Near the end of oral argument in a high-profile affirmative-action case Wednesday, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that black students benefit from a “slower track” at less prestigious schools and are thus harmed by affirmative action. The comments come during a time of racial turmoil on campuses across the country, from Yale to the University of Missouri.

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well — as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said from the bench. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

Scalia went on to say that it could be bad if the “really competent blacks” do not go to these “lesser” schools because they might then not become scientists. “I don’t think it stands to reason for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he concluded.

Scalia appeared to be referencing an amicus brief filed by Gail Heriot of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. In her brief, Heriot points to a study that shows minority students are less likely to major in science or engineering if their test scores and grade point averages put them in the bottom half of the admitting class at their institution. Heriot says that if UT actually wanted to help minorities, it would find black students who were admitted to MIT and convince them that their chances of succeeding at UT, which is less selective, are higher. The brief also points out that one-third of blacks who received a doctorate in science or engineering in 2006 got their degrees from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). These colleges, on average, have lower admissions standards than UT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3067136&forum_id=2#29349628)

of the Constitution really doesn’t tell us enough about what it permits, requires, or

forbids. It doesn’t provide enough information about the nature of the deal to justify

everyone’s reasonable assent to state coercion. You would never know from the text of

the Constitution, for example, whether abortion is protected or not protected from

criminalization, or even whether the government can create paper money as legal tender

for all debts public and private. We don’t know whether there are political parties,

whether administrative agencies can or do exist, what degree of delegation of legislative,

executive, and judicial functions to these agencies is permitted, whether congressionalexecutive

agreements are permitted, and whether the president may commit troops

overseas without a formal declaration of war. You might have views about any or all of

these questions, but it would just be your interpretation, and you could easily see how

people could and would disagree, and you would have no assurances that the

Constitution in practice would conform to your interpretations. In short, if the

Constitution is just the text, most people wouldn’t have enough information rationally to

assent to the legitimacy of the constitutional system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3067136&forum_id=2#29349800)

Plus, Thomas himself benefited from AA so it's hypocritical for him to try to rail against it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3067136&forum_id=2#29350448)