The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

I linked this similar-but-less-caustic article yesterday:

 

The affirmative action case from Texas is going to be in front of the SC soon. Important to note that the plaintiff really wasn't impacted by affirmative action.

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/20...ty-texas/63247/

 

This court seems likely to strike down Affirmative Action and, possibly, any policies that consider race with it as now and forever unconstitutional, and they'll probably gut the VRA, too. What a legacy.

 

 

[DukeNukeEm]

I linked this similar-but-less-caustic article yesterday:

 

 

 

This court seems likely to strike down Affirmative Action and, possibly, any policies that consider race with it as now and forever unconstitutional, and they'll probably gut the VRA, too. What a legacy.

A massive win for equality.

[bmags]

I linked this similar-but-less-caustic article yesterday:

 

 

 

This court seems likely to strike down Affirmative Action and, possibly, any policies that consider race with it as now and forever unconstitutional, and they'll probably gut the VRA, too. What a legacy.

 

That's all fine and well, but it doesn't have this paragraph:

"So having failed to work hard enough in high school to get into the University of Texas directly, Fisher was unwilling to do the work to win a transfer slot there. When will white people stop wallowing in their victim status and put some effort into improving themselves, like regular Americans do? It will be a shame if the Supreme Court chooses to reward this kind of dysfunctional identity politics."

[StrangeSox]

there's a whole niche field of people examining just how effectively reactionary conservatives have co-opted leftist rhetoric over the decades.

 

edit: agreed that the gawker article is better

Edited March 21, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

That's all fine and well, but it doesn't have this paragraph:

"So having failed to work hard enough in high school to get into the University of Texas directly, Fisher was unwilling to do the work to win a transfer slot there. When will white people stop wallowing in their victim status and put some effort into improving themselves, like regular Americans do? It will be a shame if the Supreme Court chooses to reward this kind of dysfunctional identity politics."

I just read through the oral arguments for the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...ipts/11-345.pdf

 

Scalia and Roberts open up the questioning of the school's lawyer with 7th-grade level questions that show they have no comprehension of racial identity. "How would a 1/4 Hispanic fill out the form? How about 1/8???" :smug:

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: On their way in -- did they require everybody to check a box or they have somebody figure out, oh, this person looks 1/32nd Hispanic, and that's enough?

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That's a yes or no question. You go back to what they checked on their application form in deciding whether Economics 201 has a sufficient number of African Americans or Hispanics?

 

How can we ever know demographics??? Can we even trust the US Census data???????????????

 

edit: this is an example of why I respect Thomas's view that oral arguments at the SC are mostly just dumb grandstanding and not worth the effort of engaging in.

Edited March 21, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I just read through the oral arguments for the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...ipts/11-345.pdf

 

Scalia and Roberts open up the questioning of the school's lawyer with 7th-grade level questions that show they have no comprehension of racial identity. "How would a 1/4 Hispanic fill out the form? How about 1/8???" :smug:

 

 

 

 

 

How can we ever know demographics??? Can we even trust the US Census data???????????????

 

edit: this is an example of why I respect Thomas's view that oral arguments at the SC are mostly just dumb grandstanding and not worth the effort of engaging in.

 

Ugh, your hate of conservatives cloud your reading of this. The question is how the Univ. achieves what it believes is a critical mass of diversity, and Scalia and Roberts were just trying to find out how exactly the University goes about determining how many minority students they have. I think it's a perfectly valid line of questioning. What's your beef with it?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I know what their line of questioning was, and it later gets stated by Kennedy in a way that doesn't sound like it's coming from a teenager who just took their first civics class.

 

They kept asking him to tell them what their quote would be when they know full-well that there cannot be a quota. Should the individual determination of university admissions policies be left up to the SC? Would an answer of "5%" of the student body be ok but "5.1%" is a violation of this middle-of-the-pack applicant's constitutional rights to be rejected anyway, regardless of racial consideration?

[Jenksismyhero]

I know what their line of questioning was, and it later gets stated by Kennedy in a way that doesn't sound like it's coming from a teenager who just took their first civics class.

