3 ms·
A question and point on resolving racism without giving up on meritocracy: - I tend to think scotus believes racism is/was real but the best way to fix it is f
by scrubs 3y ago
A question and point on resolving racism without giving up on meritocracy:
- I tend to think scotus believes racism is/was real but the best way to fix it is for congress to vote into law an actual remedy. Instead congress whines then fund raises off it. That control vacuum does not mean scotus has to fill the void. I'm pretty sure this what Roberts thinks anyway.
- on remedy: based on a young adult's background mainly by looking at parent's income and their educational attainment, and school quality k-12, under served kids that appear to have potential could be subsized to take a kind of finishing school with the idea of getting them backfilled education wise so they could take and pass MIT like AP exams in math, science, English. It'd be like a really high end HS to get them current. Kids who don't follow through are evicted, and are required to payback costs. This way they can compete reasonably well for open seats and colleges of their choice.
We might call this the National High School Program perhaps mainly online. Congress can create and fund this. Seats are filled in time order of approved applicant only.
- remedy includes reducing or eliminating grants to private universities sitting on tons of money or have too many administrative costs. US education is too damn expensive. There has to be a way for the system to penalize stupid cost. If you've done hiring, ivy league credentials doesn't guarantee much. There are some darn good kids from state schools too
- a federal run super high school gives parents and kids a choice: state education or fed. Or state then fed later to fix shortcomings. This would also eliminate the fed/state/local control quagmire since US education is locally controlled. The fed could instead focus solely on its own school system letting parents/kids choose.
- in summary: congress has to get off their butts. Scotus would have to uphold congress' law. And if the national HS was demanding, nobody would be focused on race, which is the way we want it. It puts the focus on good kids who did good work which is also the way we want it.
- j_walter 3y agoI mean every democrat whined about the SCOTUS blocking the student loan decision and how it's another example of this "extremist" court blocking the will of the people. They didn't mention that decision was unanimous, which is actually really unheard of with the division on the court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf (page 4) Lets just face it though...it's easier to hope SCOTUS interprets a law or order a certain way than actually have congress do their job and pass a clear law.
- scrubs 3y agoI agree all day long. A lot of the American malaise has its roots in congressional institutionalized incompetence (perpetual grandstanding and fund raising with no end goal beyond that) that gets fixed in courts or through executive orders. Congress is far and away the worst of the three federal branches.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- j_walter 3y agoMy mistake...it was not unanimous, but 6-3 like most decisions lately. However I will add comments by congress are just pushing my point further. "They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself and that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on," Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said. SCOTUS is not expanding their role...they are restricting executive powers and making congress do their job.
- fzeroracer 3y ago> SCOTUS is not expanding their role...they are restricting executive powers and making congress do their job False. Congress delegated their powers to parts of the executive branch. If they feel the executive is abusing that delegation, congress can take it away at any time. It is not the job of the SCOTUS to pretend they're congress and take action on behalf of congress as they have been doing lately. All of this is blatantly partisan. Congress created the CFPB for example, delegated some authority to the executive branch and insulated the CFPB head from presidential authority (so they could not be fired at will). The Supreme Court decided to insert their own opinion that the president has absolute authority over it, despite congress being the one creating it.
- j_walter 3y agoIn this case they are reviewing the funding mechanism of the CFPB and because it has no funding reviewed by congress that it might be part of the executive branch oversight and therefore the CFPB head is able to be fired by the president. All they do is review lower court decisions, which in this case have already ruled that the president has authority...so if they did nothing it would be exactly as you don't think it should be. Again SCOTUS doesn't just decided at will what to review...again like AOC thinks they should have vacated legacy admissions...as if they could just decide to do that. Despite congress being full of lawyers, they often miss critical things when they come up with ideas like the CFPB.
- FabianClement 3y agoRecruiting students that have a high likelihood of below average academic performance and then requiring them to payback costs if they can't pass "MIT AP exams" is a recipe for failure. Ironically these families would have less wealth than before because now they're in debt for what could have been free public education.