racism relegalized by supreme court

[TopSecretBoiler]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf
What is not at stake is whether UT or any other university may adopt an admissions plan that results in a student body with a broad representation of students from all racial and ethnic groups. UT previously had a race-neutral plan that it claimed had “effectively compensated for the loss of affirmative action,” App. 396a, and UT could have taken other steps that would have increased the diversity of its admitted students without taking race or ethnic background into account. What is at stake is whether university administrators may justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity,” without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives. Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong.

I write separately to reaffirm that “a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” Id.,at ___ (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). That constitutional imperative does not change in the face of a “faddish theor[y]” that racial discrimination may produce “educational benefits.”

 

[patj11288]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf
What is not at stake is whether UT or any other university may adopt an admissions plan that results in a student body with a broad representation of students from all racial and ethnic groups. UT previously had a race-neutral plan that it claimed had “effectively compensated for the loss of affirmative action,” App. 396a, and UT could have taken other steps that would have increased the diversity of its admitted students without taking race or ethnic background into account. What is at stake is whether university administrators may justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity,” without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives. Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong.

I write separately to reaffirm that “a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” Id.,at ___ (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). That constitutional imperative does not change in the face of a “faddish theor[y]” that racial discrimination may produce “educational benefits.”

Out of curiosity, where did you go to law school?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Out of curiosity, where did you go to law school?

Is that a requirement for understanding a dissenting opinion?

 

[patj11288]

Is that a requirement for understanding a dissenting opinion?

Then why should anyone give a damn what you think about the constitutionality of affirmative action? I can ask my garbage man whether I need my tonsils removed, but honestly, why is his opinion relevant?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Then why should anyone give a damn what you think about the constitutionality of affirmative action? I can ask my garbage man whether I need my tonsils removed, but honestly, why is his opinion relevant?

well f*ck face, they aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of 2 supreme court justices and I happen to agree with them.

 

[patj11288]

well f*ck face, they aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of 2 supreme court justices and I happen to agree with them.

Why should anyone care that you agree with them? You do not have the requisite expertise to properly weigh or analyze applicable constitutional law. Again, why does your opinion matter in the least bit?

 

[patj11288]

well f*ck face, they aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of 2 supreme court justices and I happen to agree with them.

When it comes to providing us with giant blocks of copy and pasted text from mostly discredited sources, however, you are an expert. In fact, you would be the first person that I would come to for such services.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

When it comes to providing us with giant blocks of copy and pasted text from mostly discredited sources, however, you are an expert. In fact, you would be the first person that I would come to for such services.

supremecourt.gov is discredited? Are you mental? Feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[patj11288]

supremecourt.gov is discredited? Are you mental? Feel free to put me on ignore.

I said, "mostly discredited" this one happens not to be. I am a tad surprised you wouldn't consider it discredited, however, based upon some of your positions pertaining to the federal government. And why on God's green earth would I do that? I enjoy our chats.

 

[patj11288]

Out of curiosity, do you know the background of the people who expressed their opinion by voting to ratify the Constitution?

Sure. Fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention. Eighty percent were political insiders i.e. had been members of the continental congress and practically all of them had previous experience in state and colonial government. As far as careers there is a bit of overlap, because some pursued more than one career simultaneously. That said, thirty-five were attorneys or had legal training, twelve operated large plantations or farms, nine received a substantial portion of their income from public office, two were scientists, three were physicians, and one was a university president. Financially they basically ranged from well-off to extremely wealthy with some of them ranking among the nation's wealthiest men and belonging to some of the most prominent families of the era. Regardless of wealth, however, they were all very well educated for the time period.

What exactly is your point? They were, by and large, well-off and well-educated. The best and the brightest that society had to offer at the time. Society's perceived elites and the ultimate insiders. Sort of similar to beltway politics now am I right? Sorry if that kind of bursts your revisionist history bubble that they were all yeoman farmers and representatives of the common man. In fact, much of their writing and even the way they structured the government generally flies completely in the face of this concept that we had real democracy in the olde tymes. Do yourself a favor and read Federalist #10.

