|
ShadowHawk posted:To be fair, it's a bit hard to argue that "race is a component of our admissions decision to fulfill diversity goals" and also simultaneously claim that there are zero marginal people who are affected by it. If you're capping the number of students you admit, then there has to be someone on the losing end somewhere. Fisher could have quieted the standing issue by bringing her action not only on her behalf but as a class action on behalf of future applicants. (This is what the plaintiff in Grutter did.) She or her lawyers decided not to do so. Of course, this was all in play the last time Fisher was up, too.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
the greatest thing about the conservative wing of the court is how they rule on poo poo based on gut feelings intsead of any sort of evidentiary record built through litigation
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Of course, the demographics of the "less qualified" admits does raise on hell of a question when it comes to causation, even if you concede injury in fact. Also, a reminder that just like last time, it's a short bench. Justice Kagan is recused due to her work as Solicitor General.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Stolen from Joe:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Or, you know, the APA brief that systematically tears apart this thinly veiled racism with over eighty empirical papers demonstrating that the opposite is true. Percentile is not a measure you want to use in this case, fyi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Stolen from Joe: He could have been briefer, in this vein: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Of course, the demographics of the "less qualified" admits does raise on hell of a question when it comes to causation, even if you concede injury in fact. As a practical matter though that doesn't matter: a 4-4 decision upholds lower court decision permitting the Texas plan and, though it has no precedential value everyone knows that means there's a 5-4 majority for it and lower courts will take notice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:As a practical matter though that doesn't matter: a 4-4 decision upholds lower court decision permitting the Texas plan and, though it has no precedential value everyone knows that means there's a 5-4 majority for it and lower courts will take notice. Right, but when it comes to counting votes it's always good to remember the number changes. Also so no one goes through the transcript and thinks Justice Kagan pulled a Justice Thomas. (For what it's worth, though, Justice Kennedy was in the dissent in Grutter. I am...not optimistic.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Hey, don't let Scalia have all the fun!quote:Roberts stops to ask him, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Percentile is not a measure you want to use in this case, fyi. False. Scalia's contention is that black students would be better off at other schools that are "slower paced" than UT. The "separate but slower" doctrine, if you will. Comparing the graduation rate at UT compared to other schools, ie a percentile, is a meaningful falsification of this premise. Scalia wasn't comparing minority students to white students, he was comparing minority students at UT to minority students at "slower" schools. But it turns out he was actually just talking out his rear end with a bunch of racist and unsubstantiated gobbledygook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Hey, don't let Scalia have all the fun! I hope the response was to ask what unique perspective Fisher would have brought to a physics class outside that of underperforming student who sued her way into college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Ruling Fisher wouldn't have been admitted anyway is a bit like going after the standing of the people suing the NSA. Surely someone was affected, and the court ruling on the standing instead of the arguments is basically refusing to make a hard decision and letting the status quo win by default. The Fifth Circuit's original decision way back in 2011 held that Fisher lacked standing to sue for anything other than money damages arising out of being denied admission. The Supreme Court remanded the cases solely on the standard of review question, so the standing issue has presumably been decided. Interestingly enough, the Fifth Circuit's most recent order all but said "we now agree that Fisher lacks standing, but the Supreme Court tied our hands by narrowly limiting the scope of the remand order"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Maybe I am wrapped up in a left wing bubble. Maybe I am wrapped up in a reality based bubble. But I heard an awful lot of news about the Fisher case today where everyone said that everything the conservatives said amounted to pretty much what they have been writing into their opinions this whole time. So, this is the effect that Trump has had on popular culture. The Supreme Court has given up on dog-whistling too, because, really, they don't have to give a gently caress either. But I like how the left has started doing the inverse of dog-whistling. GREGORY G. GARRE, ESQ posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
There was a decent Slate article on it- Scalia was basically just focusing on some discredited right wing research on affirmative action outcomes. It's not any more or less racist, or more or less explicit, than past statements by him on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
I agree that this doesn't seem exactly new from Scalia. I remember the first time I read one of his decisions where he talks about "the blacks" and being a little bit shocked. I can't wait to read what Thomas has to say about all of this. I know I won't see any oral argument quotes because he was certainly napping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
I was listening to NPR last night and they seemed a little concerned that AA was going to be made illegal by this case. The expert they had on said that Kennedy had some kind of secret plan so they could rule on this without actually making a decision that really affects anything outside of this instance or something and that it wasn't that dire. If the Roberts court gets rid of both the VRA and AA I think history will have to try very hard to look favorably on these guys in regards to racial issues. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I agree that this doesn't seem exactly new from Scalia. I remember the first time I read one of his decisions where he talks about "the blacks" and being a little bit shocked. Thomas extensively quoted the "academic mismatch" argument in one of his past concurrences, but I forget which case. IIRC, he didn't say he agreed with it, but was using it to say that there is a legitimate dispute on whether affirmative action was good for the black community. He used other examples where both sides similarly claimed benefits for blacks, like in Brown v Board and racial gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I've been out of touch with news, but wasn't Fisher argued last year? Why's it back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've been out of touch with news, but wasn't Fisher argued last year? Why's it back? The court punted last time, and sent it back to the lower court to be argued under a different standard. Fisher lost again, and they're still four Justices who want to axe AA so they granted the cert petition, again, and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've been out of touch with news, but wasn't Fisher argued last year? Why's it back? Because the good die young while evil grips life tenaciously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
