US Supreme Court declares race-based affirmative action unconstitutional

[urbanoid]

Quote

Supreme Court rejects affirmative action in ruling on universities using race in admissions decisions

In 6-3 affirmative action opinion, Supreme Court decides using race as factor in college admissions violates Constitution's 14th Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on affirmative action Thursday, rejecting the use of race as a factor in college admissions as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that, "A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim­ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination."

"Or a benefit to a student whose herit­age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex­periences as an individual—not on the basis of race," the opinion reads.

"Many universities have for too long done just the oppo­site. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice," the opinion states.

Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on Harvard's Board of Overseers.

sauce: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rejects-affirmative-action-ruling-universities-using-race-admissions-decisions

Now this is YUUUGE, I think.

[sunday]

Indeed. Great news!

[CarnelianClout]

Great news, glad to hear. 

[Stargrunt6]

Yup

 

 

 

[urbanoid]

 

[sunday]

Justice Thomas answers to Justice Jackson

Quote

Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.

JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Post, at 26; see also post, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring) (explaining the arbitrariness of these classifications). Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Post, at 26 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.

Unsurprisingly, this tried-and-failed system defies both law and reason. Start with the obvious: If social reorganization in the name of equality may be justified by the mere fact of statistical disparities among racial groups, then that reorganization must continue until these disparities are fully eliminated, regardless of the reasons for the disparities and the cost of their elimination. If blacks fail a test at higher rates than their white counterparts (regardless of whether the reason for the disparity has anything at all to do with race), the only solution will be race-focused measures. If those measures were to result in blacks failing at yet higher rates, the only solution would be to double down. In fact, there would seem to be no logical limit to what the government may do to level the racial playing field—outright wealth transfers, quota systems, and racial preferences would all seem permissible. In such a system, it would not matter how many innocents suffer race-based injuries; all that would matter is reaching the race-based goal.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants.

As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great great-great-grandparents? And what would JUSTICE JACKSON say to John when deeming him not as worthy of admission: Some statistically significant number of white people had advantages in college admissions seven generations ago, and you have inherited their incurable sin?

A thing of beauty, indeed.

[Skywalkre]

SCOTUS' ruling in Moore v Harper and their solid rejection of the 'independent state legislature' doctrine was also a major ruling this week.  Lots of folks were concerned about what could have happened in '24 if the court had ruled the other way.  But a 6-3 ruling in that case, meaning several conservative justices were in the majority, likely sends a clear message to those who were thinking of trying shenanigans with the upcoming and future elections.

[Murph]

I LOVE watching the Left show what racists they are, and the meltdown they are having.  Clarence Thomas is a legal god, his concurrence should be required reading at EVERY single law school.  He shreds the EEO hire Jackson in his concurrence.  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/29/justice-jacksons-dissent-our-country-has-never-been-colorblind/

Quote

JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innnocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. … Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. … Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.
Unsurprisingly, this tried-and-failed system defies both law and reason.

 

[DKTanker]

Justices Roberts and Jackson gave them an opening through which a supertanker could be sailed, when he said that admissions could take into account what obstacles the applicant has overcome. This has been code in a number of states that had already struck down race based admissions. Applicants will use the opening Roberts gave them, with the language Jackson gave them in her dissent, to abrogate the entire ruling.

 

[Rick]

On another Supreme Court ruling, the justices in a unanimous ruling ruled that the U.S. Post Office acted unfairly to a Christian worker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-christian-postal-worker-refused-work-sundays-rcna84868

His case will now return to lower courts for further litigation on whether he prevails under the new standard.

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Ivanhoe]

9 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Yup

 

 

 

 

I assume the "real world problems" that Brown means is the successes of those pesky "model minorities." 

[Ivanhoe]

[Murph]

Biden and the Libtards are having a bad week here.  

[Rick]

abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-case-involving-free/story?id=99239572

 

In a 6-3 decision involving The First Amendment freedom, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado graphic 
designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages. You may remember Colorado loosing a very similar case a few years ago involving a Christian baker. 

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-case-involving-free/story?id=99239572

 

In a 6-3 decision involving The First Amendment freedom, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado graphic 
designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages. You may remember Colorado loosing a very similar case a few years ago involving a Christian baker. 

Did that Christian baker end bankrupt because fees and the like?

[Rick]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Did that Christian baker end bankrupt because fees and the like?

I honestly do not know. 

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Did that Christian baker end bankrupt because fees and the like?

I think he was still operating at the beginning of this decade, there was another case when he was asked to bake a 'tranny cake', which he refused. No idea what happened afterwards.

Edited June 30, 2023 by urbanoid

[BansheeOne]

This has been debated before. Per their website, they're still in business.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, Murph said:

Biden and the Libtards are having a bad week here.  

What happens when they use it as an excuse to stack the court?

[BansheeOne]

As has been noted, like with every make-up before, the vast majority of SCOTUS decisions are still near- or fully unanimous on issues not relevant to current cultural warfare and thus little noticed. And even on more politicized issues like this week's ruling against the independence of state legislatures to shape electoral districts and voting law - a key contention of the Trump camp in the 2020 election controversy - or for Biden's immigration guidelines last week, there are clear majority findings transcending conventional partisan association of the justices.

I'm sure some Democratic hotheads would want to expand the panel over abortion, guns and stuff, but given the current make-up of Congress and how Roosevelt's plan to increase the number of justices to 15 fared in the 1930s even among Democrats, I'd say there's little stomach for that; not least because everyone thinking beyond the next election (yeah I know, that excludes most politicians) has to realize that it would ultimately allow the other party to make use of it, too.

[Stuart Galbraith]

As I see it, if both parties do it, then one might assume that at some point you are going to end up with a supreme court roughly comparable in legitimacy, if not numbers, with the British House of Lords. Which would, you would think, adjust attitudes in the supreme court, when they consider they might be taking the first steps to its ultimate abolition, or at best, make it subject to direct national election, not appointment.

Rather than some kind of epic achievement, to my cynical eyes it looks rather like a death ride to obscurity.

[Rick]

Janet Parshall on Moody Radio interviewed the author a few days ago. On my purchase list. As a side note, all of the "Politically Incorrect Guide ..." books are a great introduction and explanation of their topics.  

https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Supreme-Guides/dp/1684513553

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[urbanoid]

I believe that 'Erica Marsh' is a parody account.