Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.

Didn't Kennedy write this opinion? And didn't he based his decision on deference to the school's stated need for diversity -- which is not at all a strict scrutiny analysis. But I'm just going on what I read in a news account, not the actual opinion.

It could be argued that strict scrutiny was only given lip service. And the point I was trying to make is that with a 7-2 liberal majority coming soon (Kennedy is unpredictable on these issues), there will be zero chance of the Court upholding challenges to affirmative action. So there it is.

True. I would have expected him to go the other way. His rationale was questionable here IMHO, (as in Bush v. Gore in 2000), but it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

While you're at it, please thank slavery and the centuries of legalized racial discrimination that preceded the creation of AA.

No thank you.

Lol--I already knew that would be your response. Typical.

I guess AAction served you well. I am proud of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

While you're at it, please thank slavery and the centuries of legalized racial discrimination that preceded the creation of AA.

No thank you.

Lol--I already knew that would be your response. Typical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.

Didn't Kennedy write this opinion? And didn't he based his decision on deference to the school's stated need for diversity -- which is not at all a strict scrutiny analysis. But I'm just going on what I read in a news account, not the actual opinion.

Kennedy did write the opinion. Alito, Thomas, and Roberts dissented. That Thomas is a whacked individual. He benefitted from AA and now he says, stop with him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.

Didn't Kennedy write this opinion? And didn't he based his decision on deference to the school's stated need for diversity -- which is not at all a strict scrutiny analysis. But I'm just going on what I read in a news account, not the actual opinion.

It could be argued that strict scrutiny was only given lip service. And the point I was trying to make is that with a 7-2 liberal majority coming soon (Kennedy is unpredictable on these issues), there will be zero chance of the Court upholding challenges to affirmative action. So there it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

While you're at it, please thank slavery and the centuries of legalized racial discrimination that preceded the creation of AA.

No thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

NP posting. Oh yeah PP. It all started there. Are you intentionally clueless, or do you just pretend?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

While you're at it, please thank slavery and the centuries of legalized racial discrimination that preceded the creation of AA.

Anonymous wrote:Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.

Didn't Kennedy write this opinion? And didn't he based his decision on deference to the school's stated need for diversity -- which is not at all a strict scrutiny analysis. But I'm just going on what I read in a news account, not the actual opinion.

Anonymous wrote:The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

You can thank AAction for that.

The hate, anger and racial resentment I read in these threads is depressing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should I be concerned about proving anything to you or anyone else? I'm not.

However, I do recognize that if people don't believe me it's most likely because they don't want to believe me. A successful Black woman who has benefited from AA who embraces that fact. You want me to feel ashamed, and I don't. It also bothers you that I enjoy more material success than most of you posting here. If my arrogance offends you...too bad.

I think people have hard time understanding how you can live yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit.

Actually, I'm here primarily because of my merit. Despite the Middle Passage, brutal enslavement/stolen labor, Jim Crow and the separate but VERY unequal opportunities my family/ancestors have dealt with for centuries. Everything I have has been earned (by me or my ancestors) whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I have achieved conventional success (academic, career and familial) that most people in this country can only dream about, and I do not have any of the unearned benefits of white privilege.

You and your ancestors endured none of the aforementioned atrocities. So a better question is: How can you live with yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit?

That's a funny one. You can't have both ways you know?

You must have a problem with reading comprehension. Look up the word "primarily." If my success was due 100% to AA, then all Blacks who want to be lawyers would attend Ivies and become partners by just showing up. I know that's the lie you tell yourself though. You and Abby should have a drink and release those bitter white tears--lol!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should I be concerned about proving anything to you or anyone else? I'm not.

However, I do recognize that if people don't believe me it's most likely because they don't want to believe me. A successful Black woman who has benefited from AA who embraces that fact. You want me to feel ashamed, and I don't. It also bothers you that I enjoy more material success than most of you posting here. If my arrogance offends you...too bad.

I think people have hard time understanding how you can live yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit.

Actually, I'm here primarily because of my merit. Despite the Middle Passage, brutal enslavement/stolen labor, Jim Crow and the separate but VERY unequal opportunities my family/ancestors have dealt with for centuries. Everything I have has been earned (by me or my ancestors) whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I have achieved conventional success (academic, career and familial) that most people in this country can only dream about, and I do not have any of the unearned benefits of white privilege.

You and your ancestors endured none of the aforementioned atrocities. So a better question is: How can you live with yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit?

That's a funny one. You can't have both ways you know?

Anonymous wrote:

Should I be concerned about proving anything to you or anyone else? I'm not.

However, I do recognize that if people don't believe me it's most likely because they don't want to believe me. A successful Black woman who has benefited from AA who embraces that fact. You want me to feel ashamed, and I don't. It also bothers you that I enjoy more material success than most of you posting here. If my arrogance offends you...too bad.

I think people have hard time understanding how you can live yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit.

Actually, I'm here primarily because of my merit. Despite the Middle Passage, brutal enslavement/stolen labor, Jim Crow and the separate but VERY unequal opportunities my family/ancestors have dealt with for centuries. Everything I have has been earned (by me or my ancestors) whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I have achieved conventional success (academic, career and familial) that most people in this country can only dream about, and I do not have any of the unearned benefits of white privilege.

You and your ancestors endured none of the aforementioned atrocities. So a better question is: How can you live with yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit?

Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.