DiabloWags said:

---

Wyking Jones said:

---

Or you could vote for somebody who's not brain dead. But since DemoKKKrats only engage in binary thinking, they are unable to view the world in any other way.

---

Another brand new account created TODAY eh Yogi?
That's 2 new accounts in the same day.

---

Wyking Jones, I'll have you know, used to coach basketball at Cal. And in his two-year tenure here, his teams won MULTIPLE games! I'm glad he's back, not to mention he will probably be more successful in a format like this.

What up, Coach!

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

How's the affordable housing plan coming for your city? Low income housing?

---

I dont live in the town of Diablo fool.
But the town that I live in is complying.

What's wrong bro???

Can't pony up some $$$ to make a bet about BlackRock?

You just gonna spend the rest of the 4th of July weekend polluting this board with your lies?
Cause you have nothing else to do from your parent's basement?

---

You are a supreme nouveau riche d-bag.

Pluto, I never called out Antioch. *grin*

Liberal racism is thick here.

Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today's decision is a TRAVESTY!!!

— Erica Marsh (@ericareport) June 29, 2023

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today's decision is a TRAVESTY!!!

— Erica Marsh (@ericareport) June 29, 2023

Joe Biden's former staffer Erica Marsh just said the very racist quiet part out loud.

pic.twitter.com/hC8HS0k6LV

— The Hobnail Boot (@hobnailboot3813) June 29, 2023

BREAKING:

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

Of course you would fall for a bot account.

That's not a real person. It's an account designed to farm engagement. The whole point is to get conservatives angry and replying to it (doing well in that regard).

BREAKING: Fake Erica Marsh caught posting the same thing on her republican version account. This account is using you guys to get big then sell it off. She says the same thing except replaces republican with democrat on her other account. pic.twitter.com/OqjxFggPUY

— Ty Hawkins (@T_HawkDaMan) December 14, 2022

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I didn't say you lack mental maturity. I said most people lack mental maturity. I'm not debating you on the topic (or reading your lengthy diatribes) because I don't care what you think on the topic.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I tend to agree with dajo that this is not a worthwhile discussion but I'm also not sure why you are bringing the legal standard of review into the discussion.

SCOTUS previously found that affirmative action was permissible under strict scrutiny because it served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored. The court today said it fails on both counts. I don't think anything has changed except the political makeup of the court. This isn't a result of a ground swell of public support, a change in underlying conditions or a result of some fundamental shift in society. It's just that that Leonard Leo was able to get more of his guys on the court. That's it, nothing more. If Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We've long since passed the point where anyone can credibly pretend that the "interpretation" of the constitution isn't arbitrary and capricious at times. Just about everyone on the political spectrum can come up with examples that they like and don't like which show this.

I'll give one example where I agreed with the judge - in Heller Scalia claimed that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to short-barreled shotguns. His argument is that those types of guns weren't commonly in use by law-abiding citizens when the 2A was drafted. I think his argument is arbitrary and capricious. I'm sure we could go back and forth for quite some time with other examples.

The other thing worth noting is that this SCOTUS pays little heed to settled precedent. During confirmation they pay minor lip service to it but they won't hesitate to overturn cases they disagree with in the least. It's not just our SCOTUS either, the North Carolina supreme court flipped last year and immediately overturned a case that had been decided by the same court just a few months prior on voting rights.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I tend to agree with dajo that this is not a worthwhile discussion but I'm also not sure why you are bringing the legal standard of review into the discussion.

SCOTUS previously found that affirmative action was permissible under strict scrutiny because it served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored. The court today said it fails on both counts. I don't think anything has changed except the political makeup of the court. This isn't a result of a ground swell of public support, a change in underlying conditions or a result of some fundamental shift in society. It's just that that Leonard Leo was able to get more of his guys on the court. That's it, nothing more. If Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We've long since passed the point where anyone can credibly pretend that the "interpretation" of the constitution isn't arbitrary and capricious at times. Just about everyone on the political spectrum can come up with examples that they like and don't like which show this.

I'll give one example where I agreed with the judge - in Heller Scalia claimed that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to short-barreled shotguns. His argument is that those types of guns weren't commonly in use by law-abiding citizens when the 2A was drafted. I think his argument is arbitrary and capricious. I'm sure we could go back and forth for quite some time with other examples.

