Current Events > BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action At Harvard, UNC

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1674418688957775872

illegal use of race

Blue state colleges need to outright ignore the ruling.

Five yard penalty. Still second down.

CyricZ posted...

Five yard penalty. Still second down.

*throws challenge flag*

TonyKojima posted...

Blue state colleges need to outright ignore the ruling.

It's literally illegal to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.

So conservatives are mad at AA for supposedly "taking spots from deserving people and giving it to those who don't deserve it", but I've never heard any complaints made against legacy admissions and the rich bribing administrators to get their kids in.

Anyone surprised by this, hasn't been paying attention.

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
-Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

Full_Pokedex posted...

It's literally illegal to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.

LOL so let them enforce it. If they can.

Southernfatman posted...

So conservatives are mad at AA for supposedly "taking spots from deserving people and giving it to those who don't deserve it", but I've never heard any complaints made against legacy admissions and the rich bribing administrators to get their kids in.

once again conservatives are just the tools to prop up the rich

isn't it ironic?

Southernfatman posted...

So conservatives are mad at AA for supposedly "taking spots from deserving people and giving it to those who don't deserve it", but I've never heard any complaints made against legacy admissions and the rich bribing administrators to get their kids in.

Well no, because that's them.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anyone surprised by this, hasn't been paying attention.

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
-Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

We know that you have terrible opinions.

Southernfatman posted...

I've never heard any complaints made against legacy admissions and the rich bribing administrators to get their kids in

didnt that full house lady go to jail for that

WingsOfGood posted...

once again conservatives are just the tools to prop up the rich

isn't it ironic?

Pretty much...and they have the gall to call others "cucks".

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well no, because that's them.

Not all the poor ones.

TonyKojima posted...

LOL so let them enforce it. If they can.

We have a police force they will enforce it.

Full_Pokedex posted...

We have a police force they will enforce it.

Not a shot.

TonyKojima posted...

Not a shot.

So you think that there should be a form of anarchy where we only obey the laws we agree with? That's not compatible with polite society.

Full_Pokedex posted...

So you think that there should be a form of anarchy where we only obey the laws we agree with? That's not compatible with polite society.

When it comes to illegitimate rulings from an illegitimate court yes.

The society we have now is rude as fuck

There are other (maybe better) methods of identifying disadvantaged students, so I just hope colleges focus on those methods more in light of this ruling

Full_Pokedex posted...

It's literally illegal to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.

Yet certain areas of the country continually pass laws violating SC rulings from the 1940s

Full_Pokedex posted...

It's literally illegal to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.

This is his gimmick from 261

Thewinner14 posted...

Yet certain areas of the country continually pass laws violating SC rulings from the 1940s

The truth is the United States is not and has never been a nation of laws.

TonyKojima posted...

When it comes to illegitimate rulings from an illegitimate court yes.

Anything the Supreme Court says is legitimate. It's their entire reason for existing.

Full_Pokedex posted...

So you think that there should be a form of anarchy where we only obey the laws we agree with? That's not compatible with polite society.

That's not actually what anarchy means.

SaikyoStyle posted...

The truth is the United States is not and has never been a nation of laws.

Nah, it's a nation of laws.
They just only apply to the poor.

Duncan - Fascist conservative troll

vs

TonyKojima - Extremist liberal troll

Let them fight.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Duncan - Fascist conservative troll

I'm on the side of rule of law. If you decide you want to break it I'm going to call you out on it. That makes me a good citizen not a fascist.

Full_Pokedex posted...

I'm on the side of rule of law. If you decide you want to break it I'm going to call you out on it. That makes me a good citizen not a fascist.

Go back to attempting to play Pokemon Duncan.

Local Supreme Court declares racism to be over.

AA was a "ends justify the means" kind of thing. People only liked it because of who it was benefiting - but it would be very easy to twist it to benefit someone you wouldn't like. It's just not a good way of "leveling" the playing field - it was doomed always.

I think the decision is right - the color of your skin shouldn't be a determining factor for ANY law. That being said, it's fair to want minorities to get support because they've been historically disadvantaged for so long. To me that means more scholarship opportunities etc.

The admissions system itself should probably be from standardized testing results only.

TLDR - Minorities need help but you can't tilt the board for them - you gotta give them support in other ways.

Full_Pokedex posted...

So you think that there should be a form of anarchy where we only obey the laws we agree with? That's not compatible with polite society.

A growing idea that SC decisions should not be obeyed has little to do with not obeying laws because of disagreement with decisions (although the tension with the Court and popular opinion has always been there). The GOP went too far by refusing to even hold a vote on President Obamas pick, and then turning around and ditching the rationale they used to do that to confirm ACB at record speed. The SC confirmation process-a process that was always very political but had at least a fig leaf of impartial rules-has been turned overtly political by the Republicans. And because the Court is now fully politicized instead of even slightly impartial, than it has lost the faith of many.