 

[qazplm]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf
What is not at stake is whether UT or any other university may adopt an admissions plan that results in a student body with a broad representation of students from all racial and ethnic groups. UT previously had a race-neutral plan that it claimed had “effectively compensated for the loss of affirmative action,” App. 396a, and UT could have taken other steps that would have increased the diversity of its admitted students without taking race or ethnic background into account. What is at stake is whether university administrators may justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity,” without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives. Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong.

I write separately to reaffirm that “a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” Id.,at ___ (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). That constitutional imperative does not change in the face of a “faddish theor[y]” that racial discrimination may produce “educational benefits.”

what are the facts of this case? Do you know?
Was this a case of a qualified white student being passed over by a bunch of minorities? (spoiler alert no...she was not qualified academically, and she was passed by MOSTLY other white nonqualifieds who had other factors that pushed them over and a FEW minority unqualifieds for other reasons as well...and MOST of the minorities who were in her same boat were in fact not selected either).
Did this case go outside the bounds of prior Supreme Court precedent (spoiler alert, no).
Was this a bunch of liberals who decided this? (Spoiler alert, no, one of the liberals recused herself, and Kennedy authored the opinion).


Do you have the same concern about athletes who get scholarship with barely adequate test scores because they can throw a ball or kick a ball? Do you have a problem with folks who get in not because of great grades but because their dad or mom was an alumni or contributed money to the school? Or the various other reasons people get in to various schools that are not based solely on merit and grades?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

what are the facts of this case? Do you know?
Was this a case of a qualified white student being passed over by a bunch of minorities? (spoiler alert no...she was not qualified academically, and she was passed by MOSTLY other white nonqualifieds who had other factors that pushed them over and a FEW minority unqualifieds for other reasons as well...and MOST of the minorities who were in her same boat were in fact not selected either).
Did this case go outside the bounds of prior Supreme Court precedent (spoiler alert, no).
Was this a bunch of liberals who decided this? (Spoiler alert, no, one of the liberals recused herself, and Kennedy authored the opinion).


Do you have the same concern about athletes who get scholarship with barely adequate test scores because they can throw a ball or kick a ball? Do you have a problem with folks who get in not because of great grades but because their dad or mom was an alumni or contributed money to the school? Or the various other reasons people get in to various schools that are not based solely on merit and grades?

I read almost every supreme court decision and the dissents, I would say around 90% of them. Yes I know the case. Your stupid questions are not related the case on their own merit. If those questions CAUSED A QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE DENIED then yes, I have a major ****ing problem with it, especially IF IT IS BASED ON RACE. If they are brought in additionally, I certainly have an opinion on it, but at least they aren't taking away from someone's chance at success. This case is about making race a legal discriminator, which clearly was admitted by UT, and now the courts have sided with it. This is ten steps backwards. I don't know how blind you can be, how absolutely tilted, that you can't see the negative consequences of this decision.

 

[qazplm]

I read almost every supreme court decision and the dissents, I would say around 90% of them. Yes I know the case. Your stupid questions are not related the case on their own merit. If those questions CAUSED A QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE DENIED then yes, I have a major ****ing problem with it, especially IF IT IS BASED ON RACE. If they are brought in additionally, I certainly have an opinion on it, but at least they aren't taking away from someone's chance at success. This case is about making race a legal discriminator, which clearly was admitted by UT, and now the courts have sided with it. This is ten steps backwards. I don't know how blind you can be, how absolutely tilted, that you can't see the negative consequences of this decision.

1. Bullshit. Of course you don't read them. You're lying.
2. You're specifically lying about this case because she WAS NOT QUALIFIED. She was rejected on academics alone. She was then put into a pool, along with a ton of other people, who had secondary things going on that might gain them admittance. MOST of the minorities in that pool weren't selected EITHER. MOST of the people in that pool who were selected were WHITE. a FEW were minorities. ALL of the "qualified" people were accepted, this whole thing was based on what qualities to use for people who couldn't get in on academics alone.
3. Race was ALREADY A LEGAL DISCRIMINATOR so long as it was NARROWLY tailored. This program was based on the Court's prior opinion in Grutter. The Court says as much within the first three pages of the opinion. This opinion, authored by a conservative justice. The conservative Fifth Circuit SIDED with the university. TWICE. And not just affirmed, summary judgment!

