3 ms·
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 discr
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.