Should Asians boycott some elite universities that practice holistic admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

well. we'll know better in 2028 then. BTW, that's what is known as obiter dicta.

I think with Trump, we may have reached that point already. Trump's not gonna wait around.

[Anonymous]

Those who are encouraged by Kennedy's retirement are also hopeful that Ginsberg will follow his footsteps. At 85, she ought to enjoy her retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

well. we'll know better in 2028 then. BTW, that's what is known as obiter dicta.

No, it's obiter dictum since it is only one comment, showoff. Learn your latin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

well. we'll know better in 2028 then. BTW, that's what is known as obiter dicta.

No, it's obiter dictum since it is only one comment, showoff. Learn your latin.

o.k., obiter dictum then. Good for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who are encouraged by Kennedy's retirement are also hopeful that Ginsberg will follow his footsteps. At 85, she ought to enjoy her retirement.

Hard to do that if she spends it watching everything she worked for during her career get dismantled...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who are encouraged by Kennedy's retirement are also hopeful that Ginsberg will follow his footsteps. At 85, she ought to enjoy her retirement.

Hard to do that if she spends it watching everything she worked for during her career get dismantled...

At her age, it's losing fight. Justice Thomas at 69 is the oldest conservative. Trump can cement his legacy for the next 30 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

well. we'll know better in 2028 then. BTW, that's what is known as obiter dicta.

No, it's obiter dictum since it is only one comment, showoff. Learn your latin.

o.k., obiter dictum then. Good for you!

Another wannabe attorney trying to tell SCOTUS how to rule.

[Anonymous]

What a legacy 45 will leave. Divisiveness, hate, incoherence, venality, incompetence, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a legacy 45 will leave. Divisiveness, hate, incoherence, venality, incompetence, etc.

You have to ask what triggered 45. It had to have been the entitlement mentality and the policies of 44. Don't blame the effect without looking at the cause.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Obama triggered Trump. Right. If that helps you sleep at night. But on earth 1, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Obama triggered Trump. Right. If that helps you sleep at night. But on earth 1, not so much.

Approximately 10% of trump voters had voted for Obama. Yeah, keep preaching for bigger and bigger government. That will only push reasonable people to the right.

[Anonymous]

I’m not preaching bigger anything. I’m leaving the delusions where they belong.

[Anonymous]

The government is not shrinking and the deficit is sky rocketing. That again is a fact. Verifiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The government is not shrinking and the deficit is sky rocketing. That again is a fact. Verifiable.

The deficit shrank by $100 billion the first 6 mths of Trump. The size of the federal agencies, with the exception of the homeland security, also shrank through retirement and normal attrition.

[Anonymous]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/us/politics/fact-check-kudlow-deficit-.html