So no, it's not "ten steps backwards" and it's nothing new, and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

 

[patj11288]

1. Bullshit. Of course you don't read them. You're lying.
2. You're specifically lying about this case because she WAS NOT QUALIFIED. She was rejected on academics alone. She was then put into a pool, along with a ton of other people, who had secondary things going on that might gain them admittance. MOST of the minorities in that pool weren't selected EITHER. MOST of the people in that pool who were selected were WHITE. a FEW were minorities. ALL of the "qualified" people were accepted, this whole thing was based on what qualities to use for people who couldn't get in on academics alone.
3. Race was ALREADY A LEGAL DISCRIMINATOR so long as it was NARROWLY tailored. This program was based on the Court's prior opinion in Grutter. The Court says as much within the first three pages of the opinion. This opinion, authored by a conservative justice. The conservative Fifth Circuit SIDED with the university. TWICE. And not just affirmed, summary judgment!

So no, it's not "ten steps backwards" and it's nothing new, and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

Seriously... I am a lawyer and I do not read them unless they are somehow relevant to my practice. They, by and large, deal with narrow extemporaneous issues, which would not be interesting in the least bit to most lawyers, much less a lay person.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

1. Bullshit. Of course you don't read them. You're lying.
2. You're specifically lying about this case because she WAS NOT QUALIFIED. She was rejected on academics alone. She was then put into a pool, along with a ton of other people, who had secondary things going on that might gain them admittance. MOST of the minorities in that pool weren't selected EITHER. MOST of the people in that pool who were selected were WHITE. a FEW were minorities. ALL of the "qualified" people were accepted, this whole thing was based on what qualities to use for people who couldn't get in on academics alone.
3. Race was ALREADY A LEGAL DISCRIMINATOR so long as it was NARROWLY tailored. This program was based on the Court's prior opinion in Grutter. The Court says as much within the first three pages of the opinion. This opinion, authored by a conservative justice. The conservative Fifth Circuit SIDED with the university. TWICE. And not just affirmed, summary judgment!

So no, it's not "ten steps backwards" and it's nothing new, and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

She didn't get rejected on academics ass. She just wasn't part of TTP policy so she had to compete for the other 800 or so people they let in ON WHICH ACADEMICS ARE STILL JUDGED. I don't give a shit about conservative or liberal. I'm not that shallow. You don't read anything but what you want to read.

 

[qazplm]

Seriously... I am a lawyer and I do not read them unless they are somehow relevant to my practice. They, by and large, deal with narrow extemporaneous issues, which would not be interesting in the least bit to most lawyers, much less a lay person.

I'm a lawyer too...and most of my time has been in crim law, so I do read the ones that deal with specific things because it obviously has an impact, and the big cases I read sometimes because I have an interest in criminal and constitutional law. But I don't read "most of them" because many of them are in boring, highly technical, or quite frankly indecipherable areas like patent law or some border dispute or IP law or a host of other highly specialized legal areas that only a handful of folks understand.

but he reads "most of them."

Kinda like Palin reads all the newspapers and magazines.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I'm a lawyer too...and most of my time has been in crim law, so I do read the ones that deal with specific things because it obviously has an impact, and the big cases I read sometimes because I have an interest in criminal and constitutional law. But I don't read "most of them" because many of them are in boring, highly technical, or quite frankly indecipherable areas like patent law or some border dispute or IP law or a host of other highly specialized legal areas that only a handful of folks understand.

but he reads "most of them."

Kinda like Palin reads all the newspapers and magazines.

well guess what? I'm highly technical.

 

[qazplm]

She didn't get rejected on academics ass. She just wasn't part of TTP policy so she had to compete for the other 800 or so people they let in ON WHICH ACADEMICS ARE STILL JUDGED. I don't give a shit about conservative or liberal. I'm not that shallow. You don't read anything but what you want to read.

"Once the essay and full-file readers have calculated each applicant’s AI and PAI scores, admissions officers from each school within the University set a cutoff PAI/AI score combination for admission, and then admit all of the applicants who are above that cutoff point."

"Race enters the admissions process, then, at one stage and one stage only—the calculation of the PAS. Therefore, although admissions officers can consider race as a positive feature of a minority student’s application, there is no dispute that race is but a “factor of afactor of a factor” in the holistic-review calculus."

