The argument is taking place now, but as it progresses, one thought keeps occurring to me.
We criminal lawyers all know that it is illegal to strike a juror for race-based reasons. It is a rule that we understand and that we follow.
Why are college admissions different?
I have kept this question at the forefront of my mind throughout the argument so far, as I listen to the lefty justices incredulous at the idea that someone could be required to pick members of a body without taking race into account. And how can judges possibly be expected to analyze such decisions?
Guys, it’s not really that hard. Judges do it in criminal courts all the time. And, by the way, defense attorneys are often very similar to college admissions officials in their hostility towards Asians. But judges are given a clear set of rules to apply: if the defense attorney is striking someone because of their race or nationality (or many other reasons), in whole or in part, that is invidious discrimination and it is illegal. As it should be.
How is this any different?
More thoughts after I have had the chance to hear the whole argument.