DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court sets new limits on affirmative action programs in landmark ruling

Yes they do. This ruling does not change that, and has nothing to do with poor people. That doesn't stop people from trying to conflate using racial criteria with keeping poor people out of institutes of higher learning. But you knew that too.

I have a couple of thoughts.

Maybe some perspective from a history that was long ago.

The kids that should be helped did not start out equally, and the thought of the traditional route to a higher education was a reach. Something like a SAT prep class was unthinkable for many.

But the ability to show up and work a job, and help out at home, teach a level of maturity that does not show up in a SAT score.

But it does show up when the coursework gets challenging.

I was fortunate and earned a scholarship to college, I recall my sister congratulating me followed by “If you screw this up I will kick you ass, because you have no idea what an opportunity this is. I do, and I would give my eye teeth to go to college.”

Those words have always sat with me. And I did not screw up.. I was the exception in my family.

Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court's decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress."

"It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits," she wrote. "In so holding, the court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is both frightening and disgusting the number of times these liberal justices write their dissent with absolutely no recognition of the Constitution...the very thing they are appointed to rule upon. If one truly understands the role of the SCOTUS, they should just read only the bolded ^ portion of her dissent. Even if one believes the rest of her statement to be true, the only opinion she has as a Justice that matters more than yours or mine is the interpretation of the Constitution...which they regularly do not comment upon.

Not for nothin but:

"Four decades before he was among the conservative Supreme Court justices who restricted the use of affirmative action in higher education, Clarence Thomas told staffers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that “God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment ."

See what a couple of trips on a private jet to exotic locations a year paid for by a Billionaire can buy?

I’m sorry my friend but it does have a lot to do with the poor and disadvantaged. The ruling is not directed to hurt the poor, but it will.

Well maybe you didn't write what you meant when you said "People will continue to conflate the idea that if you can't use race that mean poor people will be left behind" .... but that's fine.

As for your last post - there is a lot to unpack on why some demographics are traditionally more poor than others. White Privialage is real and factual. So trying to write that one thing as absolutely nothing to do with the other is either ignorant or foolish.

With regard to affirmative action - just for me, the best argument against affirmative action I heard was that to try to end discrimination, the answer is not to introduce a new form of discrimination (positive or negative). Just for me the worst argument for affirmative action is middle aged white guys talking about folks pulling themselves up from their boot straps, sighting examples of a fella they know who came from nothing and now lives in their neighborhood, Supreme Court Justices who themselves were the benefit of affirmative action having an angst against it.

Often times people care and know very little about things that never effected or had an impact on them or their family directly because they have never bothered or cared enough to find out.

j/c

Basing ANYTHING on race is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. How any SCOTUS Justice could vote against that is incredible. They do not judge on fair, unfair, right, wrong, good, bad...well...they aren't supposed to anyway.

Note: They are not and have not said that debt relief itself is unconstitutional...but that the way it was crafted in this case truly WAS.

It's like the chicken-littles crowing that the SC abolished abortion. They are simpletons. The SCOTUS DID NOT outlaw abortion...they simply did not. They returned the issue to the States where it belongs.

We can all have our opinions about the decision but why would you act as though AA was so unconstitutional? You do realize it's a precedent that has been on the books for five decades, correct? Even through times when Republican appointees held the majority in the court. What amazes me is how there is a certain group of people acting as though only the recently appointed SCOTUS members have a clue about what the constitution says and all of the justices over the last five decades didn't have a clue. When looking at such a thing from a five decade perspective that sounds hilarious.

And it was also never meant to be a long standing tradition, it was intended to be sunsetted. If you had read the opinion you would know this. (And that was the opinion of previous the previous decisions).

The previous opinions upheld AA. For some reason, this court suddenly decided now was the time to end it. And I suppose if someone wishes to ignore the inequity that clearly exists in our public education system they could come to that conclusion. It's not the reality of what exists but that hasn't stopped anyone from reaching that conclusion yet.

I think that we all know that the demographics of America are changing to the point at which race alone is too simplistic of a standard to base admissions.

Economic may be a better metric of who should be given consideration.

It is a bit nuanced, but the court also said that the gerrymandering was not acceptable, because the majority was targeting race unfairly.

There will be work around in the future, California stopped the practice of AA years ago.

You know my friend...affirmative action has been in place for 50 years or more. How long do you want?


My thinking is 50 years is enough. I see all sorts of successful people of color walking the streets. They dress well, they talk well, and they know their business.