"Petitioner Abigail Fisher applied for admission to theUniversity’s 2008 freshman class. She was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, so she was evaluated for admission through holistic, full-file review. Petitioner’s application was rejected."

She didn't qualify by scores.
She didn't qualify by being in the top-ten percent.
She was left to try and qualify by "holistic review" which is short-hand for stuff other than academics.


"The PAS is determined by a separate reader, who (1) rereads the applicant’s required essays, (2) reviews any supplemental information the applicant submits (letters of recommendation, resumes, an additional optional essay, writing samples, artwork, etc.),and (3) evaluates the applicant’s potential contributions to the University’s student body based on the applicant’s leadership experience, extracurricular activities, awards/honors, community service, and other “special circumstances.”

So the only "academic" part of the PAS are the essays. EVERYTHING else is non-academic.

 

[qazplm]

well guess what? I'm highly technical.

LMAO

So you are "highly technical" across multiple, unrelated technical areas AND you also read "most" of the crim law decisions AND "most" of the con law decisions...and you have a day job, and you sleep.

And you have time to quote bible verses in latin and cut and paste wiki articles about the enlightenment.

You're a regular Renaissance Man!

 

[patj11288]

LMAO

So you are "highly technical" across multiple, unrelated technical areas AND you also read "most" of the crim law decisions AND "most" of the con law decisions...and you have a day job, and you sleep.

And you have time to quote bible verses in latin and cut and paste wiki articles about the enlightenment.

You're a regular Renaissance Man!

I think by "technical" he means barely comprehensible, which I would agree with. Cue the Wikipedia article on the Information Age.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

LMAO

So you are "highly technical" across multiple, unrelated technical areas AND you also read "most" of the crim law decisions AND "most" of the con law decisions...and you have a day job, and you sleep.

And you have time to quote bible verses in latin and cut and paste wiki articles about the enlightenment.

You're a regular Renaissance Man!

I probably read and type at three times the pace you do. And there arent THAT many cases, they hear less than 100 cases.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

We forget that TopSecretBoiler


I think by "technical" he means barely comprehensible, which I would agree with. Cue the Wikipedia article on the Information Age.

LOL fail on so many levels.

 

[patj11288]

I probably read and type at three times the pace you do. And there arent THAT many cases, they hear less than 100 cases.

If you can type so fast and are so well-read why do you always limit yourself to copy and pasted block text and one or two unstructured sentences of analysis?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

"Once the essay and full-file readers have calculated each applicant’s AI and PAI scores, admissions officers from each school within the University set a cutoff PAI/AI score combination for admission, and then admit all of the applicants who are above that cutoff point."

"Race enters the admissions process, then, at one stage and one stage only—the calculation of the PAS. Therefore, although admissions officers can consider race as a positive feature of a minority student’s application, there is no dispute that race is but a “factor of afactor of a factor” in the holistic-review calculus."

"Petitioner Abigail Fisher applied for admission to theUniversity’s 2008 freshman class. She was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, so she was evaluated for admission through holistic, full-file review. Petitioner’s application was rejected."

She didn't qualify by scores.
She didn't qualify by being in the top-ten percent.
She was left to try and qualify by "holistic review" which is short-hand for stuff other than academics.


"The PAS is determined by a separate reader, who (1) rereads the applicant’s required essays, (2) reviews any supplemental information the applicant submits (letters of recommendation, resumes, an additional optional essay, writing samples, artwork, etc.),and (3) evaluates the applicant’s potential contributions to the University’s student body based on the applicant’s leadership experience, extracurricular activities, awards/honors, community service, and other “special circumstances.”

So the only "academic" part of the PAS are the essays. EVERYTHING else is non-academic.

Yes I know what UT "said", but as the dissent so eloquently laid out, they have no facts to back up their statements. They did no due diligence that could prove that this is in fact, by the numbers, what they set out to accomplish and how successful it is in providing the diversity they say they are providing! PLEASE read the dissent. Essentially, after the TTP they have given themselves the green light to discriminate on whatever grounds they feel like. THAT IS DANGEROUS!

 

[qazplm]

I probably read and type at three times the pace you do. And there arent THAT many cases, they hear less than 100 cases.

oh I'm sure you do. You've got the best brain.