The other thing worth noting is that this SCOTUS pays little heed to settled precedent. During confirmation they pay minor lip service to it but they won't hesitate to overturn cases they disagree with in the least. It's not just our SCOTUS either, the North Carolina supreme court flipped last year and immediately overturned a case that had been decided by the same court just a few months prior on voting rights.

---

Yes, the only group whose opinion I care about less than calbear93 on this topic is the phony, pretend "Constitutional" opinion of Republican judges seated by people who didn't get elected by the people.

DiabloWags said:

---

Excellent post.
You will be missed.

---

When will you be taken into custody?

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

You are a supreme nouveau riche d-bag.

Pluto, I never called out Antioch. *grin*

---

I've worked hard and made some money.
And as opposed to you, I actually DONATE BACK to my COMMUNITY.
You dont do anything but order Door Dash from your parent's basement.

---

I enjoyed my limited time with Coach Dick Kuchen, Michael Pitts, and friends. Not d-bags.

FTR, I've only ordered DD one time in my life, but your Mom paid.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

Nigerians and Ethiopians excell. Read legendary anthropologist Dr. John Ogbu of Cal Berkeley.

Maybe cultural adjustments are needed by 'involuntary immigrants'. Or study more.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I tend to agree with dajo that this is not a worthwhile discussion but I'm also not sure why you are bringing the legal standard of review into the discussion.

SCOTUS previously found that affirmative action was permissible under strict scrutiny because it served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored. The court today said it fails on both counts. I don't think anything has changed except the political makeup of the court. This isn't a result of a ground swell of public support, a change in underlying conditions or a result of some fundamental shift in society. It's just that that Leonard Leo was able to get more of his guys on the court. That's it, nothing more. If Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We've long since passed the point where anyone can credibly pretend that the "interpretation" of the constitution isn't arbitrary and capricious at times. Just about everyone on the political spectrum can come up with examples that they like and don't like which show this.

I'll give one example where I agreed with the judge - in Heller Scalia claimed that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to short-barreled shotguns. His argument is that those types of guns weren't commonly in use by law-abiding citizens when the 2A was drafted. I think his argument is arbitrary and capricious. I'm sure we could go back and forth for quite some time with other examples.

The other thing worth noting is that this SCOTUS pays little heed to settled precedent. During confirmation they pay minor lip service to it but they won't hesitate to overturn cases they disagree with in the least. It's not just our SCOTUS either, the North Carolina supreme court flipped last year and immediately overturned a case that had been decided by the same court just a few months prior on voting rights.

---

Yes, the only group whose opinion I care about less than calbear93 on this topic is the phony, pretend "Constitutional" opinion of Republican judges seated by people who didn't get elected by the people.

---

That must be the mature mentality you were indicating. Real thoughtful content.

When Assad did half as much as this, the US hired, trained, and equipped terrorists to end him. https://t.co/IsyhimMcfD

— naʻomi🪷נָעֳמִי (@ducaena) June 30, 2023

WOW! Joe Walks off set during LIVE interview. pic.twitter.com/HD2J25rXQH

— Greg Kelly (@gregkellyusa) June 29, 2023

Legit?

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I didn't say you lack mental maturity. I said most people lack mental maturity. I'm not debating you on the topic (or reading your lengthy diatribes) because I don't care what you think on the topic.

---

No, you kept arguing and then deflected to toddler tantrum that you didn't care because you painted yourself into a corner. Let's be real. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.

But will he buy you a Top Dog?

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

SCOTUS outlaws the considering of race of applicants for admission.

In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively.

Supreme Court rules that colleges must stop considering the race of applicants for admission (yahoo.com)

---

"Yet you'll note that the Supreme Court did not ban gender consciousness in college admissions. Nor did it ban legacy consciousness, wealth consciousness, geographic consciousness, or athletic consciousness. Race, and only race, is the thing the conservatives don't want colleges and universities to look at. Because race is the card white people use that never gets declined. It is their most powerful characteristic, the one through which all else is possible.

