Violet Lay | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | Glassy pistol plaza | 06/29/15 | | Floppy Sooty Temple | 06/30/15 | | Flushed coldplay fan heaven | 06/29/15 | | dashing corn cake | 06/29/15 | | Laughsome macaca bawdyhouse | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 06/29/15 | | Canary charismatic new version church | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | Canary charismatic new version church | 06/29/15 | | soggy galvanic trailer park | 06/29/15 | | Azure titillating dysfunction | 06/23/16 | | Flushed coldplay fan heaven | 06/29/15 | | White Curious Puppy | 06/30/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 07/01/15 | | fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage | 07/01/15 | | Aquamarine Juggernaut | 02/13/16 | | Azure titillating dysfunction | 06/23/16 | | 180 idea he suggested coffee pot | 06/23/16 | | sickened bisexual newt | 06/23/16 | | ocher prole degenerate | 06/23/16 | | fluffy chad | 06/23/16 | | Rusted Karate | 06/23/16 | | Azure titillating dysfunction | 06/23/16 | | Spectacular geriatric tanning salon | 06/23/16 | | Obsidian vibrant institution fortuitous meteor | 06/23/16 | | Bateful mustard dog poop national | 06/23/16 | | Gold concupiscible crackhouse mental disorder | 10/01/19 | | Passionate stage mad cow disease | 10/08/19 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:34 PM Author: fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage
If Kennedy croaks, the 4 conservaheroes can just gut AA for good by outvoting the libs 4-3. Kagan is recused again.
If Scalia croaks, then it comes down to Kennedy again to avoid a 4-4 tie.
Also, depends on how quickly the POTUS replaces him if he croaks by the end of 2015, which I hope doesnt happen.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223693) |
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:37 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
i hope they ban AA which is clearly and facially invalid by 14th and lol at calling diversity a compelling state interest to overcome that bar
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223716)
|
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:46 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
in fairness that is not the claim they raised but that the ban on AA through state referendum infringed minority rights by removing the decision on AA from educational institutions to the state government
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223818)
|
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:48 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
he is
He was in dissent in Grutter and also overturned COA in Fisher
Obviously he is drifitng lib so what know what he will do to this case
If he bans AA and severely restricts disparate impact that would more than balance the shitlib hack job he did in gay marriage
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223840) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:52 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
nah
he definitely drifted lib. look at FHA and Alabama voting rights case
In gay rights it is much more pronounced but he was pretty narrow in earlier decisions like Romers where they only applied rational basis review. its obvious though not explicitly written in the majority opinion for gay marriage that they consider gays a suspect class now subject to strict scrutiny
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223876) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 2:57 PM Author: fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage
Counterpoints:
On Disparate Impact: Ricci v Destefano (he authored that opinion)
On VRA (Shelby)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223916) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:03 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
He has been steadfast only with regard to racial discrimination issues
Even there he is kind of softening as you can see from Alabama districting case
Libs want their cake and eat it too. Put too many blacks in one district to ensure they will have representation in state assembly das racisss. spread them out too much that they cant decide election das racisss too
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28223962)
|
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:11 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
lol no
they dont have shame now and will not accept anything that does not meet their racial dogma. first they will challenge the composition of panel as racist and if that fails the results as well
To see how racist they are just look at Schuette case where the black lawyer decided a black person should make the oral argument to speak for minorities and at the last minute made herself the lawyer for oral argument at SCOTUS. If some white guy tried this shit he would be screwed for life but nobody gave a shit bcos she was black
That is the kind of tribal identity politics played by liberals and lol at thinking they have any principles and will accept some independent redistricting
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28224013) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:28 PM Author: White Curious Puppy
the religious cons dont care about AA and shit. they care about biblical issues - israel , gay marriage and crap like that
the religious extremists for racial issues are liberals - that is their religion and identity politics is their mantra
I have no problem with any race etc but only with this shitlib SJW agenda and tactics which basically made me more conservative
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28224130) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:46 PM Author: soggy galvanic trailer park
Agreed, I don't think it's affirmative action specifically, but racism/race issues definitely.
I think conservatives have done a good job of selling the religious argument to the media and general public. For most, it really is just a raw hatred though, and it's no different from that directed at blacks and hispanics.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28224265)
|
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:14 PM Author: Glassy pistol plaza
Yeah, the VRA case alone makes up for his shitty marriage decision. That was really a BFD.
