-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Supreme Court announced today that it will take up its first major affirmative action case since Grutter v. Bollinger. In Fisher v. Texas, a white student named Abigail Fisher said she was rejected by the University of Texas on the basis of her race.
Supporters of racial preferences fear that the stars are aligned in Fisher’s favor, with a conservative majority that could conceivably discard Grutter. “There thus seem five votes - Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito - to overrule Grutter and hold that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional,” the New York Times quotes Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, as saying in a book titled The Conservative Assault on the Constitution. (Never mind that Grutter is a Sandra Day O’Connor concoction that oddly decides something can be constitutional for 25 years before the justices get to reconsider).
Elena Kagan, an Obama-appointed justice in the liberal bloc, will recuse herself from the case because of her past role as solicitor general.
View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/21/supreme-court-has-affirmative
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Al Adab| 2.21.12 @ 2:44PM
Affirmative action is just as rascist and segregation and Jim Crow. Whenever we make race or other qualities foremost we violate what MLK called judgement on the content of character. If that is our goal then affirmative action violates the very principle it was established to create.
Al Adab| 2.21.12 @ 2:45PM
"as racist as segregation" My apology.
W| 2.21.12 @ 4:19PM
Al Adab
Do you know anyone that says I want the neurosurgeon who was admitted to medical school because of his race?
Al Adab| 2.21.12 @ 4:51PM
W:
I keep waiting for the 5' 6" white guy who will sue the NBA because he can't make the team.
W| 2.21.12 @ 6:24PM
Those 5'6" white guys are the agents.
cali| 2.22.12 @ 4:57AM
I totally agree; admission irrespective of ones skin should be the factor - never the color of ones skin!
I also have always questioned, why 'asian, and white' people have been refused entries into institutions simply to fill a 'quota'.
It's about time that 'reversed' discrimination gets overturned!
DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 10:58PM
Jim Crow was the first Affirmative Action program in the USA dedicated to the advancement of the white race. Many whites benefited due to the Jim Crow policies because the laws denied ACCESS to the same resources to minorities; however, provided those resources to the majority (white race). The advancement of the white race was due to the enslavement and suppression of resources towards minorities in this nation. So when you say "Affirmative Action is just as racist as segregation and Jim Crow". Your right, except segregation and Jim Crow were the FIRST FORMS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for the advancement of the white race in the USA.
Ryan| 2.22.12 @ 8:31AM
So what? They're both injustices.
WL| 2.22.12 @ 2:09PM
So Affirmative action for whites is the only reason for our success in America?
Well, if that is true, then why don't all of the non-white countries, cities, businesses and institutions just ban all of us from employment, kick all of us out of your neighborhoods, and make laws that make us patronize only the establishments that are set aside for us...that way we don't sully up the non-white islands of prosperity, and then and only then we will get the Justice that we deserve and rot in our own squalor...Just think of how nice it will be to go through life and never have to be around any of us sorry whites anymore...
See Denial...Affirmative action won't even be necessary to keep us incompetents from getting an unfair advantage...and we won't even put up a fight...since we will only be getting what we deserve....and ALL race problems will be solved, since we are the real evil in the world, and no other race will have to put up with us storming the gates of the countries that they control to escape the misery of our neighborhoods, cities, and countries that we live in.
DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 3:35PM
All of the anger in your argument still will not effect the present, which is the fact that this country was built on free labor and MANY (NOT ALL) have benefited from this; so your "send em back" attitude will not change anything. My point was while people on this blog rant about AFFIRMATIVE ACTION many of you have benefited from the very same AFFIRMATIVE ACTION whether directly or vicariously. So stop your whining; your sounding like a liberal. LMAO
JJ| 2.21.12 @ 2:58PM
Were would Obama be without affirmative action?
DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 10:58PM
In the White House.
L. Ross| 2.22.12 @ 1:53PM
Sir:
I doubt he would have made it into Harvard without consideration for his coloring. But then we will never know. He won't release his academic records.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.21.12 @ 3:07PM
Well, this anticipated decision could overthrow all the stupid laws that treat people like cattle dependent upon their race or gender.
Next, let's hope they throw out the American with Disabilities Act, another job destroyer.
gus| 2.21.12 @ 3:08PM
JJ. Obama would be in Hawai'i, and he'd be managing the produce section of a Ralph's supermarket.