How is it they seem to have melded in to business, medicine, and whatever yet you always complain about money and opportunity? I am of the opinion you just want handouts and won't be content until that happens, so I don't have much else to say to you.

And this a gross over simplification of the previous opinions. The actual details, however, wouldn't allow you to drive your narrative.

But tell us again you didn't read the opinion, you just want to argue about it.

Nothing in my reply to you had any argumentative tones. Gaslighting seems to be your forte'.

Mayhaps you should read what you write. You seem to have issues with that.

You seem to be easily offended by virtually nothing. It takes a lot of twisting to find the post you quoted as argumentative. But in your zeal to start BS you found a way.

[quote]My thinking is 50 years is enough. I see all sorts of successful people of color walking the streets. They dress well, they talk well, and they know their business. {/quote]

Yeah, after 50 years, we have enough successful people of color,, we don't need more! Of course, I say this as sarcastically as possible!

And you seem to make stuff up as you need it because with it you have nothing.

Come on man, that isn't sarcasm, that is moronic.

I am all for the American success story. I don't care who it is. Your comment makes it sound like this is going to throw minorities back in to slavery.

You see successful people of color all across the spectrum. They will be the role models for the new generation.

I agree, 50 years ago effort was needed to help produce those role models, and we did that. TV commercials had black actors...Tv shows, colleges and business set some target numbers. Those role models are now Grandparent age. It will, or should self-perpetuate from this point.

This doesn't mean black people aren't going to get in to Yale. It just means that Yale can't discriminate in the admission process by tossing out ACT scores, or not requiring them at all..well, they can still not require them, but would have to do that for all.

Some of you need to get with the times. This isn't 1967 anymore and I am afraid many are still stuck there.

You mean like the nothing you just posted? Can you actually explain in words, what you find so argumentative in the post you quoted?


Yeah, that's what I thought. People can see who is trying to start an argument here rather than continue an actual discussion. It must be troll day at your house.

Aww bless you heart. You take what I said in reply to one thing, try to apply it to something else then tell me I was wrong.

You either do not read anything you write or your sense of reality is gone.

Try more reading and less arguing. You might actually find out what reality is.

I see you can't actually point to anything in that post that is argumentative while claiming it was posted just to argue.

You figure out your own chain of replies. I don't need to do it for you.

When you can sort reality come ask.

So as per usual, you got nothing. Just a bunch of BS to start trouble like usual.

No, yet again you failed to read anything you wrote.

Let's follow the series of events shall we? You quoted a post of mine claiming it was argumentative. Then when asked what was contained in that post which was argumentative you had nothing to show. Then instead of trying to back up your non existent accusation you asked me to do it for you.

You're really not very good at this.

Since you insist on contiuing to e wrong.

I said:

This is the post you replied to. I did not say "argumentative". But you, again, only read what you wish and make up the rest.

You are welcome for helping you understand you were, yet again, wrong about something.

Argumentative is from the key word argue. We have a former president who says something out loud and then claims he didn't say it as well. This time you left a receipt.

So you didn't read the opinion then? Typical.

Have you read the opinion yet or are you still running on the outrage porn you read that told you what to think.

Keep in mind Plessy v. Ferguson was in force for about 58 years. I suppose you think Brown was incorrectly decided since it overruled that.

We don't have best people even CONSIDERING politics because a person could have FARTED in public back in 1990 and the press could make a big deal out of it.

Additionally, sadly, there are lot fewer folks thinking service over self. Ya think there are more ME people today.

So what, if they perform better- they should have higher percentage. A real life example, Asian hairdresser- her son, I tutored in 5th grade--work hard, get good grades, try hard- end result- had 2yrs of college DONE coming out of HS, got full ride the UCF in computer science- graduated with NO debit and working on his Masters. His immigrant hairdresser Mom owns 5 houses- still cuts hair/ lives on rents- AND speaks broken English. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Triggered!

You sure are.

One example doesn’t work here. I could point out scores of failing school systems with little resources filled with forgotten school children that will be lucky to graduate from HS let alone go on to college. Pffft Goper’s. The party of no. No wonder this country is so dumbed down. Stupid is stupidity and it it can’t be fixed in murica. MAGA!!!!

Where's a good yawning emoji when you need one. Your tripe has grown old and stale.

It always turns into, 'Well I know these people". No accounting for how well or poorly the school district was and how good badly they ranked in education. Opinions often times get drawn based upon anecdotal evidence when people refuse to look at any topic on a factual basis big picture.

So you haven't read it. But you have lots of opinion about it. Same as it ever was.

Whine, pout, rant and repeat.