4 ms·

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States rule that it had been effective, with their primary evidence being the election of Barak Obama? That's not a stud

by bdamm 5y ago

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States rule that it had been effective, with their primary evidence being the election of Barak Obama? That's not a study but in terms of legal doctrine it seems to be a settled issue.

aerostable_slug 5y ago
I'm not sure I take your meaning. Would you mind elaborating (not kidding - I don't quite get it)?
- bdamm 5y ago
  Here is a report on the ruling: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-obama https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-vo...
Jensson 5y ago
Most of the discrimination seems to be against slave descendants. Barack Obama is the son of an educated African immigrant, African immigrants are doing very well in USA, about as well as Asian immigrants, so he is a part of the model minority and not the discriminated minority.
- bdamm 5y ago
  I'm not saying it's right. I'm only saying that the supreme court has ruled on it. Frankly I think such a basis is completely absurd. We'd need to have at least four more black presidents to really show it's effectiveness. RBG once said that only once the Supreme Court happened to be entirely women would we know that we have achieved parity. And she's right!
todd8 5y ago
Perhaps you're thinking of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) a case concerning affirmative action in admissions exercised by the University of Michigan Law School. The Supreme Court decided that favoring underrepresented minority groups did not violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Writing for the majority, Sandra Day O'conor said "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," and said that the Court believed that in 25 years that limit might be reached. Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the ruling but not with having a time limit. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what I'm talking about, so I suggest seeing the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
- bdamm 5y ago
  I'm thinking of this ruling: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-obama https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-vo...

by bdamm 5y ago

aerostable_slug 5y ago

I'm not sure I take your meaning. Would you mind elaborating (not kidding - I don't quite get it)?

bdamm 5y ago
Here is a report on the ruling: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-obama https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-vo...

Jensson 5y ago

Most of the discrimination seems to be against slave descendants. Barack Obama is the son of an educated African immigrant, African immigrants are doing very well in USA, about as well as Asian immigrants, so he is a part of the model minority and not the discriminated minority.

bdamm 5y ago
I'm not saying it's right. I'm only saying that the supreme court has ruled on it. Frankly I think such a basis is completely absurd. We'd need to have at least four more black presidents to really show it's effectiveness. RBG once said that only once the Supreme Court happened to be entirely women would we know that we have achieved parity. And she's right!

todd8 5y ago

Perhaps you're thinking of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) a case concerning affirmative action in admissions exercised by the University of Michigan Law School. The Supreme Court decided that favoring underrepresented minority groups did not violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Writing for the majority, Sandra Day O'conor said "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," and said that the Court believed that in 25 years that limit might be reached. Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the ruling but not with having a time limit. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what I'm talking about, so I suggest seeing the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

bdamm 5y ago
I'm thinking of this ruling: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-obama https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-vo...