I don’t disagree that they might do this. I still think, though, that they will have recognized this race-neutral method as less discriminatory than the holistic method, so what happens in the next strict scrutiny case, when there is no 10% rule, but the plaintiffs argue that one should be created? I think it will be hard to say that the holistic method is OK. Which is why I think the court will punt in some fashion, unless it’s ready to do away with affirmative action.
I hope the justices are putting as much thought into this case as my cc brethren.
Good find, fatherof2boys. The direct quote from Mr. Garre at oral argument was, “If you look at the academic performance of holistic minority admits versus the top 10 percent admits, over time, they, they fare better.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-981_4h25.pdf
(page 68)
So then how is mismatch even relevant here, if, as Garre is seemingly saying, the holistic minority admits do better than the top 10 admits? I’m not sure whether Garre is saying the holistic minority admits do better than all top 10% admits, or just “minority” (=student of color, I guess) top 10% admits, but either way, the holistic admits apparently aren’t the students who are potentially mismatched.
(I put “minority” in scare quotes here because Texas is majority minority. Everyone of any race in Texas schools is in a racial/ethnic minority.)
@Zinhead - there actually is a thread we can discuss it on: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1544837-race-in-college-admission-faq-discussion-11.html
It could be that holistic URMs are mismatched and 7% URMs are woefully mismatched. But if you’re postulating that any group that graduates at 72%, when the average is 84%, is mismatched, you’re throwing out a lot of the class, not just URMs.
I think for this to have been a realistic possibility then UT’s counsel would have had to articulate something other than a desire for another bite at the apple on standing when Kennedy gave him the opening at argument.
On a somewhat related matter, the Court is not likely to get more liberal any time soon. Three of the four oldest Justices are liberals, and it is hard to see Obama getting anyone through the Senate as a lame duck.
@hunt, what does a punt look like here to you? I don’t disagree with the idea that the Court is inclined to move slowly in this arena, but it seems to me that the lack of any movement on remand raises a stark question that kind of has to be answered.
The question is “how” much better are they performing? Using Hunt’s example:
[/quote]
However, I don’t think anyone has presented the “actual” numbers to the court, so the justices will be limited to the oral arguments.
Edit: changed “these” to the “actual” numbers
Scalia is 79. If a Democrat is elected next fall, and something happens to Scalia in the next four years, then he would assuredly be replaced by someone more liberal than he is. Unless you think a Republican Senate could stall for four years?
I think Ginsburg is 82, Kennedy is the same age as Scalia and Breyer is 77. I also think that historically the chances of a third term Democratic president are pretty small. So just playing the odds, it is far more likely there will be a vacancy from the liberal side with a Republican President and Senate than the other way around.
If a Democrat is elected, and something happens to either Kennedy or Scalia, the court gets more liberal. That doesn’t seem such a long shot to me.
President Trump trying to replace Ginsburg with Justice Glen Beck! That should be fun…time to throw the TV into the closet and disconnect the internet…I always wanted to get some gardening done.
And the Dems could take the Senate as well in the next two cycles, which opens the possibility of another Kennedy or Breyer. Lots of things could happen. But someone playing the odds would not bet on the Court becoming more liberal in the next 4-6 years.
Predicting the general direction of future courts is difficult because it all comes down to which political party controls the presidency. On the one hand, @Ohiodad51 is correct that a third term president succeeding someone from their own party is rare. On the other hand, that same party appears to hold a strategic advantage respecting the electoral map and demographic trends with far more paths to victory.
“So just playing the odds, it is far more likely there will be a vacancy from the liberal side with a Republican President and Senate than the other way around.”
The prediction markets and bookie odds currently say there’s a 63% chance our next President is a Democrat.
So the most likely eventuality is that H Rod reloads the Ginsburg seat and that’s it.
The Justices now typically stay well into their 80s and also now time their retirements to coincide with the occupancy of the White House. Breyer might step down in a few years if H Rod wins but not if The Donald does. Scalia would do the reverse.
Barring something sudden and unforeseen, status quo is the most likely outcome.
The average age of a retiring Justice is just shy of 80. In the last twenty years six Justices have retired and one has died. Ages at retirement were Blackmun (86), Powell and Stevens (80), Burger (79), O’Conner (76) and Souter (70). Reinquist died at 81. So I do not believe it is typical for Justices to stay on the bench well into their 80s.
In addition, and even if Clinton bucks the historical trend and wins the Presidency, the Republicans hold a significant advantage in the Senate over the next two cycles. To take the Senate next year, the Dems need to flip five seats, which means they need to win each of the seats currently in the “toss up” category. They do have some advantages though, mainly that they are only defending 10 seats to the Repubs 24. So yes, they can do that, even in a non wave election. But it is unlikely. Even if they flip the Senate, they end up with a one or two seat majority. Can a President Clinton get someone as liberal as Ginsburg through the Senate with a Republican majority or at best a one or two seat Democratic majority? Ehh. Tough call.
The map becomes a real problem in 2018, where the board flips and the Dems are defending 25 seats to the Republicans 8. Complicating things for Dems in 2018 is that several of the seats Dems will be defending in 2018 are in states that generally trend Republican, so they will have a tough board and no margin for error, even if things break their way in 2016. So likely the Senate picture worsens in the second half of Clinton’s first term. Is she going to get a Ginsburg through then?
It is a bit more complicated of a dynamic than saying that people are betting on Hillary winning in 2016 because she is the only name half the country knows right now.
So what constitutes “diversity”? Would UT be satisfied if the student racial percentages mirrored the Texas or US population?
Blacks comprise only ~5% of the UT student body. That’s supposedly not a critical mass sufficient to bring their diverse views to the classroom discussion nor enough to prevent them from feeling isolated.
If asians were present at UT in proportion to their representation in the overall population (~5%), would UT be making the same critical mass/diversity/loneliness arguments about them?
From 2017-2021, you most likely have a D president replacing D justices or a GOP president replacing GOP justices. With confirmation coming from a GOP Senate majority that is subject to a D filibuster minority.
So mostly tit-for-tat. The Ds probably can’t get another Ginsburg, but the Rs probably can’t get another Robert Bork either.
The possibility of swapping out a D justice with an R or an R with a D most likely does not arise until after the 2020 election. So what are the chances that President Hillary or President The Donald gets a second term?
@nothwesty This all assumes a President Trump is a republican. @gmtplus7 what constitutes diversity in your mind?
Here are some thoughts that relate to the mismatch theory and its relevancy.
Why do lots of the above posters say that STEM subjects are harder than non STEM subjects. What proof is there for that? Maybe some students drop out of STEM because it is boring and they would rather be a lawyer or business person.
What do they call someone who graduates at the bottom of Harvards class? A Harvard graduate.
At a lot of interviews in Silicon Valley they care where you went to school and what classes you took and what you know but not necessarily the grades you got in the classes.
Do you think any new clients of a lawyer ever says in the initial interview Oh what grade did you get in Con Law?
@GMTplus7 the latest UT freshman class consisted of about 4% African-Americans and that percentage was achieved with UT’s current admission process which does include the use of race in admissions.
@tiger1307, I attended UT for undergrad and also for law school (UT Law is ranked #15 in the latest US News rankings). In the legal profession, which can be somewhat snobby, what law school you attend does confer a certain level of prestige. There’s simply an assumption that everyone who attended one of the top tier schools is likely to be a skilled lawyer. That perception does not always match reality; however, as you stated in reference to Harvard, the presumption is that you must’ve been top notch to just get in.