Obama would not have gotten into a decent college without Affirmative Action. And Obama is not decended from anyone who was ever racially mistreated. His drunken father was from Kenya, and his "loose" Mommy was white.
Speakup| 2.21.12 @ 3:12PM
Look at the tremendous harm affirmative action has caused this country.
Its not just schools, its an entire generation of race based employment yet continuing.
Of course its unconstitutional, our 14 amendment doesn't say equal under the law, except for you, you and you but you, you're sol.
Stan Redmond| 2.21.12 @ 3:23PM
I don't associate with losers so I have a real question for people out there that do.
How can any self respecting person accept affirmative action positions? How can someone show their faces in the office or in class knowing that they are only there to assuage some liberal's guitl. Do they feel like frauds?
Curtis Rasmussen| 2.21.12 @ 6:56PM
How about people who work hard to achieve their station in life only to be thought of as disposable because someone believes they got there thru affirmative action? Affirmative action sucks in more ways than one.
It's like giving the 'athlete of the week' award to someone because the equally qualified black guy is viewed as common while white guy is viewed as exceptional. This is racist, yet the effect of affirmative action is similar.
WL| 2.22.12 @ 2:33PM
No, they don't feel like frauds...no matter what color they are...
A very strange sense of pompous arrogance consumes folks who are given preferential treatment (all colors included)...
Instead of feeling ashamed, (i.e. Affirmative action beneficiaries of any race, Trust Funders of all colors, spoiled brats of all colors, Union Thugs of any color etc.etc.) they start to feel a perverse sense of unearned self worth...what many of us would be very familiar with and come into contact with every time you get the ol' "do you know who I am" response from people who don't get what they want...
It's called ELITISM (read: Arrogant Idiocy)
riograndevalleygirl| 2.21.12 @ 4:02PM
Interesting. Texas fills about 80% of each freshman class with auto-admits as mandated by Texas law (current law: applicants with top 8% h.s. ranking) and applies holistic admissions process that considers race as well as many other factors to the remaining spots. The law has produced a nominal increase in the number of minorities attending UT-Austin. But that increase doesn't even come close to reflecting the state-wide demographics for 18 year old college eligible students. So in that regard the law has been a failure.
Something not commonly known....the Texas auto-admit law only guarantees a spot in the UT College of Liberal Arts and does not guarantee a freshman a spot in the highly competitive and highly regarded UT schools/majors (Cockrell Engineering, McCombs Business, Architecture, Natural Sciences, etc...). Admission into those UT schools/majors is, and always has been, under holistic process which has always considered race (as well as other factors). So...I wonder if this case decides race-based admissions is unconstitutional, will it also affect the secondary holistic admission process into the schools/majors?
Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 4:12PM
test
Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 4:19PM
Affirmative action in general should be outlawed, as it is pure discrimination. 1954's Brown vs Bd of Ed should have provided an equalization factor with the public school system which provided for equal opportunity. What the socialist, radical liberals want is instead equal results, and same instituted by the legal system. Sotomayor's confirmation onto the SCOTUS in consideration of her ruling discrimitorily against the firefighters should have disqualified her but did not. This business of holding open minority slots in schools etc due to prior to the above Brown case is ludicrous and asinine. Competition brings out the best in everyone, and with equal schools/teachers/computers/textbooks etc as a starting point, to attempt to falsely MOVE THE GOALPOSTS arbitrarily is outlandish!!!!!!!!!!!!
DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 11:13PM
Actually not having Affirmative Action is actually having Affirmative Action because the majority race has benefited from Affirmative Action for over 300+ years. So no matter how you bend the fork it will still be pointed towards the fact that many in this country benefited due to the laws set in the past. Til this day there are nepotism babies that still live in the homes of their great grandparents that paid for that home with free labor or individuals who may not have made it into that University if that Asian American would have applied instead they were denied access. The problem is there are also hardworking Americans that did not benefit from the laws of Jim Crow as well. So the precedent of the past still reflects on our society today.
Oldefarte| 2.22.12 @ 11:05AM
Your point is confusing, but to state that affirmative action somehow benefits the rest of society is ludicrous. It should be THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, not THE COLOR OF ONE SKIN!!!!!!!!!!
WL| 2.22.12 @ 2:21PM
It is apparent that Denial likes Affirmative action....but I don't quite get how it has been very beneficial to people of color...
