So, legally, does this apply to corporate quotas by extension?
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#192> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But this is affirmative action. What did they strike down? Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the…
The court changing their mind feels like a feature not a bug. The court represents people, and those people change their mind from generation to generation. I don't want to live in a world where we can't overturn bad decisions. Would America be better off if we legalized slavery 300 years ago, and could never undo it?
There's a process for overturning "bad decisions" it's called passing legislation. There's a reason Stare Decisis is supposed to be a thing, after all.
But if the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to itself, then does any court? Should every minor court just decide SC precedent was bad & overturn it?
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#193Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
But somehow, some people only feel the need to mention it when they don't like the result.
Right, like how the SCOTUS rejected the Independent State Legislature theory case. Some people were like "we really shouldn't be legislating from the bench", but when the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade they cheered it on.
> Some people were like "we really shouldn't be legislating from the bench", but when the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade they cheered it on.
That's internally consistent. Roe V. Wade was the bench legislation in this case.
The citizenship rights in the constitution were not written or otherwise intended to provide a right to abortions.
Even the concept of privacy the decision was based on is inferred only from the statement "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#195As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…
If affirmative action is what enabled your father to become a doctor, then it almost certainly sounds like the success story that motivates the action. I don’t know percent of the time a similar story is required to justify the means, but it sounds like you should embrace the path that your family’s life has taken. The alternative, presumably, would be effectively unfair knowing what could and then did become.
Using parental income as well as parental education level in admissions would have helped GP's father just fine without any need for race-based affirmative action.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#196Good thread summarizing and highlighting key points of the majority opinion:
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/167442708751463629...
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judicial branch does not make laws. You're implying that the judicial branch legislated in this case. They did no such thing. They interpreted existing laws for a particular case, gave their judgement, and applied the existing law. Indeed, legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea, and so it's a good thing that they do not and are not able to.
> They interpreted existing laws In the dissent at least, the court is very much interpreting court precedent and almost entirely ignoring the law itself
Liberal SCOTUS opinions talk a lot about morality and societal harm, rarely about the legality of the subject at hand. It is Congress' job to deal with morality and harm, not the judicial branch.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#198> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But this is affirmative action. What did they strike down? Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the…
> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule. The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I ful…
The problem goes further - a number of justices previously declared they'd honor the previous decisions. They should have lost the publics trust over that alone.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#199A very interesting quote from the ruling:
'These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the “Asian” category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60% of the world’s population. Bernstein Amicus Brief 2, 5. This agglomeration of so many peoples paves over countless differences in “language,” “culture,” and historical experience. Id., at 5–6. It does so even though few would suggest that all such persons share “similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 579 U. S. 365, 414 (2016) (ALITO, J., dissenting). Consider, as well, the development of a separate category for “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” It seems federal officials disaggregated these groups from the “Asian” category only in the 1990s and only “in response to political lobbying.” Bernstein Amicus Brief 9–10. And even that category contains its curiosities. It appears, for example, that Filipino Americans remain classified as “Asian” rather than “Other Pacific Islander.” See 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1732. The remaining classifications depend just as much on irrational stereotypes. The “Hispanic” category covers those whose ancestral language is Spanish, Basque, or Catalan— but it also covers individuals of Mayan, Mixtec, or Zapotec descent who do not speak any of those languages and whose ancestry does not trace to the Iberian Peninsula but bears deep ties to the Americas. See Bernstein Amicus Brief 10–
The “White” category sweeps in anyone from “Europe, Asia west of India, and North Africa.” Id., at 14. That includes those of Welsh, Norwegian, Greek, Italian, Moroccan, Lebanese, Turkish, or Iranian descent. It embraces an Iraqi or Ukrainian refugee as much as a member of the British royal family. Meanwhile, “Black or African American” covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South, to a first-generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants, to a Black-identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb. See id., at 15–16. If anything, attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes about whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group. There are decisions denying Hispanic status to someone of ItalianArgentine descent, Marinelli Constr. Corp. v. New York, 200 App. Div. 2d 294, 296–297, 613 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1002 (1994), as well as someone with one Mexican grandparent, Major Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Erie County, 134 App. Div. 2d 872, 873, 521 N. Y. S. 2d 959, 960 (1987). Yet there are also decisions granting Hispanic status to a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors fled Spain centuries ago, In re RothschildLynn Legal & Fin. Servs., SBA No. 499, 1995 WL 542398, 2–4 (Apr. 12, 1995), and bestowing a “sort of Hispanic” status on a person with one Cuban grandparent, Bernstein, 94 S. Cal. L. Rev., at 232 (discussing In re Kist Corp., 99 F. C. C. 2d 173, 193 (1984)).'
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
If affirmative action is what enabled your father to become a doctor, then it almost certainly sounds like the success story that motivates the action. I don’t know percent of the time a similar story is required to justify the means, but it sounds like you should embrace the path that your family’s life has taken. The alternative, presumably, would be effectively unfair knowing what could and then did become.
Well, there’s someone out there who is white or Asian that didn’t get to become a doctor. Are their kids as successful? Otherwise I agree with you. It’s in the past. We all have advantages and disadvantages, whether genetic or societal. There’s no reason to feel bad about something in the past you had no control over.
They don't get into medical school, they have a pre-med/biology degree. Make $40-60k/yr. Maybe 100k-200k if they are exceptionally talented
vs...
250k-1M/yr
The difference is being middle class to being upper class/upper-middle class.
The school district differences are stark. So yes, these kind of things make a big difference.
We really just need to remove power from the AMA/AGCME in this specific case. It hurts everyone except the Physician cartel members.