5 ms·
Unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. A case brought against the University of Texas in 2016 ruled 4-3 basically
by thrill 7y ago
Unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. A case brought against the University of Texas in 2016 ruled 4-3 basically the same way, with one justice recusing and another justice had died and not yet been replaced.
- gnicholas 7y agoReally? Kennedy is gone and was replaced by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was in the majority (pro-AA) in the 2016 case, and I would venture to guess (based on nothing more than the discussions in the legal circles I'm in) that Kavanaugh would not be as friendly to affirmative action as Kennedy was. If I were a betting man, I'd put the odds north of 2:1 that this will be overturned if the current SCOTUS sees it.
- thrill 7y agoKagan, an Obama nominee, skipped the Texas case. I think it'd be ruled the same way this time.
- ravitation 7y agoIt was a 4-3 decision in a 8 member court (with Justice Kagan recusing herself, as you mentioned). It's a 5-4 reverse decision now based on ideology alone.
- gnicholas 7y agoI would guess it would be 5-4 against Harvard, with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts in the majority. Which one of these would you have ruling in favor of Harvard's AA plan?
- thrill 7y agoI believe Roberts would vote with Harvard.
- gnicholas 7y agoThe same Justice Roberts who said: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Involved_in_Community_Schools_v._Seattle_School_District_No._1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Involved_in_Community_...
- thrill 7y agoYep - I believe he will wordsmith it to use words like "race-conscious" instead of "race-discrimination" and vote with Harvard.