Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the University's action was OK, since the Univ had a "compelling interest" in diversity of its student body, and because its program was "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal of diversity.
Today the Supremes decided that the Fifth Circuit Court was wrong... but not because the Univ had shown reverse discrimination. The 5th Circuit was wrong for not using the right DECISION METHODS. The Supremes said that, if they had applied "Strict scrutiny", as defined by three earlier Supreme Court cases, then it would have been OK to reject the caucasian student because of her race. The Supremes then sent the case back to the 5th Circuit, with instructions to try again.
What a cop-out. This was the Supremes' chance to declare flatly that one of those three previous Supreme Court (Grutter v. Bollinger) case was wrongly decided. In that case, the Supremes had ruled in 2003 that racial discrimination (aka reverse discrimination) was OK if the school could show a compelling interest in diversity (something no University has ever sensibly shown). Such reverse discrimination is flatly outlawed, of course, by the 14th amendment, no matter how nice "diversity" might look to some group of dreamy do-gooders.
But the Supremes didn't even try to look at those earlier cases. In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy wrote that those three cases were "taken as given", meaning the Court considers them automatically right despite the clear racism dictated by the Grutter case. This case was doomed from the start, as a result.
Perhaps some blame can be assigned to the student's lawyers, who apparently didn't ask the courts to reconsider the earlier case, but merely asked if the University properly followed those earlier cases. Here the Supremes decided that the 5th Circuit hadn't properly answered that question... but implied what the proper answer would be. At no point did they consider whether those three earlier cases themselves, were wrong.
So, the Supremes punted. In a way, they decided that an earlier Supreme Court decision, overruled the Constitution itself.
I guess we need to change the Oath that Supreme Court justices take. Now it needs to be, "I solemnly swear to protect and defend the previous rulings of this Court, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and against the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me Gawd."
Diversity is bull crap. The fact that we still have affirmative action in this country, which in a sense discriminates against non-colored people, is an outrage.
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
So I guess this case now goes back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I hope the student who got rejected, takes the hint here. Hopefully she will change her case.
Don't ask any more, whether the University properly followed the Supreme Court's previous rulings.
Ask instead, whether the University violated the 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause. Regardless of what the Supremes said about it in past rulings.
Because the Univ of Texas clearly violated the 14th amendment here. Just as the Univ of Michigan did in years past. And when the Supremes decided that it was OK for the Univ of Michigan to do that (Grutter v. Bollinger), for the purpose of achieving some vague "diversity", the Supremes were flat wrong. The 14th makes no allowance for such "diversity" and never has. It simply says you can't discriminate based on race, AT ALL.
Diversity is bull crap. The fact that we still have affirmative action in this country, which in a sense discriminates against non-colored people, is an outrage.
The real outrage is that in 2013, minorities on average have much lower grades and test scores. Why should these kids be further denied opportunities just because their local schools and parents have failed them?
The real outrage is that in 2013, minorities on average have much lower grades and test scores. Why should these kids be further denied opportunities just because their local schools and parents have failed them?
So, they weren't afforded equal opportunity to succeed? I know in our area, the poorest districts receive far more money than the well to do ones. The claim is always they need more money to turn these kids into better students. Yet, their efforts fail again and again. When do we stop blaming the 'system' and start telling these kids they're making bad choices? Plain and simple, that's the problem and until they remove themselves from this victim mentality, they will always be hampered by their own prejudices against themselves.
I guess we need to change the Oath that Supreme Court justices take. Now it needs to be, "I solemnly swear to protect and defend the previous rulings of this Court, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and against the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me Gawd."
We might as well. Of course, this is nothing new. They did rule in favor of sobriety checkpoints in 1990, after all. And that's after ruling in Terry v. Ohio that a stop = a seizure. Don't ask me how they missed the correct response to admittedly random ("unreasonable") stops ("seizures") and searches.
This is simply a case of institutionalized racism toward whites.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
