PDA

View Full Version : Is the supreme court being chicken sh** in not making a ruling on Affirmative action?



garhkal
06-24-2013, 06:14 PM
So the Supreme court kicks back to the lower court the cases where a white woman is suing a Texas college for placing race (for diversity sake) over qualifications due to affirmative action, and as such shows it is a racist decision.

So do you feel they are being chicken for NOT making a ruling on this, or playing it safe?

Do you actually agree with having affirmative action or not??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/in-affirmative-action-ruling-supreme-court-sidesteps-difficult-questions/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/50293/supreme-court-affirmative-action-2013-we-still-have-structural-racism-so-why-shouldn-t-we-still-have-affirmative-action

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 06:19 PM
Can't believe she actually said this;

"Minorities still aren’t equal to whites."

Talk about a racist!

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 06:28 PM
So the Supreme court kicks back to the lower court the cases where a white woman is suing a Texas college for placing race (for diversity sake) over qualifications due to affirmative action, and as such shows it is a racist decision.

So do you feel they are being chicken for NOT making a ruling on this, or playing it safe?

Do you actually agree with having affirmative action or not??

Did you actually READ the ruling? The district court upheld the University's policy and the Supreme Court said not so fast there skippy. While the rulin didn't say whether the decision was right or wrong, it did say that in reaching their decision, the district court did NOT follow the law regarding affirmative action. Basically the Supreme Court said that the district court had to do their job properly before the case could be decided by them....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf

CYBERFX1024
06-24-2013, 06:30 PM
I believe the Supreme Court is to chicken sh*t to rule on this. Because for the last 40+ years Affirmative Action has been the law of that land, and now with society as it is we don't need it anymore.

Affirmative Action had it's place yes back in the day. But in today's life it does not have a place in American Society.

UH1FE
06-24-2013, 08:05 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right! You cant fix discrimination by discriminating.

Measure Man
06-24-2013, 08:09 PM
So the Supreme court kicks back to the lower court the cases where a white woman is suing a Texas college for placing race (for diversity sake) over qualifications due to affirmative action, and as such shows it is a racist decision.

So do you feel they are being chicken for NOT making a ruling on this, or playing it safe?

What do you mean not ruling on it? They did rule on it.


Do you actually agree with having affirmative action or not??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/in-affirmative-action-ruling-supreme-court-sidesteps-difficult-questions/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/50293/supreme-court-affirmative-action-2013-we-still-have-structural-racism-so-why-shouldn-t-we-still-have-affirmative-action

I didn't read the full decision and all...but from what I gather, the ruling basically says that it is a valid interest of the University to desire a diverse student body...because that contributes to the quality of education in bringing about discussion from different points of view, etc...or at least didn't say they can NOT do that.

But, that when giving a minority students a "plus up"...they have to do it with this very narrow purpose in mind.

I don't think that's even really affirmative action...

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 09:02 PM
What do you mean not ruling on it? They did rule on it.

I didn't read the full decision and all...but from what I gather, the ruling basically says that it is a valid interest of the University to desire a diverse student body...because that contributes to the quality of education in bringing about discussion from different points of view, etc...or at least didn't say they can NOT do that.

But, that when giving a minority students a "plus up"...they have to do it with this very narrow purpose in mind.

I don't think that's even really affirmative action...

They also said that they have to be able to PROVE that the way they were doing it was legal AND achieved the stated purpose of the policy. They also ruled that the standard to which the circuit court held the university was not a strict enough standard to support the university's policy and thereby that the district court needed to go back and do it right...THEN an appeal could be filed to the Supreme Court by the loser....

Measure Man
06-24-2013, 09:37 PM
They also said that they have to be able to PROVE that the way they were doing it was legal AND achieved the stated purpose of the policy. They also ruled that the standard to which the circuit court held the university was not a strict enough standard to support the university's policy and thereby that the district court needed to go back and do it right...

Right.


THEN an appeal could be filed to the Supreme Court by the loser....

No. I think you are confused at what the Supreme Court actually does.

There are two different types of issues in a trial, Issues of Law and Issues of Fact.

usually, the Issues of Law is what gets appealed...the Supreme Court clarifies, like in this case, that the lower court misinterpreted the law...then they clarify what the lower court should have thought about the law, and send it back for the lower court to apply the newly clarfiied law to the facts of that particular case.

You generally don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court just because you lost...you have to have a Issue of Law that you believe the court interpreted or applied incorrectly. You get the Supreme Court to tell your court how to properly apply the law, and to rethink their decision based on that.

For the most part though, the Supreme Court does not make a "final decision" on cases as they generally do not get into questions of fact...questions of fact, would be things like what the evidence means, which witness is more believable, what conclusions can be drawn based on the fact that this fingerprint was found over here, but not over there, etc.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 03:18 PM
No. I think you are confused at what the Supreme Court actually does.