 

They kept asking him to tell them what their quote would be when they know full-well that there cannot be a quota. Should the individual determination of university admissions policies be left up to the SC? Would an answer of "5%" of the student body be ok but "5.1%" is a violation of this middle-of-the-pack applicant's constitutional rights to be rejected anyway, regardless of racial consideration?

 

I fail to see how it was a 7th grade question - how can you identify the issue of diversity when you don't have a clear ability to determine who is a minority and who is not. That's going to be an important question in the future when we become a more mixed society.

 

I'd prefer race not be an issue at all.

[StrangeSox]

It's pretty easy to understand how the university (or the US Census!) determines that. If they couldn't figure it out on their own with about 5 seconds of thought or if they thought the "what about 1/32 hispanic?" was a good gotcha moment, then they are thinking at a junior-high level. If self-identified demographics aren't reliable, then we might as well trash the entire census and the study of demographics all together.

 

It doesn't matter what you or Scalia or Roberts prefer UT's policies should be unless there's actually a Constitutional violation. It's not the role of the Court to evaluate the efficacy and merits of admissions criteria.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's pretty easy to understand how the university (or the US Census!) determines that. If they couldn't figure it out on their own with about 5 seconds of thought or if they thought the "what about 1/32 hispanic?" was a good gotcha moment, then they are thinking at a junior-high level. If self-identified demographics aren't reliable, then we might as well trash the entire census and the study of demographics all together.

 

It doesn't matter what you or Scalia or Roberts prefer UT's policies should be unless there's actually a Constitutional violation. It's not the role of the Court to evaluate the efficacy and merits of admissions criteria.

 

If it's so easy why couldn't the attorney for the university explain it?

 

The bolded doesn't make sense. If this woman was denied equal treatment because of her race, whether or not the school's program is effective would relate to whether it was narrowly tailored and an important government interest. It's difficult to defend an admissions factor as being important if it doesn't work.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

If it's so easy why couldn't the attorney for the university explain it?

 

He did, immediately, and out came the "what about 1/8???" "What about 1/32???" stupidity. It's self-identification. It's compiled and readily available to administrators.

 

The bolded doesn't make sense. If this woman was denied equal treatment because of her race,

 

She wasn't, she was mediocre and wouldn't have gotten in with or without this policy.

 

whether or not the school's program is effective would relate to whether it was narrowly tailored and an important government interest. It's difficult to defend an admissions factor as being important if it doesn't work.

 

So, not being a lawyer here, maybe I'm just wrong, but why is something Constitutional or not based solely on efficacy? Yeah, administrators should examine policies, absolutely. And if they're not working, change them. But this policy did boost minority admissions, so it was at least working on some level. They were just badgering him to give them some quantitative number, which plainly isn't allowed, and possibly because they're skeptical of the idea of self-reported demographic information and racial self-identification.

 

It's not like it's just UT's specific policy at stake here most likely. This could have a far-reaching affect on admissions offices across the country despite the Courts not actually reviewing those other policies and results.

Edited March 21, 2013 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

It doesn't matter what you or Scalia or Roberts prefer UT's policies should be unless there's actually a Constitutional violation. It's not the role of the Court to evaluate the efficacy and merits of admissions criteria.

 

If you have a discriminatory policy, then you need a significant state interest for why that policy is necessary. If that interest is to help historically-discriminated-against minorities, isn't determining who counts as one of those minorities relevant?

[StrangeSox]

If you have a discriminatory policy, then you need a significant state interest for why that policy is necessary. If that interest is to help historically-discriminated-against minorities, isn't determining who counts as one of those minorities relevant?

 

Sure, but that quoted text was in response to jenks' statement that he would prefer no racial element at all.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Sure, but that quoted text was in response to jenks' statement that he would prefer no racial element at all.

 

But isn't the SCOTUS' line of questioning relevant to that issue? If the school doesn't have a good way of determining who is a disadvantaged minority, or racial identification involves huge shades of grey, isn't that a big problem for the policy itself?

[Jenksismyhero]

He did, immediately, and out came the "what about 1/8???" "What about 1/32???" stupidity. It's self-identification. It's compiled and readily available to administrators.

