Comments on: Supreme Court on racial preferences, cont’d http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/supreme-court-racial-preferences-contd/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 26 Apr 2015 01:35:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: Heather Mac Donald on Schuette and the political-process doctrine - Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/supreme-court-racial-preferences-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-283704 Fri, 09 May 2014 04:45:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=45451#comment-283704 […] former Manhattan Institute colleague tackles the recent racial-preferences case (earlier here and here) with the incisiveness and clarity for which she is well known [City […]

]]>
By: Schuette v. Coalition, in tweets - Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/supreme-court-racial-preferences-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-281451 Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:45:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=45451#comment-281451 […] in a second post; and Hans Bader has an extensive analysis, including implications for costly preferences in public […]

]]>
By: Wfjag http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/supreme-court-racial-preferences-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-281159 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:23:04 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=45451#comment-281159 Interpreting the Constitution to mean what the language clearly states — what a novel idea!

]]>
By: DEM http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/supreme-court-racial-preferences-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-281157 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:15:10 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=45451#comment-281157 Note also that Sotomayor goes on at some length about historical discrimination against certain minority groups. But hasn’t historical discrimination been abandoned in favor of “diversity” as the justification for affirmative action? Correct me if I am wrong, but going back to Bakke, remedying past discrimination was the “compelling interest” that allowed affirmative action to meet strict scrutiny. As the years wore on, and successive generations of minorities applied to college and grad school, that rationale became weaker. So the left latched onto diversity for its own sake as the new compelling interest served by AA. In light of all that, what is the legal significance of the past discrimination to which Sotomayor refers? And is she tacitly admitting that 30 or so years of AA haven’t accomplished much of anything?

]]>