Affirmative action was one of the only policies that pierced that privileged veil and made white people question whether their lives, or their kids' lives, would be better if they had been born Black. The answer was always "no." (Chris Rock's old joke that nobody white would want to switch places with him has always been devastatingly true, even if some white folks pretend that it's not.) But the mere possibility that their whiteness wasn't helping them out every single second of every ******* day drove a certain kind of white person insane. Affirmative action made them feel like perhaps the world did not revolve around their hopes and dreams and comforts, so it had to be killed. Even previous Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action expressed an open yearning for the day when affirmative action would no longer be "necessary." The previous justices even made up fanciful future dates when the policy could be safely done away with."

Link:
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-killed-affirmative-action/

---

Not sure about gender. How is there affirmative action based on gender at universities?

All the other things you mentioned are not suspect classification. State can discriminate based on intelligence and athletic ability for jobs. They cannot based on race or religion. There are suspect classification that triggers different standard to survive constitutionality review.

---

Given a male student and a female student with a similar profile at Brandeis, for example, the university would potentially "admit the male student and wait-list the female student because of wanting to get closer to this sort of gender parity in terms of percentages in the class," said Medley.

Link:
https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

"While this is not the case at all colleges, it is true of admissions as a whole. When admissions officers try to build a balanced class, they have no choice but to evaluate female applicants more harshly, and are more likely to give male applicants a pass."

Link:
https://www.ivyscholars.com/2022/11/21/does-gender-impact-college-admissions/#

---

Well, if there is a policy that give preference to a specific gender, it will not survive a challenge. The fact that none has been brought would suggest it is a result and not a policy.

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

SCOTUS outlaws the considering of race of applicants for admission.

In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively.

Supreme Court rules that colleges must stop considering the race of applicants for admission (yahoo.com)

---

"Yet you'll note that the Supreme Court did not ban gender consciousness in college admissions. Nor did it ban legacy consciousness, wealth consciousness, geographic consciousness, or athletic consciousness. Race, and only race, is the thing the conservatives don't want colleges and universities to look at. Because race is the card white people use that never gets declined. It is their most powerful characteristic, the one through which all else is possible.

Affirmative action was one of the only policies that pierced that privileged veil and made white people question whether their lives, or their kids' lives, would be better if they had been born Black. The answer was always "no." (Chris Rock's old joke that nobody white would want to switch places with him has always been devastatingly true, even if some white folks pretend that it's not.) But the mere possibility that their whiteness wasn't helping them out every single second of every ******* day drove a certain kind of white person insane. Affirmative action made them feel like perhaps the world did not revolve around their hopes and dreams and comforts, so it had to be killed. Even previous Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action expressed an open yearning for the day when affirmative action would no longer be "necessary." The previous justices even made up fanciful future dates when the policy could be safely done away with."

Link:
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-killed-affirmative-action/

---

Not sure about gender. How is there affirmative action based on gender at universities?

All the other things you mentioned are not suspect classification. State can discriminate based on intelligence and athletic ability for jobs. They cannot based on race or religion. There are suspect classification that triggers different standard to survive constitutionality review.

---

Given a male student and a female student with a similar profile at Brandeis, for example, the university would potentially "admit the male student and wait-list the female student because of wanting to get closer to this sort of gender parity in terms of percentages in the class," said Medley.

Link:
https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

"While this is not the case at all colleges, it is true of admissions as a whole. When admissions officers try to build a balanced class, they have no choice but to evaluate female applicants more harshly, and are more likely to give male applicants a pass."

Link:
https://www.ivyscholars.com/2022/11/21/does-gender-impact-college-admissions/#

---

Well, if there is a policy that give preference to a specific gender, it will not survive a challenge. The fact that none has been brought would suggest it is a result and not a policy.

---

Regarding the gender, does that apply to someone's gender at birth, or their stated gender? Huge difference! Let's look at the letters: L G B T Q I S + (i forget what the "S" stands for, honestly, but i saw it somewhere). There absolutely should be representation from all these letters, commensurate with the general population.

Equity!

---

We also need equal representation from each species. Earthworms, whether by birth or by self-identification, are heavily underrepresented at UC Berkeley.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

That Twitter account is real as a $3 bill

---

If you believe affirmative action is necessary (which I don't), what part of the substance of that tweet do you disagree with? And if you disagree with it, why is affirmative action necessary?