 

I thought he said he couldn't - that they might be able to use what they self-identify as on the application but they don't have to. And the school doesn't go classroom by classroom to count minorities. They're relying solely on how people self-identify on the application even though it's not a clear cut case of being 100% one ethnicity. I mean, I get your point that the same issue might exist with census data, but census data is just a figure, not a figure being used to decide whether there should be an exception to the equal protection clause. That's why it's important in this case.

 

 

She wasn't, she was mediocre and wouldn't have gotten in with or without this policy.

 

Yeah I think that's a problem here. I'm not sure how she has standing, but the argument is that she was forced to pay money to apply and she wasn't treated fairly. She was probably a poor choice to bring this.

 

So, not being a lawyer here, maybe I'm just wrong, but why is something Constitutional or not based solely on efficacy? Yeah, administrators should examine policies, absolutely. And if they're not working, change them. But this policy did boost minority admissions, so it was at least working on some level. They were just badgering him to give them some quantitative number, which plainly isn't allowed, and possibly because they're skeptical of the idea of self-reported demographic information and racial self-identification.

 

It's not like it's just UT's specific policy at stake here most likely. This could have a far-reaching affect on admissions offices across the country despite the Courts not actually reviewing those other policies and results.

 

If you're going to infringe on a constitutional right (equal protection) then you need to show a compelling government interest to do so. If this system isn't doing anything to further

that goal, it's a wasted policy and isn't doing anything but discriminating against whites. It's like arguing that cops should be able wiretap your phone without a warrant and the evidence shows that doing so has never uncovered any kind of illegal activity. If doing so isn't getting you anywhere, you're infringing on a constitutional right for no reason.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

But isn't the SCOTUS' line of questioning relevant to that issue? If the school doesn't have a good way of determining who is a disadvantaged minority, or racial identification involves huge shades of grey, isn't that a big problem for the policy itself?

 

I don't think so, no.

[StrangeSox]

But isn't the SCOTUS' line of questioning relevant to that issue? If the school doesn't have a good way of determining who is a disadvantaged minority, or racial identification involves huge shades of grey, isn't that a big problem for the policy itself?

 

No, and I don't see that racial identification actually involves huge shades of grey. Obama is mixed-race, but he self-identifies and is identified by our society as black. UT's stated goal of diversity would be clearly advanced in that case. There's always the possibility of someone who's culturally and ethnically white but, say, 1/32 Hispanic ticking that box because they think it'll give them an edge that they need, but potential fringe issues like this are possible for any demographic group.

 

Either way, he quickly and clearly told them how they get this data (applicants tell us on a form), and their follow-ups didn't actually go anywhere. If they have a problem with the concept of self-identification (and thus the entirety of demographics), they could have pursued that line of questioning without sounding so childishly naive.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sure, but that quoted text was in response to jenks' statement that he would prefer no racial element at all.

 

As soon as you make race a factor it's discrimination. Schools can hide it in these application processes all they want, but what the US attorney didn't want to answer - and what is absolutely true - was Alito's question that if you have two identical students with the same qualifications and the only difference is one is black and one is white, under these admission standards, the black kid is going to get in over the white kid, and it's only because of race. That should be unconstitutional.

[bmags]

No, and I don't see that racial identification actually involves huge shades of grey. Obama is mixed-race, but he self-identifies and is identified by our society as black. UT's stated goal of diversity would be clearly advanced in that case. There's always the possibility of someone who's culturally and ethnically white but, say, 1/32 Hispanic ticking that box because they think it'll give them an edge that they need, but potential fringe issues like this are possible for any demographic group.

 

Either way, he quickly and clearly told them how they get this data (applicants tell us on a form), and their follow-ups didn't actually go anywhere. If they have a problem with the concept of self-identification (and thus the entirety of demographics), they could have pursued that line of questioning without sounding so childishly naive.

 

It's also just something that is allowed to be considered. It may also be unfair to this student that her school may have not had as many extracurricular options as other students, however, those are also allowed to be considered.

