MLK, of course, coined the phrase "content of character not color of skin" and he was very much in favor of affirmative action.
I don't think so. Old school liberal and modern libertarian are fairly closely related. The term libertarian has appeared I think due to the changing of the word liberal.
> MLK, of course, coined the phrase "content of character not color of skin" and he was very much in favor of affirmative action.
Sure, at least sort of. But this conflates a principle (the thing I quoted) with one man's politics.
This court has been shredding the rule of law in this country for the last year, and is systematically replacing our democracy with fascism.
Their ruling is definitely going to be more damaging to minorities than anything I can come up with.
Hell, they banned abortion by eliminating the right to privacy in the US.
They were even complete assholes about it. Despite being minority (and arguably illegally, in some cases) appointed, they blame the (underage) women their rulings victimize for not voting enough.
The text of the ruling explicitly states that no ruling the court makes could be sexist or victimize women, since women are allowed to vote.
I fully expect this ruling to use similar logic to blow an equally large hole in our constitutional rights.
If you think that, it's probably a sign you need to come up for air. What you write is simply not true unless you're examining things with a partisan funhouse mirror that shows myside as righteous and true and the otherside as cartoon villians. Admittedly, those mirrors are getting handed out right and left, because they're extremely useful for partisan GOTV efforts.
No, you didn't. You got that from "reading Supreme Court rulings" with your funhouse mirror.
Purely on the merits of the topic: taking an admissions slot from an Asian student and giving it to someone of a different racial background is, plainly, racial discrimination.
If we want to help people of a disadvantaged background, we need to find a better way to measure that directly rather than using race as a proxy. Using race as a proxy in prejudging someone isn’t okay even if you think you’re right. Prejudiced people don’t think that they’re wrong.
I find this view to be pretty naive. The vast majority of judges in the US legal system are naturally going to be conservative in that the job is to follow the letter of the law. To the extent that progressive justices move up through the legal system is only through political appointments.
It seems easier to me to say the vast majority of progressive opinions from the Supreme court have been outcomes driven and the current court is reverting to process-driven (you have to actually pass legislation for legislative changes).
C'mon, who's being naive now?
The law was already settled on this issue. This case is being heard with the goal of overturning precedent. It's not because we learned new things about the Constitution in the last 20 years.
> The law was already settled on this issue.
The idea of "settled law" is a rhetorical device and nothing more. SCOTUS has been overturning precedent on an almost annual basis for centuries[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_State...
Funnily enough, from the majority opinion of the "precedent" they may overturn: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
All federal and most state justices only move up through political appointments. The rest of state justices are directly elected, which is even more political.
Federal justices have either 0 or 1 steps they can move up, and of the ones that can move up, there is only 1 position for them to move into, that of Chief Justice.
Judges, OTOH...
It is when "a court decides what the outcome of the case should be and then works backward to determine the reasoning that will reach the desired conclusion"
On the contrary, any officer appointed by the President, Vice President, or an agency head, with or without Senate confirmation, is a “political appointee”.
> Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government.
It is true that within the executive branch, political appointees often serve at the pleasure of the President (though even there are a number of exceptions where political appointees have fixed terms and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.)
"Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference."
I also think this is naive. In my view, they serve lifetime appointments because they don't want to give up power, and no one's been able to force them to so far.
(2) Forcing them to give up power, as you put it, would require a constitutional amendment, which is not something any one person can do.
That said, with the notable exception of the Warren court, SCOTUS has been conservative for its whole history.
Take a short browse down this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisio...
I think that depends a lot on one's perspective. If you're very far-left and support all the equity you can dream up, then yes I see how one might think that. I disagree, but still...
If that were objectively true, I don't think it's the damning claim you may have meant it to be if you consider the overall history of the USA and contributions to the world.
Do you see the "open to all" statement? Is this true?
What about the Asians who were denied entry based on their race? Is this "open to all"?
If admissions were based entirely on GPA, is that a more fair system?
Let's say i own a company and refuse to hire [ethnic minority]. Is this legal?
Isn't that what is taking place here? Asians are being denied entry simply because they are Asian.
Whatever magic equation replaces AA, you can rest assured that there will be more whites and less Asians. And SCOTUS will be perfectly fine with that.
(And do you think it is relevant to mention the previous discrimination against Jews, decades ago?)