On The Media reposted their Plaintiff Shopping piece. You can listen to it here
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've been out of touch with news, but wasn't Fisher argued last year? Why's it back? Kennedy did not want to rule on it, so he got everyone to agree to punt it back to the 5th Circuit to review the school's arguments under a more exacting standard. The obvious hope was they'd then strike it down, but the Supreme Court wouldn't have to step in. But because the school's arguments are good ones, the 5th Circuit said "yep, even under our more exacting standard, school still wins." So now it's a question of if Kennedy will pull the trigger this time or if he'll cave. He openly considered sending it back to the district court for more facts, but sounded like he realized that wasn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Well, the 5th Circuit clearly needs to review this case again until the correct facts are found
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I agree that this doesn't seem exactly new from Scalia. I remember the first time I read one of his decisions where he talks about "the blacks" and being a little bit shocked. Thomas will go full FYGM like he has in the past.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Maybe I am wrapped up in a left wing bubble. Maybe I am wrapped up in a reality based bubble. But I heard an awful lot of news about the Fisher case today where everyone said that everything the conservatives said amounted to pretty much what they have been writing into their opinions this whole time. If you're blaming Trump for that, then yeah you're in a left wing bubble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
This whole thing is so absurd. So let's assume this Abigail Fisher person wins her Supreme Court case...what exactly is she accomplishing? The school isn't going to say "gosh you showed us" and accept her, are they? So does she really, really want to go down in history as the face of the end of Affirmative Action?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. There was a whole discussion about exactly what damages she is seeking. I think her lawyer said she wants her application fee back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. Yes. That's the goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. She gets to not only be the living embodiment of mediocrity but she also gets to be known as the spiteful poo poo who ruined countless opportunities for minorities who by large grow up with an uneven playing field. Having a bland-as-gently caress ginger as the face of the end of Affirmative Action would be oddly fitting, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There was a whole discussion about exactly what damages she is seeking. I think her lawyer said she wants her application fee back. Hell I'll give her $55 right here and now to make this whole thing go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell I'll give her $55 right here and now to make this whole thing go away. This specific scenario was also brought up at argument, funnily enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. Welcome to the wild west of ideologically-motivated constitutional litigation, where the plaintiffs don't matter. One of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell genuinely had no idea how she wound up a party to the case and never once spoke to any of the lawyers on the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There was a whole discussion about exactly what damages she is seeking. I think her lawyer said she wants her application fee back. So she's a brat. evilweasel posted:Yes. That's the goal. ...or an evil brat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Welcome to the wild west of ideologically-motivated constitutional litigation, where the plaintiffs don't matter. One of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell genuinely had no idea how she wound up a party to the case and never once spoke to any of the lawyers on the case. An anti-tax group tried to get a tax-raising ballot proposition here overturned by finding an illiterate person and saying he was too dumb to read the ballot, so the whole thing should be invalid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:One of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell genuinely had no idea how she wound up a party to the case and never once spoke to any of the lawyers on the case. How on earth does this even happen? Like, how can a court decide there is standing when the plaintiff has no idea she's even involved? I'm betting nobody got debarred for this either, did they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This specific scenario was also brought up at argument, funnily enough. Let's say there was a God that didn't hate Americans, could the court just strike down application fees for schools using AA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Constitutional litigation needs plaintiffs to pass the standing bar of actual case and controversy but they aren't important to the actual case and most times the problem they originally complained about is moot for them personally. Any testimony they would have given would have been years and years before the case ever reached the sc. This is less true for criminal appeals obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Sundae posted:How on earth does this even happen? Like, how can a court decide there is standing when the plaintiff has no idea she's even involved? I'm betting nobody got debarred for this either, did they? She had standing. There were also 3 other plaintiffs. As far as I can remember, it was just a single interview with Mother Jones, and it was never really pursued any further with the law firm and paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Kennedy did not want to rule on it, so he got everyone to agree to punt it back to the 5th Circuit to review the school's arguments under a more exacting standard. The obvious hope was they'd then strike it down, but the Supreme Court wouldn't have to step in. But because the school's arguments are good ones, the 5th Circuit said "yep, even under our more exacting standard, school still wins." So now it's a question of if Kennedy will pull the trigger this time or if he'll cave. He openly considered sending it back to the district court for more facts, but sounded like he realized that wasn't going to work. What kind of personality does Kennedy have? I only ever get the impression that he is a simpleton who is titillated by the historical significance of his own cowardice and lack of principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Sundae posted:How on earth does this even happen? Like, how can a court decide there is standing when the plaintiff has no idea she's even involved? I'm betting nobody got debarred for this either, did they? You can still have an actual case or controversy and have little to no involvement in the case. For the Burwell plaintiffs, they didn't have health insurance and lived in a state without a state-run healthcare exchange, and faced a penalty. There's not much more you need to show the court other than the fact that they exist. Odds are the plaintiffs signed up for something years before the case was even heard and got themselves lumped into the case. Abigail Fisher is a little unusual in this regard, since her attorneys have decided to make her a highly visible part of the proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:53
|
|