3 ms·

> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it

by Spivak 3y ago

> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But this is affirmative action. What did they strike down? Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the court in the long run for partisan bullshit. If going to the court twice for the same issue can get you different decisions then the ruling of the court means absolutely fucking nothing. You might as well just continue your affirmative action program because the next time the court makeup might be different and they'll change their mind again. This was already decided forty years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C...

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. Should they have overruled that? "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" They upheld that. Should they have overruled it? They had to overrule something. People are mad because they didn't overrule the Equal Protection Clause.
- Spivak 3y ago
  That's not how this works. The supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean A in the original case and decided that limited discrimination didn't violate the constitution. Disagree with it all you want, I'll join you, but that was the ruling. Today the supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean B and struck down their previous decision. Also lol our constitution isn't anything blind and both acknowledges and establishes different classes of person in order to make rules about them.
  - parineum 3y ago
    After being presented with new information, they came to a different conclusion. As a result of their previous decisions, the data showed that the limited discrimination allowed has had a larger effect than anticipated and led to an outcome of less than limited discrimination.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they did. Honestly, I care more that the court makes a decision than they make the right one. They took a dispute over ambiguous law and disambiguated it. After that the ball is in the other branches' courts. Legislation that outright banned affirmative action would have been constitutional and we let the status quo stand for 45 years without feeling the need to intervene. I can only speak for myself but a ruling that people just accept and don't feel the need to pass new legislation to correct is to me the gold standard.
      - parineum 3y ago
        I don't think that's the case. The effects of a law can end up being unconstitutional, that's something that may only reveal itself over time.
falcolas 3y ago
> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule. The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I fully expect this same behavior to continue.
- Timon3 3y ago
  The problem goes further - a number of justices previously declared they'd honor the previous decisions. They should have lost the publics trust over that alone.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > They should have lost the publics trust over that alone. Public opinion - let alone public trust - does not matter to a Supreme Court justice; they're appointed by the government for life. There's literally nothing the public can do (short of revolution) that impacts their jobs. Only the opinions of the house/senate members even remotely matters to them, and so long as congress can't get enough votes to impeach them (a majority in the House, and 2/3 of the Senate), they can do pretty much whatever they want. Historically, no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. It's been around 200 years (1805) since the last attempt was even made.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Public opinion and public trust absolutely do matter to the justices. They derive their mandate from the people. If the people really want to relieve a justice of their duty, they will find a way - "the government" can't exist without any public support. The Supreme Court is only the Supreme Court if enough people say it is.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > they’re appointed by the government for life. “In good behavior”, actually. > There’s literally nothing the public can do (short of revolution) that impacts their jobs. Political pressure on Congress to impeach a particular justice, or exercise its power to adjust the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as well as taking direct extralegal action against specific judges are all acts “short of revolution”. > Historically, no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. It’s been around 200 years (1805) since the last attempt was even made. No, 1805 was the only successful impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, though no conviction occurred in the Senate. The last attempt (counting only those where there is some official action in the House directed explicitly directed at impeachment) was far more recent, 2019 against Justice Kavanaugh (H.Res. 560).
emmelaich 3y ago
I guess you can consider an individual's hardships (whatever they may be) but not a blanket consideration based on race or religion or ...
mucle6 3y ago
The court changing their mind feels like a feature not a bug. The court represents people, and those people change their mind from generation to generation. I don't want to live in a world where we can't overturn bad decisions. Would America be better off if we legalized slavery 300 years ago, and could never undo it?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 3y ago
  Our government is structured so that nothing is really set in stone. The people who are supposed to check bad decisions by the court are the legislature. This game we're playing is we now have one legislative body that writes laws and another that writes effectively constitutional amendments. This makes no sense at all and we've created an in-practice unchecked branch of government. So I don't disagree that the court has done good things with their power but once in a generation swings is much easier to put up with than what we have going now. The world hasn't meaningfully changed since they originally upheld universities' limited ability to discriminate and as much as I don't like that choice I still think take-backsies is a worse one. My (red) state has a bill going through right now to outlaw university diversity quotas and it likely won't pass so this isn't cultural attitudes changing.
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  There's a process for overturning "bad decisions" it's called passing legislation. There's a reason Stare Decisis is supposed to be a thing, after all. But if the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to itself, then does any court? Should every minor court just decide SC precedent was bad & overturn it?
  - parineum 3y ago
    No two cases are the same. Often, a unique situation can highlight why a previous decision was erroneous.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. The decision continues with: "But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) "[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows," and the prohibition against racial discrimination is "levelled at the thing, not the name."" They are warning the universities to not play games with them.
bitcurious 3y ago
Do you feel the same about the courts rulings on segregation? Initially decided on 1896, revisited in 1954. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
- Spivak 3y ago
  I do, I think this should have been done with amendments to the constitution like we did for the 15th and 19th amendment. Taken to its logical extreme if the US had a single dictator but they did good things would you argue against needing a democratic process? The court lives in a weird place where they have close to unchecked power and make their own rules. It is what it is, there's always a root account somewhere. But the convention/culture of the courts has been the primary thing keeping this in check and if that goes we're in trouble.
skissane 3y ago
> Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the court in the long run for partisan bullshit. If going to the court twice for the same issue can get you different decisions then the ruling of the court means absolutely fucking nothing. You might as well just continue your affirmative action program because the next time the court makeup might be different and they'll change their mind again. > This was already decided forty years ago If the US Supreme Court never overturned its decisions, these decisions would still be in force: - laws criminalising private consensual same-sex activity are constitutional (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986–overturned by Lawrence v Texas in 2003) - miscegenation laws do not violate the 14th Amendment (Pace v Alambama, 1883–overturned in part by McLaughlin v Florida in 1964 and fully by Loving v Virginia in 1967) - legally enforced racial segregation does not violate the 14th Amendment (Plessy v Ferguson, 1896–effectively overturned by Brown v Board of Education in 1954) - racial segregation in public schools is constitutional (Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education, 1899–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education) - states have the constitutional right to ban racially integrated private educational institutions (Berea College v Kentucky, 1908–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education) - it is constitutional to execute juvenile offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime (Stanford v Kentucky, 1989–overturned by Roper v Simmons, 2005) - it is constitutional to execute the intellectually disabled (Penry v Lynaugh, 1989–overturned by Atkins v Virginia in 2002) - it is constitutional for public schools to force students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, even if they have a religious objection to doing so (Minersville School District v Gobitis, 1940–overturned a mere three years later by West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943) - labor laws which impose limits on working hours are unconstitutional (Lochner v New York, 1905–never explicitly overturned, although a series of 1930s decisions effectively did so) - minimum wage laws are unconstitutional (Adkins v Children's Hospital, 1923–overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish, 1937) - child labor laws violate children's constitutional right to work (Hammer v Dagenhart, 1918, and Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co, 1922–overturned by United States v Darby Lumber Co, 1941) If the principle "the Supreme Court should never overturn its past decisions" was accepted–the US would be a very different country today. Even if you only want to apply that principle to "established precedent" – Pace v Alabama was law for over 80 years, so if that principle was seriously followed, interracial marriage bans might well still exist in the US today.