He also went to the right on the original ACA case. He even gave Roberts shit for going along with the libs.
Weird dude.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28224022) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 3:57 PM Author: fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage
Kennedy's Fisher I was basically "strict scrutiny means strict muthafucka, no deference to gov/universities/etc on whether their consideration of race is narrowly tailored to" diversity (a compelling interest but not when race is the predominant measure of diversity).
So no more Grutter-style "strict" scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny puts the burden on the univ to demonstrate at all times that they MUST consider race b/c no race-neutral alternatives are workable.
But still 2 Qs remain:
1. The cert grant most likely was Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito who all DESPISE AA. Could've been Kennedy too. Can the Cons convince Kennedy to go further than he did in Fisher 1?
2. What if Scalia croaks on Ragu and BHO replaces him w/ Goodwin/Sri/Katyal before June'16?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28224338)
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 5:56 PM Author: Canary charismatic new version church
Bleeding-heart pinko commie shitlib here, I think AA is fucking terrible and hope it is found unconstitutional. The system as it currently stands does nothing but give wealthy blacks in good public and private schools a leg up in the college application process. It does not help the poor and truly disadvantaged - black or white - who have little access to academic resources and role models and rarely even apply to top-tier schools to begin with.
Go on, go to any fancy school in the US. Go to one of my Ivy alma maters. Look for a black person from a poor, disadvantaged background. Go on, do it! YOU WON'T FUCKING FIND ONE. Impoverished kids from the inner-city ghetto or from poor rural areas don't even know what the fuck a Dartmouth College is, or how they would apply to it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28225175) |
Date: June 29th, 2015 6:03 PM Author: Flushed coldplay fan heaven
is there any case that supports that SCOTUS's aff action ruling regarding a primarily STATE funded PUBLIC university would be extended to PRIVATE universities that receive FEDERAL research funds?
i've seen people on xo make that claim but never heard it substantiated. if SCOTUS just makes it slightly easier for non URMs to get into berkeley and UNC but things at stanford and yale stay the same, who really cares?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28225216) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2015 12:22 AM Author: White Curious Puppy
frankly its not about the some 50 students getting admitted into Berkeley or UNC when they should not have been. Its to stop SJW mission creep in its tracks before the whole racial identity politics in education/jobs picks up even more steam
you give shitlib mob one inch and before you know they are fckng u up the ass with no lube
regarding your actual question by now it is obvious it entirely depends on what kennedy thinks about it. it is not settled SCOTUS law by any means and probably will lead to a circuit split and then a SCOTUS cert
the closest i can think of is the solomon amendment ROTC case
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28227940)
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:48 PM Author: fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage
I don't think any case reached that direct outcome, but Kennedy's Ricci v. DeStefano basically ports over 14A Equal Protection jurisprudence into TitleVII.
And there are a lot of cases that say 14A jurisprudence & TitleVII & other federal schemes overlap with each other.
It'd be hard to say AA is unconstitutional discrimination under 14A, but all of a sudden, it no longer constitutes discrimination for the purposes of federal statute that bans discrimination.
Also, some people (the same person behind Fisher, actually) sued your alma mater, Harvard, directly, claiming that Harvard's consideration of race violates Title VI (6) because it gets federal funding.
And you have all the Dept of Ed: Civil Rights Office 'inquiries' into Harvard, Princeton, etc., for practicing AA. If TitleVI doesn't do what it says, it'd be none of the Dept of Ed's business.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28241694) |
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:54 PM Author: fantasy-prone alpha old irish cottage
You guys can debate the math and the scholarship all you want, but you know this cases hinges on 2 factors:
1. Whether Scalia is on the court come May/June 2016, or is replaced by Kamala Harris
2. Whether Kennedy is willing to undo more of Grutter. His Fisher I basically adopted his Grutter dissent on deference (i.e., "strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact." Strict means strict, mofos).
But his Grutter dissent then goes on to actually do the narrow tailoring analysis, which Fisher 1 didn't do (it sent it back to 5th Cir to do it).
Fisher 1 does say that diversity is compelling, but race can't be the predominant or sole measure of diversity). And the Univ has the burden of proving no race-neutral alternatives are "workable" (e.g., Top10%, SES AA, etc), which is a really compact version of narrow tailoring analysis.
Seems like Fisher 2 might just go through with narrow tailoring. UNLESS Scalia croaks.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922502&forum_id=2#28241733) |
|
|