 

[qazplm]

Yes I know what UT "said", but as the dissent so eloquently laid out, they have no facts to back up their statements. They did no due diligence that could prove that this is in fact, by the numbers, what they set out to accomplish and how successful it is in providing the diversity they say they are providing! PLEASE read the dissent. Essentially, after the TTP they have given themselves the green light to discriminate on whatever grounds they feel like. THAT IS DANGEROUS!

Wow. So you think the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court (twice), the District Court were all snowed and made decisions based on a complete lie with no facts at all.

Fact: there was a scored-based cutoff above which everyone got accepted.
Fact: the plaintiff missed that cutoff
Fact: Top ten percenters from Texas HS are also admitted
Fact: She wasn't even top ten percent in her HS (no doubt because the Blacks and Hispanics were coddled)
Fact: She wasn't "qualified" and didn't get passed over by someone who was less "qualified" than her. She was passed over on a holistic review which means it was a crap-shoot and more or less a subjective determination of mostly non-academic criteria that determined who got in.

Those are all facts, and those are the facts that you need to know. Whether or not their selected criteria is deemed successful is irrelevant and no evidence was shown that it wasn't.

And no, they do not have "the green light to discriminate" (unless you are talking alumni admittance for example). They still can only use race in a NARROWLY tailored way. The Court goes out of its way to make that very point in a final admonition.

Given you read three times faster than me, I would have thought you'd have read that part already.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

oh I'm sure you do. You've got the best brain.

I learned to type when I was six on a commodore 64. You are probably chicken pecking.

Wow. So you think the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court (twice), the District Court were all snowed and made decisions based on a complete lie with no facts at all.

Fact: there was a scored-based cutoff above which everyone got accepted.
Fact: the plaintiff missed that cutoff
Fact: Top ten percenters from Texas HS are also admitted
Fact: She wasn't even top ten percent in her HS (no doubt because the Blacks and Hispanics were coddled)
Fact: She wasn't "qualified" and didn't get passed over by someone who was less "qualified" than her. She was passed over on a holistic review which means it was a crap-shoot and more or less a subjective determination of mostly non-academic criteria that determined who got in.

Those are all facts, and those are the facts that you need to know. Whether or not their selected criteria is deemed successful is irrelevant and no evidence was shown that it wasn't.

And no, they do not have "the green light to discriminate" (unless you are talking alumni admittance for example). They still can only use race in a NARROWLY tailored way. The Court goes out of its way to make that very point in a final admonition.

Given you read three times faster than me, I would have thought you'd have read that part already.

“[r]ace may not be considered [by a university] unless the admissions process can withstand strict scrutiny,”Fisher I , 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its “‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary . . . to the accomplishment of its purpose.’”

 

[qazplm]

I learned to type when I was six on a commodore 64. You are probably chicken pecking.

“[r]ace may not be considered [by a university] unless the admissions process can withstand strict scrutiny,”Fisher I , 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its “‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary . . . to the accomplishment of its purpose.’”

lol ya got me...it took me ten minutes just to type this sentence. Sometimes I miss a word, but then mom comes in and helps me.

But hey I'm glad you learned on a Commodore 64. I actually learned on a real, live typewriter by taking a typing class in high school...back when they still had those classes...or typewriters. But hey, Commodore 64 reference.

What's sad is that your cut and paste does nothing to counter what I typed...but you think it does somehow, which means you don't understand a basic concept like what strict scrutiny means.

The District Court understood the clarity, the conservative 5th Circuit did (twice), and five out of eight justices on the Supreme Court did as well, including a conservative.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

lol ya got me...it took me ten minutes just to type this sentence. Sometimes I miss a word, but then mom comes in and helps me.

But hey I'm glad you learned on a Commodore 64. I actually learned on a real, live typewriter by taking a typing class in high school...back when they still had those classes...or typewriters. But hey, Commodore 64 reference.

What's sad is that your cut and paste does nothing to counter what I typed...but you think it does somehow, which means you don't understand a basic concept like what strict scrutiny means.

The District Court understood the clarity, the conservative 5th Circuit did (twice), and five out of eight justices on the Supreme Court did as well, including a conservative.

I understand it all too well. That's why this case is so embarrassing. Look at the justices keeping racism alive and well in this country.

