TJ lawsuit incoming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

They have already ruled decades ago that geography cannot be used as a proxy for race.

Can you use geography, just not as proxy for race? Else it would seem any indicator that correlates to race couldn’t be used (e.g. standardized test scores).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

Why? TJ is supposed to be a school for all of innerNOVA, not just the students who attend a couple middle schools. Considering geography helps balance out the class.

Because eventually geography will be use against any FCPS student when they apply to UVA/W&M/VT. I'll take the hit to my kid's TJ chances in exchange for the same standards applying to my kid as to a kid from Bristol when they apply to state colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

They have already ruled decades ago that geography cannot be used as a proxy for race.

Can you use geography, just not as proxy for race? Else it would seem any indicator that correlates to race couldn’t be used (e.g. standardized test scores).

yes, the Texas plan has withstood judicial scrutiny and been praised by conservatives as an alternative to race based affirmative action programs

[Anonymous]

I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

Why? TJ is supposed to be a school for all of innerNOVA, not just the students who attend a couple middle schools. Considering geography helps balance out the class.

Because eventually geography will be use against any FCPS student when they apply to UVA/W&M/VT. I'll take the hit to my kid's TJ chances in exchange for the same standards applying to my kid as to a kid from Bristol when they apply to state colleges.

I know the old policy where students at wealthy schools could simply buy the tests was so much better.

[Anonymous]

Are you one of the Harvard counsels who got trapped with the court costs when it got laughed out of the court a couple of days ago?

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

[Anonymous]

FCPS should politely decline to host a Governor’s school.

[Anonymous]

Why? because you kids can not get into TJ under a race-blind process?

Anonymous wrote:FCPS should politely decline to host a Governor’s school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

A 2-1 decision reversing a huge win for them is hardly getting laughed out of court. The fake clown legal scholars on this forum are constantly embarrassing themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? because you kids can not get into TJ under a race-blind process?

Anonymous wrote:FCPS should politely decline to host a Governor’s school.

Because spending all this money on litigation is insane. Just have neighborhood schools. Pay teachers, not lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Harvard also won in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. So what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

A 2-1 decision reversing a huge win for them is hardly getting laughed out of court. The fake clown legal scholars on this forum are constantly embarrassing themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard also won in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. So what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

A 2-1 decision reversing a huge win for them is hardly getting laughed out of court. The fake clown legal scholars on this forum are constantly embarrassing themselves.

A MAGA judge supported that lawsuit. Sure, they were certifiably nuts, but that's today's judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all MAGA judges by your definition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard also won in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. So what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

A 2-1 decision reversing a huge win for them is hardly getting laughed out of court. The fake clown legal scholars on this forum are constantly embarrassing themselves.

A MAGA judge supported that lawsuit. Sure, they were certifiably nuts, but that's today's judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Tell that to Justice Clarence Thomas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard also won in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. So what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the C4TJ people feel emboldened and do this provided they get strapped with the court costs when it gets laughed out of court again.

A 2-1 decision reversing a huge win for them is hardly getting laughed out of court. The fake clown legal scholars on this forum are constantly embarrassing themselves.

A MAGA judge supported that lawsuit. Sure, they were certifiably nuts, but that's today's judiciary.

Are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all MAGA judges by your definition?

They are much, much worse.