 

Also LOL at being forced to pay to apply.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's also just something that is allowed to be considered. It may also be unfair to this student that her school may have not had as many extracurricular options as other students, however, those are also allowed to be considered.

 

Also LOL at being forced to pay to apply.

 

I didn't word that very well. It's not that she was forced to apply, it's that she applied and was forced into an application process that was inherently unequal.

[StrangeSox]

I thought he said he couldn't - that they might be able to use what they self-identify as on the application but they don't have to. And the school doesn't go classroom by classroom to count minorities. They're relying solely on how people self-identify on the application even though it's not a clear cut case of being 100% one ethnicity. I mean, I get your point that the same issue might exist with census data, but census data is just a figure, not a figure to use whether there should be an exception to the equal protection clause. That's why it's important in this case.

 

Census data is critical to equal protection with laws like the VRA as well as a whole host of other allocation systems. If we can't rely on self-reporting for UT, then we can't rely on any type of census.

 

Since race is a social construct, how an individual self-identifies is, in some sense, what race they are. Yeah, you could be dishonest and claim you're black, but that again applies to any demographic analysis. E.g. Obama identifies and is identified in our society as black, no real question.

 

Yeah I think that's a problem here. I'm not sure how she has standing, but the argument is that she was forced to pay money to apply and she wasn't treated fairly. She was probably a poor choice to bring this.

 

She would have paid $100 regardless of the policies in place, though, and wouldn't have gotten in with race-neutral policies. So even if they find that the policy is a Constitutional violation, why should she get her $100 back?

 

If you're going to infringe on a constitutional right (equal protection) then you need to show a compelling government interest to do so. If this system isn't doing anything to further

that goal, it's a wasted policy and isn't doing anything but discriminating against whites.

 

They have a clearly stated and compelling interest, so that leaves us with efficacy then. Should the SC really be the judge of whether or not a particular admissions policy is effective-enough? Why can't I turn this question around on them and ask "at what specific quantitative level do you find it to be Constitutional?" The problem is that this is a hugely subjective area, and it's hard to see why the SC should be making that final determination on holistic racial policies.

 

It's like arguing that cops should be able wiretap your phone without a warrant and the evidence shows that doing so has never uncovered any kind of illegal activity. If doing so isn't getting you anywhere, you're infringing on a constitutional right for no reason.

 

well this court should be a-ok with this policy then because they've effectively barred any form of review for wiretapping because you can't prove you were harmed by secret wiretapping because it's secret!

 

[StrangeSox]

As soon as you make race a factor it's discrimination. Schools can hide it in these application processes all they want, but what the US attorney didn't want to answer - and what is absolutely true - was Alito's question that if you have two identical students with the same qualifications and the only difference is one is black and one is white, under these admission standards, the black kid is going to get in over the white kid, and it's only because of race. That should be unconstitutional.

 

He did answer it by saying "I don't know" because a) that hypothetical will never, ever happen and b) that judgement would be made in the context of the rest of the class as I understand it.

 

Ruling in that manner would make any consideration of race in an attempt to ameliorate racial inequalities unconstitutional. It'd be one step closer to completely barring public policy from being able to address that problem.

[StrangeSox]

It's also just something that is allowed to be considered. It may also be unfair to this student that her school may have not had as many extracurricular options as other students, however, those are also allowed to be considered.

 

Also LOL at being forced to pay to apply.

 

As soon as we abolish legacy admissions and relaxed "student"-athlete standards maybe we can care about the "injustice" of a mediocre white student not being good enough under any metric to get in who's crying race-discrimination.

[StrangeSox]

Louisiana Court strikes down state ban on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/21/louisiana...arms-provision/

[Jake]

I'm happy to keep guns away from felons, but we as a society need to be wary of how many freedoms we take away from people who have served time. Our penal system is so punitive that many criminals just have no chance at being a "regular" citizen again. Lock them away longer than any country and send them out into the world as "free," except they can't do anything in the free world because they're felons. The prison sentence is for only so long, but the criminal sentence is life-long. We just don't do much thinking about rehabilitation out of our own self-interest/fear.