Anonymous wrote:The government is not shrinking and the deficit is sky rocketing. That again is a fact. Verifiable.
Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Obama triggered Trump. Right. If that helps you sleep at night. But on earth 1, not so much.
Anonymous wrote:What a legacy 45 will leave. Divisiveness, hate, incoherence, venality, incompetence, etc.
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!![]()
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.