by Spivak 3y ago

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. Should they have overruled that? "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" They upheld that. Should they have overruled it? They had to overrule something. People are mad because they didn't overrule the Equal Protection Clause.

Spivak 3y ago
That's not how this works. The supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean A in the original case and decided that limited discrimination didn't violate the constitution. Disagree with it all you want, I'll join you, but that was the ruling. Today the supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean B and struck down their previous decision. Also lol our constitution isn't anything blind and both acknowledges and establishes different classes of person in order to make rules about them.
- parineum 3y ago
  After being presented with new information, they came to a different conclusion. As a result of their previous decisions, the data showed that the limited discrimination allowed has had a larger effect than anticipated and led to an outcome of less than limited discrimination.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they did. Honestly, I care more that the court makes a decision than they make the right one. They took a dispute over ambiguous law and disambiguated it. After that the ball is in the other branches' courts. Legislation that outright banned affirmative action would have been constitutional and we let the status quo stand for 45 years without feeling the need to intervene. I can only speak for myself but a ruling that people just accept and don't feel the need to pass new legislation to correct is to me the gold standard.
    - parineum 3y ago
      I don't think that's the case. The effects of a law can end up being unconstitutional, that's something that may only reveal itself over time.

falcolas 3y ago

> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule. The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I fully expect this same behavior to continue.

Timon3 3y ago
The problem goes further - a number of justices previously declared they'd honor the previous decisions. They should have lost the publics trust over that alone.
- falcolas 3y ago
  > They should have lost the publics trust over that alone. Public opinion - let alone public trust - does not matter to a Supreme Court justice; they're appointed by the government for life. There's literally nothing the public can do (short of revolution) that impacts their jobs. Only the opinions of the house/senate members even remotely matters to them, and so long as congress can't get enough votes to impeach them (a majority in the House, and 2/3 of the Senate), they can do pretty much whatever they want. Historically, no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. It's been around 200 years (1805) since the last attempt was even made.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    Public opinion and public trust absolutely do matter to the justices. They derive their mandate from the people. If the people really want to relieve a justice of their duty, they will find a way - "the government" can't exist without any public support. The Supreme Court is only the Supreme Court if enough people say it is.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > they’re appointed by the government for life. “In good behavior”, actually. > There’s literally nothing the public can do (short of revolution) that impacts their jobs. Political pressure on Congress to impeach a particular justice, or exercise its power to adjust the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as well as taking direct extralegal action against specific judges are all acts “short of revolution”. > Historically, no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. It’s been around 200 years (1805) since the last attempt was even made. No, 1805 was the only successful impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, though no conviction occurred in the Senate. The last attempt (counting only those where there is some official action in the House directed explicitly directed at impeachment) was far more recent, 2019 against Justice Kavanaugh (H.Res. 560).