 

[qazplm]

I understand it all too well. That's why this case is so embarrassing. Look at the justices keeping racism alive and well in this country.

yes...you understand it great...better than the justices do.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't give a shit about conservative or liberal. I'm not that shallow. You don't read anything but what you want to read.

You keep saying this, yet every talking point you post is viewed only from the far right. So you can say something, but you're not showing it at all. The next centrist or left viewpoint I see you take will be the first.

FWIW, when I read your statement about reading all decisions and dissents or 90% of them, I actually said "Bullshit" out loud. Let's face it, your reputation on this board isn't very good given how many times you've challenged actual subject matter experts on topics and been summarily shouted down. I know you don't think that's the case, but yeah, I find it really hard to take anything you post seriously any more.

Also, you're about the only person I know who resorts to name-calling like "f*&$face", and we've had some doozies on this board over the years. I think you need to cool off before posting if you can't stop your fingers from typing that. I mean, seriously...

 

[TOKenBoiler]

I wonder if the justices understood strict scrutiny in Korematsu? My point being they're not final because they're infallible, they're infallible because they're final. And, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the case, I haven't read it. But to suggest that the decision can't be wrong because 5 justices...one of them being a...gasp...conservative no less...reached the same conclusion is silly. There is plenty of idiocy in Supreme Court opinions.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

You keep saying this, yet every talking point you post is viewed only from the far right. So you can say something, but you're not showing it at all. The next centrist or left viewpoint I see you take will be the first.

FWIW, when I read your statement about reading all decisions and dissents or 90% of them, I actually said "Bullshit" out loud. Let's face it, your reputation on this board isn't very good given how many times you've challenged actual subject matter experts on topics and been summarily shouted down. I know you don't think that's the case, but yeah, I find it really hard to take anything you post seriously any more.

Also, you're about the only person I know who resorts to name-calling like "f*&$face", and we've had some doozies on this board over the years. I think you need to cool off before posting if you can't stop your fingers from typing that. I mean, seriously...

I do not care what you think about "my reputation". What am I far right about? Immigration? And I don't think that's really as far right as you like to think it is. My guess, it's the majority opinion in the country, see Brexit. Am I independent? Yes. Do I run a business? Yes. I don't know who these mythical "subject matter experts" are, but I don't count prison degree lawyers.

 

[qazplm]

I wonder if the justices understood strict scrutiny in Korematsu? My point being they're not final because they're infallible, they're infallible because they're final. And, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the case, I haven't read it. But to suggest that the decision can't be wrong because 5 justices...one of them being a...gasp...conservative no less...reached the same conclusion is silly. There is plenty of idiocy in Supreme Court opinions.

It's not just "five justices."
It was the judges on the 5th Circuit. Summarily affirmance no less.
It wasn't just one conservative, the 5th is one of the most conservative Circuits.
It was also a District Court Judge.
It was clearly patterned after Supreme Court precedent in Gutter. where a bunch of other judges ruled it was constitutional.
At some point, the weight of it suggests maybe the decision is right in line with precedent and prior reasoning. Which means it is not "relegalizing" anything. Which means it's not "ten steps backwards."

which is the point of most of the responses to TS Boiler. Not that he can't think the opinion wrong nevertheless, not that other people can't think it wrong. That's a strawman you've just built. It's that the reasons he says it is wrong are asinine and BS. It's that he doesn't remotely understand it clearly. It's that he doesn't even know the facts of the case given how he initially described the case.

 

[BoilerBiker]

what was different about this recent texas case compared to the michigan cases over10 years ago? or were they just trying to overrule the second one?

(michigan undergrad direct point system tied to ethnicity/race - not ok, michigrad grad with the holistic/subjective review - ok).

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

It's not just "five justices."
It was the judges on the 5th Circuit. Summarily affirmance no less.
It wasn't just one conservative, the 5th is one of the most conservative Circuits.
It was also a District Court Judge.
It was clearly patterned after Supreme Court precedent in Gutter. where a bunch of other judges ruled it was constitutional.
At some point, the weight of it suggests maybe the decision is right in line with precedent and prior reasoning. Which means it is not "relegalizing" anything. Which means it's not "ten steps backwards."

which is the point of most of the responses to TS Boiler. Not that he can't think the opinion wrong nevertheless, not that other people can't think it wrong. That's a strawman you've just built. It's that the reasons he says it is wrong are asinine and BS. It's that he doesn't remotely understand it clearly. It's that he doesn't even know the facts of the case given how he initially described the case.