Their society is in turmoil, their kids are in peril, their families have been destroyed, racial tension is higher than it's ever been, their wealth has been destroyed, and Obama has made minority unemployment go through the stratosphere...
So, it would appear to me that the real racists are the ones who want to keep inflicting damage on their communities....i.e. The Democrats overall, closely followed by the genocidal Abortionists..
DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 3:50PM
Actually I DON'T like Affirmative Action. However, those on the conservative David Duke wing of the Republican Party do NOT like to accept that they have benefited from AFFIRMATIVE ACTION as minorities have; its was called Jim Crow. Affirmative Action should have NEVER happened neither should have Jim Crow; however, conservatives feel that minorities have received 30 years of Affirmative Action is equivalent to 300 years of Affirmative Action/Slavery benefiting the white race. The main difference between Jim Crow and Affirmative Action is that the white race was NOT denied access to schools, reading materials, restaurants, water fountains, voter id, voting, it is not illegal for whites to read, etc....
"Their society...." obviously shows your opinion is tainted with racial bigotry because the last time i checked I am an American as you are as well, so your society is my society. Unless, you live a bigoted racial paradox where you are not able to see beyond your own skin complexion.
Drek| 2.21.12 @ 4:51PM
Looks like Sandra Day O'Connor's "25 years" came a wee bit sooner than she thought, or ever intended.
Race is going to get bounced from admissions.
And get your popcorn ready 'cause we'll all get a good look at how imaginative these libs will be finding new ways to incorporate race without overtly mentioning.
And of course the group that will be hurt the most will be Asian Americans, and how do they respond to this racist ceiling the Libs desire to impose on their numbers at top schools? They respond by voting Democrat.
DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 11:04PM
Actually your wrong. The Universities will be hit with more lawsuits than you can ever believe and lawyers will be rolling in the money. Universities will be in debt do to the amount of lawsuits coming from the ACLU. Lawyers are celebrating in New Orleans today hoping this law is overturned.
Oldefarte| 2.22.12 @ 11:08AM
You really do need to learn English punctuation, spelling and capitalization. As to your referenced LAWYERS, you might remember the applicable joke of: Q. How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? A. His lips will be moving!!!!!!!!!!!
DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 3:54PM
You can always count on a conservative with no points; to focus off topic by instantly transforming into an English teacher on a blog. BTW didn't get the joke.
PattyMor| 2.21.12 @ 5:15PM
Beside Affirmative Action, let's get rid of racially drawn legislative districts, minority set asides and all the other liberal perferences. Of course, preferences are just another way to discriminate under a new name.
LibertyAtStake | 2.21.12 @ 5:45PM
So, Kagan will recuse here, but not on ObamaCare? What chutpah.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
George S| 2.21.12 @ 7:04PM
Let me see your skin so I can tell you beforehand how you will be treated. Is that what the Constitution penumbricates and emanates?
If a private institution discriminates, we can go elsewhere. If a government institution discriminates, where do we go?
What will happen to all those Dean of Diversity offices and their multi-million dollar budgets? Lower tuition maybe?
O'Connor opined that a "compelling state interest" can overrule the Constitution -- hence Grutter. Yet the "study" that said diversity promotes educational outcome -- which defined the compelling interest to discriminate -- has never been justified (and why we have to wait 25 years to find the answer). What is the compelling state interest as of today?
Tough questions the Court has to tackle. Indeed.
Quartermaster| 2.21.12 @ 7:58PM
"O'Connor opined that a "compelling state interest" can overrule the Constitution"
O'Conner was a lawless shyster who should have been disbarred long ago, along with the other libs who won't honor law or the constitution.
Sue| 2.22.12 @ 10:50AM
Ha, ha, ha! What do you think they'll do with a 4-4 decision? The same thing they did with Balke and the 5-4 decision in the '70s. It's called a "continuance" because there wasn't a clear majority ruling. This is the holy ground that liberals and Democrats walk upon. Grey instead of black and white.
The same could happen with Obamacare. A recusal, 4-4 decision, liberals win.
Timely Renewed | 2.24.12 @ 12:55PM
Instead of relying on narrow 5-4 decisions of an unelected and unaccountable group of elitist lawyers, why not resolve these and other constitutional issues by re-invigorating the amendment process and letting the people decide? To start we could return the 14th amendment to its original intended meaning of barring government discrimination on the basis of race using clear language instead of section 1's vague reference to equal protection which allows judges to write their own social philosophies into the Constitution. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com