There are two different types of issues in a trial, Issues of Law and Issues of Fact.

usually, the Issues of Law is what gets appealed...the Supreme Court clarifies, like in this case, that the lower court misinterpreted the law...then they clarify what the lower court should have thought about the law, and send it back for the lower court to apply the newly clarfiied law to the facts of that particular case.

You generally don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court just because you lost...you have to have a Issue of Law that you believe the court interpreted or applied incorrectly. You get the Supreme Court to tell your court how to properly apply the law, and to rethink their decision based on that.

For the most part though, the Supreme Court does not make a "final decision" on cases as they generally do not get into questions of fact...questions of fact, would be things like what the evidence means, which witness is more believable, what conclusions can be drawn based on the fact that this fingerprint was found over here, but not over there, etc.

IMO, no matter who loses, they will appeal to the Supreme Court. Either the University will lose and claim that the law wasn't followed properly in the decision or the student will lose and will claim the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court might not hear the case but neither party seems likely to take the circuit courts' decision as final...

garhkal
06-25-2013, 10:26 PM
Did you actually READ the ruling? The district court upheld the University's policy and the Supreme Court said not so fast there skippy. While the rulin didn't say whether the decision was right or wrong, it did say that in reaching their decision, the district court did NOT follow the law regarding affirmative action. Basically the Supreme Court said that the district court had to do their job properly before the case could be decided by them....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf

I have it a cursory look over..

Pullinteeth
07-03-2013, 03:13 PM
I read an interesting perspective today... The author believes that this ruling will essentially force colleges away from race based affirmative action and toward economic affirmative action. I wonder who (if anyone) would object to that type of affirmative action?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/us/imposter-affirmative-action/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

garhkal
07-03-2013, 08:25 PM
Me. I personally feel ANY 'affirmative action' is discriminatory.

Measure Man
07-03-2013, 09:34 PM
Me. I personally feel ANY 'affirmative action' is discriminatory.

Do you think that wanting a diverse student body, in order to enhance the educational experience for all, is considered affirmative action?

Or is it only affirmative action when the intent is to disproportionately benefit minority students?

Measure Man
07-04-2013, 12:20 AM
Me. I personally feel ANY 'affirmative action' is discriminatory.

Let's say it's your job to put together a marketing team for your company.

They want you to hire 10 people and only 10 people.

Do you think it should be legal...for you and your company to decide you want a diversity of opinions so you can effectively market in different segments...soo...you want 3 white males, 3 white females...1 black male, 1 black female, 1 hispanic male and 1 hispanic female....so you will hire the best within those categories.

As the applications come in...if the 7 best applicants are all white males...should you be allowed to eliminate the bottom 4 of those 7 so that you can achieve the diversity you desire? Obviously that is discriminatory, but is is bad discrimination or good discrimination?

garhkal
07-04-2013, 09:05 PM
Do you think that wanting a diverse student body, in order to enhance the educational experience for all, is considered affirmative action?

Or is it only affirmative action when the intent is to disproportionately benefit minority students?

Wanting diversity ok.
MAKING it happen by selecting someone over someone else just cause they are of demographic XYZ, especially when that person's scores, etc are lower - wrong.


Let's say it's your job to put together a marketing team for your company.

They want you to hire 10 people and only 10 people.

Do you think it should be legal...for you and your company to decide you want a diversity of opinions so you can effectively market in different segments...soo...you want 3 white males, 3 white females...1 black male, 1 black female, 1 hispanic male and 1 hispanic female....so you will hire the best within those categories.

As the applications come in...if the 7 best applicants are all white males...should you be allowed to eliminate the bottom 4 of those 7 so that you can achieve the diversity you desire? Obviously that is discriminatory, but is is bad discrimination or good discrimination?

To me the best should get it, regardless.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 08:06 PM
Wanting diversity ok.
MAKING it happen by selecting someone over someone else just cause they are of demographic XYZ, especially when that person's scores, etc are lower - wrong.

What if they were equally qualified? Would you still have a problem giving a slot to someone that was poor and likely had to work harder to get their education at a failing school than a rich kid that went to a private school and just coasted by?

garhkal
07-08-2013, 08:11 PM
In cases of equally qualified imo it should then default to first come first serve. If they give more 'point's to one over the other cause of race, that to me is just as discriminatory as what "affirmative action" is supposed to be against.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 11:56 PM
In cases of equally qualified imo it should then default to first come first serve. If they give more 'point's to one over the other cause of race, that to me is just as discriminatory as what "affirmative action" is supposed to be against.

Apparently reading isn't your strong suit so let's try this again... The recent ruling regarding affirmative action MAY have the result of race NOT being the issue-socio-econoimic status instead. SO a poor white kid might get a slot over a rich black kid... OR a poor hispanic or poor black kid MIGHT get a slot over a rich @$$ white kid... Equally qualified but...

garhkal
07-09-2013, 06:10 AM
As said, in that case first in with his (or her) paperwork imo should get it.. Or lottery (random pick)... Giving 'bonus' points based on race/economic status imo is the same thing.