Supreme Court Hears Argument in Texas Racial Preferences Case
Read the oral argument here.
Anthony Kennedy is OK on this issue (if not great), and we have three fairly reliable conservatives on the court — plus the Chief Justice, in whom I have far less confidence since the ObamaCare decision. Sandra Day O’Connor was the big squish on the Grutter decision, which found that constitutional amendments passed in the 1800s prescribed a 25-year period in the 21st century during which racial preferences should remain in college admissions.
I am still making my way through the oral argument transcript, but so far it looks reasonably promising for the good guys.
Ding.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/10/2012 @ 8:57 pmYay, a Texas post.
I only read about the first 20 pages of the oral argument. My “student body” often felt isolated in college. I looked for a girl.
nk (875f57) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:39 pmThis is so hypocritical. The goal is to have representational percentages by race but not by quota. [Screams loudly and runs out of room.]
nk (875f57) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:42 pmHow about we just do away with this quota bullshite and do it on merit alone? If you don’t qualify based on your merits, then how in hell can you expect to actually excel and pass based on your performance? Damn, what a conundrum.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:54 pmHow can the SCOTUS be wasting their time like this? Don’t they know that Mitt Romney is threatening to send Big Bird to the electric co. chair?!
Icy (a4b2f2) — 10/10/2012 @ 10:10 pmI agree, Icy.
Whatever happened to the old guy who shot a couple of Chinese thieves in the back, BTW?
nk (875f57) — 10/10/2012 @ 10:18 pmYeah, and the Obamacare arguments looked pretty promising for the good guys too, and look how that ended up.
steve (369bc6) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:20 amThis is not as important as Obamacare, other Steve. I don’t understand why the Court even took the case. She was never gonna go to Austin in first place — her scores were not good enough — and she has already graduated from whatever cow college she finally wound up at.
Maybe Justices just want to have a fun case, sometime?
nk (875f57) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:33 amThat’s a thought. The Supreme Court as a blog with nine commenters.
nk (875f57) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:35 amStephen “Concern Troll” Breyer . . . has a nice ring to it.
Icy (d35969) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:41 amBetter than kings, I guess. Safe, I suppose. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html
nk (875f57) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:44 amIn any event, I am only linking the case to show how much can be said in one page.
nk (875f57) — 10/11/2012 @ 6:47 amIt’s wrongheaded to use skin color to give a privileged minority applicant with acceptable grades an advantage over a working class white applicant with superior grades.
I’m not opposed to diversity. It can and should be taken into consideration, but only when all else is equal can diversity be the deciding factor. In all other cases demonstrated educational preparation must be determinative. Anything else is racist, and repugnant to every ideal of equality expressed in the Constitution.
ropelight (7487a0) — 10/11/2012 @ 7:41 amI’m thinking Roberts will be a good vote on this because of a quote in a previous race case,
Memories (34e772) — 10/11/2012 @ 7:45 am“…the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race…”
I sincerely hope that the above quote is not the high-point of the Chief Justice’s legacy.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/11/2012 @ 8:38 amDon’t think you can rely on Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the Constitution, he’s already proved that contemporary political influence trumps the time honored words on our foundation documents.
ropelight (7487a0) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:42 amWe should just dump the bunch of them. Article III only requires one Chief Justice. And his Constitutional jurisdiction is laughable. The Chief Justice can judge admiralty and consuls. Congress provides for additional justices and appellate jurisdiction.
We cannot fire them, nor dimishish their salaries. We can take away their clerks and secretaries, drivers, doormen, and not replace them when they retire or die.
nk (875f57) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:31 pmThe Supremes took this case because there wasn’t a better one to come along; they couldn’t have been happy with Grutter.
Grutter had its own review by date, so it isn’t as though Affirmative Action was somehow completely settled; it’s simply that Justice O’Connor was rather original in stating how far down the road she had kicked the can. It just makes sense, with a conservative majority, to pick up the can early and get the decision that the five sensible Justices want, now, rather than waiting on whomever happens to be on the Court in 2028.
The unlawyerly Dana (3e4784) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:50 pmO’Connor was a statist. She never saw authority she didn’t like. Casey was her seminal, Grutter came second. (Pun intended.)
nk (875f57) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:57 pm