Counsel for School Board Submits Brief to SCOTUS Requesting Denial of Certiorari

[Anonymous]

So at this point it's just a question of how long it will take for the Court to vote on cert, right? Does anyone have a legally-informed idea of what the timeline might be now that both sides have submitted their briefs?

[Anonymous]

Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

I mean, sure, but the reply itself can be boiled down to “It’s a 2-2 tie, Hilton and Rushing vs. Heytens and King, so you have to break it”.

They didn’t refute any of the key points in the initial post made here. Which is what a reply is theoretically supposed to do. Verrilli’s strongest points went completely unaddressed, and the argument about the Coalition’s “second look” proposal sounded like “well, we HAD to do that”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

I mean, sure, but the reply itself can be boiled down to “It’s a 2-2 tie, Hilton and Rushing vs. Heytens and King, so you have to break it”.

They didn’t refute any of the key points in the initial post made here. Which is what a reply is theoretically supposed to do. Verrilli’s strongest points went completely unaddressed, and the argument about the Coalition’s “second look” proposal sounded like “well, we HAD to do that”.

I thought this was already laughed out of court. They claim race-blind process is biased against the group that is most successful at admissions which is kind of laughable.

[Anonymous]

Another Monday morning has come and gone and the case has not been reviewed for cert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don Verrilli is an elitist who went to Yale and Columbia Law, but wants to destroy high performing public schools by promoting a left-wing "progressive" agenda. Lives in Upper NW DC, not Fairfax County; wonder what schools his own kids attended (almost surely not ones with much "socioeconomic diversity").

TJ's doing more than fine right now. Cry more.

Their SOLs (aka LOLs) are going down the tube.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

I know that the race-blind selection process that selects mostly Asians is such a problem LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

I mean, sure, but the reply itself can be boiled down to “It’s a 2-2 tie, Hilton and Rushing vs. Heytens and King, so you have to break it”.

They didn’t refute any of the key points in the initial post made here. Which is what a reply is theoretically supposed to do. Verrilli’s strongest points went completely unaddressed, and the argument about the Coalition’s “second look” proposal sounded like “well, we HAD to do that”.

The only thing we know for sure is that the perspective of the Supreme Court does not necessarily align with that of FCPS or its pro bono hired gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

I mean, sure, but the reply itself can be boiled down to “It’s a 2-2 tie, Hilton and Rushing vs. Heytens and King, so you have to break it”.

They didn’t refute any of the key points in the initial post made here. Which is what a reply is theoretically supposed to do. Verrilli’s strongest points went completely unaddressed, and the argument about the Coalition’s “second look” proposal sounded like “well, we HAD to do that”.

The only thing we know for sure is that the perspective of the Supreme Court does not necessarily align with that of FCPS or its pro bono hired gun.

It aligns with their largest sponsors if the recent news about Thomas is any indication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak sauce from the Coalition in reply to the Board's brief....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-170/288629/20231101155505744_FINAL%20TJ%20REPLY%20BRIEF.pdf

The tone presented here suggests that the Coalition knows that there is a strong possibility that it's gonna be denied.

It's a reply brief. They aren't expected to repeat all the arguments they made in their original petition.

I mean, sure, but the reply itself can be boiled down to “It’s a 2-2 tie, Hilton and Rushing vs. Heytens and King, so you have to break it”.

They didn’t refute any of the key points in the initial post made here. Which is what a reply is theoretically supposed to do. Verrilli’s strongest points went completely unaddressed, and the argument about the Coalition’s “second look” proposal sounded like “well, we HAD to do that”.

The only thing we know for sure is that the perspective of the Supreme Court does not necessarily align with that of FCPS or its pro bono hired gun.

It aligns with their largest sponsors if the recent news about Thomas is any indication.

Consider that the GOP has somehow appointed 6 of the nine justices despite only winning the popular vote for President once in the past 30 years. These guys aren't legit and are out of step with the mainstream of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

Not only did they discriminate, they laughed about it. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.