You are so haughty and ridiculous. I don't know the facts?! I'm probably the ONLY one on this board that read it. I posted ONLY case fact and opinion of the justices. You are really delusional about the prowess of your reading comprehension. Thomas put it best, “a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause." Oh and he's black. But you know more about racism and case law than he does...right.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I do not care what you think about "my reputation". What am I far right about? Immigration? And I don't think that's really as far right as you like to think it is. My guess, it's the majority opinion in the country, see Brexit. Am I independent? Yes. Do I run a business? Yes. I don't know who these mythical "subject matter experts" are, but I don't count prison degree lawyers.

Well, you argued with me about the South China Sea and the Chinese Navy and our capabilities against them, and yeah, I'm a "subject matter expert" in that regard.

Otherwise, what are you far right about? Literally everything you've said ever on this board. You need to get out more if you think everyone (or even a majority) thinks like you do. Brexit? Lots of factors other than immigration there, and a 52-48 victory doesn't really support you terribly strongly, nevermind the fact that it's a whole different country. *shrug*

 

[qazplm]

I do not care what you think about "my reputation". What am I far right about? Immigration? And I don't think that's really as far right as you like to think it is. My guess, it's the majority opinion in the country, see Brexit. Am I independent? Yes. Do I run a business? Yes. I don't know who these mythical "subject matter experts" are, but I don't count prison degree lawyers.

lmao

prison degree lawyer? Interesting. I didn't realize the Tier 1 law school I graduated cum laude from was a prison. I didn't realize the 14 years I've spent in the military defending, prosecuting, training defense attorneys, supervising prosecutors and doing appellate defense including lead counsel on a death penalty appeal equated to prison expert.

You tell the one person on this board who is fracking in the Navy that you know more about the Navy than he does, and you tell actual lawyers with decades or more of experience that you know more about the law than they do.

It's as if Trump's ID leaves his body and comes typing on this board under your screenname.

You're a joke. You're a waste of time. I'm done responding to you. Because I've got better uses of my brain power like watching paint dry or talking to a large brick. Either would result in more stimulation mentally than further "intellectual" engagement with you.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Well, you argued with me about the South China Sea and the Chinese Navy and our capabilities against them, and yeah, I'm a "subject matter expert" in that regard.

Otherwise, what are you far right about? Literally everything you've said ever on this board. You need to get out more if you think everyone (or even a majority) thinks like you do. Brexit? Lots of factors other than immigration there, and a 52-48 victory doesn't really support you terribly strongly, nevermind the fact that it's a whole different country. *shrug*

I live in DC. I see more muslims every day than you probably do in your entire life. You get out more, bunch of rubes.

Literally everything i've said? So being atheist is far right? pro abortion is far right? being pro equality is far right? being anti foreign tax shelter is far right? being pro union is far right? Find the ignore button and use it! Your opinion isn't any more valid than mine. In fact, I'm guessing by pay grade, the government values mine 2 to 3 times yours. You just make yourself look dumb man saying things like this. You, qaz, and patj always start with the ad hom, but when I finish with it, I'm the bad guy right?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

lmao

prison degree lawyer? Interesting. I didn't realize the Tier 1 law school I graduated cum laude from was a prison. I didn't realize the 14 years I've spent in the military defending, prosecuting, training defense attorneys, supervising prosecutors and doing appellate defense including lead counsel on a death penalty appeal equated to prison expert.

You tell the one person on this board who is fracking in the Navy that you know more about the Navy than he does, and you tell actual lawyers with decades or more of experience that you know more about the law than they do.

It's as if Trump's ID leaves his body and comes typing on this board under your screenname.

You're a joke. You're a waste of time. I'm done responding to you. Because I've got better uses of my brain power like watching paint dry or talking to a large brick. Either would result in more stimulation mentally than further "intellectual" engagement with you.

good. find the ignore button. Any time I want your opinion I'll ask msnbc for it.