shitlibs lose again. 6-2 (kagan recused)

breyer, scalia, and thomas filed concurring opinions. ginsburg and sotttomayor dissenting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425009)

"We are fortunate to live in a democratic society. But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups. For that reason, our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do. This case implicates one such limit: the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Although that guarantee is traditionally understood to prohibit intentional discrimination under existing laws, equal protection does not end there. Another fundamental strand of or jurisprudence focuses on process, securing to all citizens the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government. That right is the bedrock of our democracy, for it preserves all other rights.

...

[goes on to say that minority rights were burdened when Michigan eliminated affirmative action, therefore affirmative action violates EPC.]"

JUST LOL stopped reading at the first paragraph because I wanted to vomit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425025)

"There would be no apparent limiting standards defining what public policies should be included [if EPC analysis took into account any] policies that 'inure primarily to the benefit of the minority.' Those who seek to represent the interests of particular racial groups could attempt to advance those aims by demanding an equal protection ruling that any number of matters be foreclosed from voter review or participation. In a nation in which governmental policies are wide ranging, those who seek to limit voter participation might be tempted, were this Court to adopt [that formulation], to urge that a group they choose to define by race or racial stereotypes are advantaged or disadvantaged by any number of laws or decisions. Tax policy, housing subsidies, wage regulations, and even the naming of public schools, highways, and monuments are just a few examples of what could become a list of subjects that some organizations could insist should be beyond the power of voters to decide, or beyond the power of a legislature to decide when enacting limits on the power of local authorities or other governmental entities to address certain subjects. Racial division would be validated, not discouraged, were [that formulation] adopted."

critical race theory DONE HERE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425071)

"It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425089)

Reminder: Libs LITERALLY think that not giving special treatment to minorities purely because of race is a "unique disadvantage."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425271)

"The [political process doctrine] does not easily fit this case. In [political process doctrine] cases, the minorities had participated in the political process and they had won. The majority's subsequent reordering of the political process repealed the minority's success and made it more difficult for the minority to succeed in the future. The majority thereby diminished the minority's ability to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. But one cannot as easily characterize the movement of the decisionmaking mechanism at issue here--from an [unelected] administrative process to an electoral process--as diminishing the minority's ability to participate meaningfully in the political process. There is no prior electoral process in which the minority participated."

But jfc, the political process doctrine is such bullshit. So anytime a minority "wins" in the current political setup, no matter how much that setup was rigged to allow the minority to win, you can't revise it? They get to lock in their win in perpetuity? Just lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425878)

In any case, the question of whether AA is constitutional was not actually an issue in this case. This case was about whether or not banning AA is constitutional, and reaching out to strike down AA everywhere would have been.....ambitious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425376)

A sad day in history. XOXO is usually so pragmatic, but they forget that at the end of the day we will all be living in a brown country before we die, and *the appearance* of measures like AA (even if they are generally ineffective in practice for reasons we're all familiar with) may well be the difference between black/brown rioting or black/brown peaceful acceptance in the face of their own chronic underachievement. When the government can no longer even pretend to be actively helping minorities, and minorities perceive the government to be controlled by rich, powerful, successful whites, the stage is set for violent revolt down the line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425358)

Solid rebuttal bro

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425397)

So who exactly is going to want to walk away from AA in this scenario--the parents who want to deprive their mixed kids of benefits in life, or the mixed kids who want to deprive themselves?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425415)

And why won't it work "except in narrow cases"? The government needs to be able to take active steps that give off the appearance of affirmatively "benefiting" black and brown people. That's the pressure release value on their disappointment and frustration with being (on average) unable to actually compete with whites and Asians in the classroom and in the workplace. Shut off that valve and the rage just builds up slowly over time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425463)

(Rigorous autodidact)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425497)

I agree--it's not a cure, it's a balm to alleviate the symptoms to some degree. But if you take it away that just moves the timeline on the (likely inevitable) violence up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425577)

That might be where we diverge--I'd rather have it occur after I'm dead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425598)

(Guy who thinks HYPS will give a fuck about maintaining their white student population in 2040)

Hint: There will always be a place at those institutions for the smartest Jews and Asians. That's all they really care about. Or are you suggesting that gentile whites will riot en masse across the country because they are no longer being admitted to top colleges in appreciable numbers? Most non-prestigious whitebros have come to view "The Ivy League" as their enemy at this point anyway, so why would they even give a fuck?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425468)

* Black mob kicks down your door, swarms into you living room, and tears the shotgun from your hands as they stomp your skull *

"NOT RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425400)

*Puts another $5 into the cop car to extend the rental time by 15 minutes*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25425421)

LJL SHITLIBS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2549100&forum_id=2#25427271)