I have certainly lost faith in the SC. I have been a practicing lawyer for 18 years and I can tell you-the vast majority of their rulings are now junk, handed down by under qualified jurists who are there because they are Federalist Society pets.

You can disagree with the argument, but please get the terms of the argument correct. People largely do not see the Court with disdain because of disagreement with rulings-that has gone on for a long time. It is because of GOP bad faith during confirmation that has finally turned people against the Court. And Mitch and company have no one but themselves to blame.

And: the SC has no mechanism of enforcement. It relies on the faith of the people to operate. They are losing that faith. I do not think Blue Sates are on the verge of ignoring SC rulings, but it is not as unthinkable as it was a decade ago. Many wonder why anyone should blindly obey another political arm of the GOP. If the party had acted in accordance with norms instead of doing a power grab to overturn Roe, we wouldnt be in this mess.

Full_Pokedex posted...

We have a police force they will enforce it.

The Supreme Court actually has no enforcement power. It's up to the Federal government to enforce their rulings. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln both ignored / refused to enforce Surpreme Court decisions.

Let's say, for example, SCOTUS ruled that abortion is illegal in every State. California ignores the ruling and allows abortion to continue. SCOTUS can't do anything about it. The President would have to instruct federal law enforcement agencies to enforce the law. If he chooses not to, that's it. Nothing happens. Abortions in California continue.

SilvosForever posted...

TLDR - Minorities need help but you can't tilt the board for them - you gotta give them support in other ways.

What other ways.

The reason AA exists is because the board was already tilted in the opposite direction.

The only misstep of AA that I see is in its ineffectiveness in accounting for multiple minorities, and that requires reform, not dissolution.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Duncan - Fascist conservative troll

Full_Pokedex posted...

I'm on the side of rule of law. If you decide you want to break it I'm going to call you out on it. That makes me a good citizen not a fascist.

*hastily writes down villain dialogue*

Full_Pokedex posted...

I'm on the side of rule of law. If you decide you want to break it I'm going to call you out on it. That makes me a good citizen not a fascist.

History is filled with terrible people "on the side of rule of law"

Akuryu posted...

Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln both ignored / refused to enforce Surpreme Court decisions.

Then they both should have been impeached.

The President doesn't have the power to ignore the Supreme Court. Checks and Balance and all.

Full_Pokedex posted...

Then they both should have been impeached.

By whom? The Supreme Court can't impeach them.

If both the legislative branch and executive branch wish to act against the judicial branch, who will stop them?

Full_Pokedex posted...

Then they both should have been impeached.

The President doesn't have the power to ignore the Supreme Court. Checks and Balance and all.

Jesus Christ.

emblem-man posted...

There are other (maybe better) methods of identifying disadvantaged students, so I just hope colleges focus on those methods more in light of this ruling

Pretty much this

Full_Pokedex posted...

Then they both should have been impeached.

Saying that Lincoln should have been impeached for giving basic human rights to black people is certainly not a new take. It's actually a very very old one.

Full_Pokedex posted...

I'm on the side of rule of law. If you decide you want to break it I'm going to call you out on it. That makes me a good citizen not a fascist.

How do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?

Full_Pokedex posted...

Then they both should have been impeached.

The President doesn't have the power to ignore the Supreme Court. Checks and Balance and all.

Across the late 1850s, Lincoln argued that the American people, not the Supreme Court, were the true arbiters of the Constitution, and that the only way to defeat the proslavery judiciary was through mass political struggle.

So Duncan, you are basically saying Lincoln shouldn't have fought slavery.

This is when you get suspended. You can't handle arguments.

stop responding to that loser dunc

The way the Constitution is written, the President does not have the legal ability to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court. You could try amending it to change this, but I doubt you'd get very far.

Like any AA or just as grounds to be approved for admission or not to fill a self-defined quota?

Full_Pokedex posted...

The way the Constitution is written, the President does not have the legal ability to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court. You could try amending it to change this, but I doubt you'd get very far.

I like how you are conveniently ignoring the comments about slavery

emblem-man posted...

There are other (maybe better) methods of identifying disadvantaged students, so I just hope colleges focus on those methods more in light of this ruling

This.

It'll be an uphill climb in certain states with their public institutions, but those public and private universities that really want to can still make a difference.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

To see if a meltdown occurs. I know, that's mean.

bsp77 posted...

I like how you are conveniently ignoring the comments about slavery

You can acknowledge that someone did something beneficial by breaking the law while still understanding that what they did was illegal.