---

My post was about using a fake account to make Democrats look dumb. But since you asked, affirmative action is a good thing because we have an uneven playing field derived from centuries of bigotry and systemic racism. That's very different from saying "no" black person can succeed. It's an acknowledgment that it is harder for black people to succeed.

---

So, under this racist nation that has an uneven foundation, blacks as community cannot succeed as a collective on a merit-based system? Or is it just harder that they can overcome if they put little more shoulder into it. Because if it's that, then affirmative action definitely is unconstitutional since it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. So, your pivot on "harder' doesn't work. So, why, under our constitution, is it OK for state bodies to discriminate based on race? How does that survive strict scrutiny on state action that discriminates based on race?

If it is because blacks cannot succeed on a merit-based system, then there is a compelling state interest and maybe affirmative action without quotas is narrowly tailored. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

So, what part of the tweet do you disagree with or is your objection that, while you agree with the substance, it is from a bot account?

---

You're really itching for arguments tonight aren't you? I long ago stopped arguing affirmative action with people. Most people don't have the mental maturity for the concept.

---

Deflection.

You clearly do not understand the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review for determining constitutionality when there is law or action that involves suspect classification like race.

And since you don't understand it, you say I lack mental maturity. OK. That must be it.

---

I tend to agree with dajo that this is not a worthwhile discussion but I'm also not sure why you are bringing the legal standard of review into the discussion.

SCOTUS previously found that affirmative action was permissible under strict scrutiny because it served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored. The court today said it fails on both counts. I don't think anything has changed except the political makeup of the court. This isn't a result of a ground swell of public support, a change in underlying conditions or a result of some fundamental shift in society. It's just that that Leonard Leo was able to get more of his guys on the court. That's it, nothing more. If Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We've long since passed the point where anyone can credibly pretend that the "interpretation" of the constitution isn't arbitrary and capricious at times. Just about everyone on the political spectrum can come up with examples that they like and don't like which show this.

I'll give one example where I agreed with the judge - in Heller Scalia claimed that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to short-barreled shotguns. His argument is that those types of guns weren't commonly in use by law-abiding citizens when the 2A was drafted. I think his argument is arbitrary and capricious. I'm sure we could go back and forth for quite some time with other examples.

The other thing worth noting is that this SCOTUS pays little heed to settled precedent. During confirmation they pay minor lip service to it but they won't hesitate to overturn cases they disagree with in the least. It's not just our SCOTUS either, the North Carolina supreme court flipped last year and immediately overturned a case that had been decided by the same court just a few months prior on voting rights.

---

I think you missed the point. I respect your legal analysis but my question to Dajo which you seemed to have missed was whether he agreed with the content of the tweet. He tried to have his cake and eat it too by saying that without affirmative action, it is just harder but didn't want to go as far as agree with the content of the tweet for being in favor of affirmative action. That is why I brought up the strict scrutiny that it would not survive under his rationale.

But on your point of precedent, courts do give deference to precedent but all of the significant progress came from breaking with precedent. Brown vs Board of Education does not happen without overturning the precedent. And what was once compelling state interest does not make it always a compelling interest. Even the precedent that previously found affirmative action to survive the strict scrutiny review indicated that it may no longer be constitutional if the society changes enough.

On the Scalia case, that was him being an originalist true to his principle. Not arbitrary. Just not willing to overstep the legislative or constitutional strict reading to impose new meaning at the judicial level beyond what was intended by the legislators at the time of adoptions

---

I don't think I missed the point of the post I was responding to since that focused on your claim that dajo doesn't understand strict scrutiny.

As for precedent, I think it's become clear that this court is less deferential to precedent than prior courts across some pretty large decisions over the past year and I don't expect it to stop.

As for Scalia, there was nothing in the constitution or in the framers intent that would indicate that they would be in favor of semi-automatic handguns but not short-barreled shotguns. To me the whole "originalist" thing is just a cover for doing what they want and they seem willing to ignore the text and historical record when convenient for their ends.

Decades of male bashing, pro-female policies, and now many campuses are 60% or more female.