The Supreme Court

[---]

with luck this ruling will introduce an environment with standards so ambiguous that litigiously ambitious humans of all races will be able to sue universities into penury and oblivion

[E.H. Ruddock]

with luck this ruling will introduce an environment with standards so ambiguous that litigiously ambitious humans of all races will be able to sue universities into penury and oblivion

Bammer is past college age though

[Strat]

Nothing matters anyway.

Higher learning is dumb too.

The end is coming. Learn a trade that sustains your own survival

[Bi_3]

such a complex topic

Schools will just say the decision to accept one kid over another was based on another reason... it's kind of silly that it had to be fought over.

Apparently it needs to be explicitly stated that race based discrimination of any kind is illegal. The law is clear: equality over equity. But like you said, nothing will change. It will be “cultural fit” or “holistic person view” or something of that nature like corporate HRs use to enable protected class discrimination

[Bi_3]

Never thought I'd say this but Hanania does an excellent and thorough breakdown of the case here (warning 40+ tweets):

The dissent is an embarrassment.

[simple schoolboy]

[McParadigm]

I’d be a lot more interested if they opened up the 35% of Harvard admissions preemptively plucked by legacy admissions, donor children, and other ALDCs than I am the <10% of slots impacted by affirmative action.

[elliseamos]

Right, they'll cut themselves off of that gravy train any day now...

[Bi_3]

I totally agree they should go, but which part of the constitution forbids legacy admissions?


Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

[Green Habit]

Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

This is the really big one. And given that he tied his Bostock opinion in with this case, Title VII could come into play against the private sector as well. This war is only getting started.

[Green Habit]

One thing I do appreciate about today's big ruling is that all nine justices, on differing reasons of course, thoroughly rejected the mushy Powell/O'Connor "diversity only" argument to green light affirmative action. That was always doomed to be unworkable, as diversity comes in so many endless dimensions that span much further than the few that people really get energetic about.

[elliseamos]

Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

This is the really big one. And given that he tied his Bostock opinion in with this case, Title VII could come into play against the private sector as well. This war is only getting started.

Care to explain it?

And if you can, do so as if I've been watching Bob's Burgers for a couple hours.

[Green Habit]

Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

This is the really big one. And given that he tied his Bostock opinion in with this case, Title VII could come into play against the private sector as well. This war is only getting started.

Care to explain it?

And if you can, do so as if I've been watching Bob's Burgers for a couple hours.

I'm not sure if directly quoting Gorsuch is going to qualify for simplicity, but page 4 of his opinion is particularly instructive here:

Title VI prohibits a recipient of federal funds from intentionally treating any individual worse even in part because of his race, color, or national origin and without regard to any other reason or motive the recipient might assert. Without question, Congress in 1964 could have taken the law in various directions. But to safeguard the civil rights of all Americans, Congress chose a simple and profound rule. One holding that a recipient of federal funds may never discriminate based on race, color, or national origin—period.

If this exposition of Title VI sounds familiar, it should. Just next door, in Title VII, Congress made it “unlawful...for an employer...to discriminate against any individual...because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Appreciating the breadth of this provision, just three years ago this Court read its essentially identical terms the same way. [See Bostock.] This Court has long recognized, too, that when Congress uses the same terms in the same statute, we should presume they “have the same meaning.” And that presumption surely makes sense here, for as Justice Stevens recognized years ago, “oth Title VI and Title VII” codify a categorical rule of “individual equality, without regard to race.”

Almost everyone was mystified at Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock at the time, but reading this helps to make more sense out of it. He's trying to hammer down a view of antidiscrimination that cuts in both directions, and today's direction is aimed right at affirmative action. I am guessing that multiple anti-AA plaintiffs are going to prod this further with litigation to see how far SCOTUS will go here, and to see if there are more votes out there than just Gorsuch, and Thomas (who was the only justice who joined this opinion on the record).

[simple schoolboy]

I don't think conservatives are going to like the end point if they start applying title VI aggressively through the lens of disparate impact.

[Green Habit]

I don't think conservatives are going to like the end point if they start applying title VI aggressively through the lens of disparate impact.

I dunno, I think the ones who really get riled up about wokeness would love to stick it to big corporations that have AA policies in place. That's in stark contrast to libertarians who would dislike this on pretty doctrinaire free market, freedom of contract grounds.

[elliseamos]

Thanks, GH!

First thought was immigrants get treated differently based on where they're from (I'm thinking of "shithole countries" specifically).

Second thought was: Police protections reform.

[Bi_3]

Zero self awareness, brutal ratio

[simple schoolboy]

I don't think conservatives are going to like the end point if they start applying title VI aggressively through the lens of disparate impact.

I dunno, I think the ones who really get riled up about wokeness would love to stick it to big corporations that have AA policies in place. That's in stark contrast to libertarians who would dislike this on pretty doctrinaire free market, freedom of contract grounds.

Eh, you can be as woke as you want to, just don't commit it to writing or verbalize it in front of non aligned peers. Avoiding unfortunate writings or mutterings does not help you when it comes to disparate impact.

[elliseamos]

6-3 decision rules Biden's loan forgiveness pan is unconstitutional.

The HEROES Act seemed pretty clear to the 3 in the minority (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson).

[Green Habit]

Guess everyone knows the results of the final cases by now.

On the student loan forgiveness case, the major questions doctrine is really, really bad, and is going to be an escape hatch for this SCOTUS to interfere with actions of Democratic administrations they don't like, while letting things slide on actions of Republican administrations. I'm really conflicted on the practical merits of student loan forgiveness, but the legal case that Roberts made here looks weaksauce.

On the web developer case...this one of course cuts deep for me since it's my profession. The creative aspects of the profession really do lend to me seeing it as expressive that the First Amendment protects. Gorsuch's opinion seemed satisfactory to me on first blush. But boy, was Sotomayor pissed at that opinion, to the point that she dissented from the bench for over 20 minutes. That seems way over the top to me. Then again, I've always felt odd about public accommodation law, as it can cut the other way, as everyone can think of utterly despicable people they would not want to do business with. Tough questions to deal with...