emmelaich 3y ago

I guess you can consider an individual's hardships (whatever they may be) but not a blanket consideration based on race or religion or ...

mucle6 3y ago

The court changing their mind feels like a feature not a bug. The court represents people, and those people change their mind from generation to generation. I don't want to live in a world where we can't overturn bad decisions. Would America be better off if we legalized slavery 300 years ago, and could never undo it?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 3y ago
Our government is structured so that nothing is really set in stone. The people who are supposed to check bad decisions by the court are the legislature. This game we're playing is we now have one legislative body that writes laws and another that writes effectively constitutional amendments. This makes no sense at all and we've created an in-practice unchecked branch of government. So I don't disagree that the court has done good things with their power but once in a generation swings is much easier to put up with than what we have going now. The world hasn't meaningfully changed since they originally upheld universities' limited ability to discriminate and as much as I don't like that choice I still think take-backsies is a worse one. My (red) state has a bill going through right now to outlaw university diversity quotas and it likely won't pass so this isn't cultural attitudes changing.
kllrnohj 3y ago
There's a process for overturning "bad decisions" it's called passing legislation. There's a reason Stare Decisis is supposed to be a thing, after all. But if the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to itself, then does any court? Should every minor court just decide SC precedent was bad & overturn it?
- parineum 3y ago
  No two cases are the same. Often, a unique situation can highlight why a previous decision was erroneous.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. The decision continues with: "But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) "[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows," and the prohibition against racial discrimination is "levelled at the thing, not the name."" They are warning the universities to not play games with them.

bitcurious 3y ago

Do you feel the same about the courts rulings on segregation? Initially decided on 1896, revisited in 1954. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Spivak 3y ago
I do, I think this should have been done with amendments to the constitution like we did for the 15th and 19th amendment. Taken to its logical extreme if the US had a single dictator but they did good things would you argue against needing a democratic process? The court lives in a weird place where they have close to unchecked power and make their own rules. It is what it is, there's always a root account somewhere. But the convention/culture of the courts has been the primary thing keeping this in check and if that goes we're in trouble.

skissane 3y ago

> Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the court in the long run for partisan bullshit. If going to the court twice for the same issue can get you different decisions then the ruling of the court means absolutely fucking nothing. You might as well just continue your affirmative action program because the next time the court makeup might be different and they'll change their mind again. > This was already decided forty years ago If the US Supreme Court never overturned its decisions, these decisions would still be in force: - laws criminalising private consensual same-sex activity are constitutional (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986–overturned by Lawrence v Texas in 2003) - miscegenation laws do not violate the 14th Amendment (Pace v Alambama, 1883–overturned in part by McLaughlin v Florida in 1964 and fully by Loving v Virginia in 1967) - legally enforced racial segregation does not violate the 14th Amendment (Plessy v Ferguson, 1896–effectively overturned by Brown v Board of Education in 1954) - racial segregation in public schools is constitutional (Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education, 1899–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education) - states have the constitutional right to ban racially integrated private educational institutions (Berea College v Kentucky, 1908–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education) - it is constitutional to execute juvenile offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime (Stanford v Kentucky, 1989–overturned by Roper v Simmons, 2005) - it is constitutional to execute the intellectually disabled (Penry v Lynaugh, 1989–overturned by Atkins v Virginia in 2002) - it is constitutional for public schools to force students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, even if they have a religious objection to doing so (Minersville School District v Gobitis, 1940–overturned a mere three years later by West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943) - labor laws which impose limits on working hours are unconstitutional (Lochner v New York, 1905–never explicitly overturned, although a series of 1930s decisions effectively did so) - minimum wage laws are unconstitutional (Adkins v Children's Hospital, 1923–overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish, 1937) - child labor laws violate children's constitutional right to work (Hammer v Dagenhart, 1918, and Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co, 1922–overturned by United States v Darby Lumber Co, 1941) If the principle "the Supreme Court should never overturn its past decisions" was accepted–the US would be a very different country today. Even if you only want to apply that principle to "established precedent" – Pace v Alabama was law for over 80 years, so if that principle was seriously followed, interracial marriage bans might well still exist in the US today.