U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

my dream would be for them to just close the school

[Anonymous]

Arguably they don't *have* to make a decision on admissions before end of July - I would think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

my dream would be for them to just close the school

Add me to the i don't care whether TJ exists or not camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

my dream would be for them to just close the school

That's obvious, hon.

Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

An in round 2, that's how the board can achieve the diversity that they want. There is nothing illegal about quotas or admissions bumps for farms kids

I'm not sure how a racist board can ever implement anything without being challenged on the basis of already-established racist intent. Any change they make, other than reverting to the old admissions policies, will be regarded as racist and challenged in court.

So you didn't like the concurrence. Then let's just pretend it's not there, while we wait for Wednesday. Why not?

The concurrence is heavily flawed. Just one example, Heyten's argument is that the disparate impact analysis was wrong for using a "before and after" comparison and then ironically proceeds to use a "before and after" comparison to establish his own contention that there is no disparate impact - just using different metrics. Heyten's metric for his "before and after" is laughably flawed, by using applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the racist policy simply prevents students from being eligible to apply in the first place. This is like saying that voter suppression laws were not racist because all the people that met the requirements of those laws were able to vote, never mind that the laws disqualified many people from being able to vote in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

my dream would be for them to just close the school

That's obvious, hon.

Sorry.

It gets closer every day. A school that becomes a right wing darling reliant on a very left wing school board is not long for this world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

And low income.

C4TJ is only advocating for WEALTHY Asians.

Why don't WEALTHY whites decrease THEIR enrollment? That would be the most equitable. Perhaps the entire TJ school should be for POC to bring equity for POC. White people have had more opportunities for hundreds of years here.

Wealthy whites HAVE decreased their enrollment over the years.

On another thread, we looked at earlier application/enrollment numbers and only HALF of eligible whites even bothered applying. The % of eligible Asian and black students was much higher - 90%+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted.

The new policy was implemented with the intention of increasing the numbers of URMs. And it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted.

The new policy was implemented with the intention of increasing the numbers of URMs. And it did.

*shrug*, that might have been one of the other intents, but the racist intent against Asians is well established.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted.

The new policy was implemented with the intention of increasing the numbers of URMs. And it did.

*shrug*, that might have been one of the other intents, but the racist intent against Asians is well established.

+1. If only Montgomery Alabama had the same legal theory, they could have avoided all of that awful integration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberts could have denied the application on his own but he did not. Instead, Roberts referred the matter for the full court because he wants to grant it but not on his own.

He will vote with the majority to grant to vacate. That way, the emergency application is granted and there will be no record of who voted for it and who voted against it and no explanation as well. That way, the application is granted and Roberts didn't have to do it alone and do it publicly.

Looks like the application to vacate will be granted by the full court unsigned unexplained but with precedential value.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted.

The new policy was implemented with the intention of increasing the numbers of URMs. And it did.

*shrug*, that might have been one of the other intents, but the racist intent against Asians is well established.

+1. If only Montgomery Alabama had the same legal theory, they could have avoided all of that awful integration

Montgomery is distinguishable here because that was white and not Asians (another minority group).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

That is correct.