Why not allow the citizens to vote? The latest polls indicate it would pass by a 3 to 1 margin in California. Thats why some people dont want it to be voted on!
Affirmative action obviously is race discrimination.
Can we please redirect the discussion to Fisher II?
@gmtplus7 what do you think about Harry Reids comments on Scalias comments at oral argument? How about the white houses comments about scalia? Congressman Butterfield referred to Scalias comments at the Fisher hearing as “disgusting , inaccurate and insulting” and that he should be removed from the bench for cause? What do you think?
Scalia was making reference to one of the amicus briefs that was based on UCLA Law Prof Richard Sander’s “mismatch theory”. Anyone who has been following higher education issues for a while is familiar w that debate. It’s not something Scalia came up w.
Simply articulating a non-PC viewpoint is not grounds for removal from the SCOTUS bench. Isn’t the whole point of tenure in SCOTUS and in academia to ensure that Justices & professors are able to act w INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, without being subject to PC pressures?
Also, Harry Reids’s and the WH’s comments are irrelevant unless they enact a Constitutional ammendment.
What cause? Scalia’s opinion? That’s exactly why Justices are appointed for life, so that they can have opinions. They can even be dead wrong and still retain their seat.
Scalia was echoing the views of Clarence Thomas as very elaborately detailed in his concurring opinion in Fisher I in what was a very interesting opinion to read. Thomas laid out his case against affirmative action. He makes some compelling points based on previous court opinions and the history of racial discrimination. Even though many disagree with his conclusions, no one called him a racist in 2013 that I recall. So unless all of those people are prepared to call Thomas a racist and demand his removal - and I don’t think they are) then those statements are just politics. There is a reason that Supreme Court justices are not elected and why they are very difficult to remove.
Here is that opinion. Thomas’ opinion starts around page 18. His mismatch comments are around page 35. The page numbers I am quoting are of the PDFs version
I am still waiting for some one to say what they think about Scalias comments. They have been called racist,disgusting, insulting and inaccurate for starters.
It is my understanding that UCLA has stopped placing black students in Richard Sanders classes who Scalia relies upon. His theories have been discredited by many experts
@tiger1307
I’m not sure that UCLA stops placing prerequisite-qualified students in a particular class, when it’s the students themselves who elect to enroll in the class.
@gmtplus7 No UCLA law places 1L students in their classes. If it would be helpful I can get you the reference point for that. I am still waiting for what you think about Scalias comments in Fisher 2??
What did Richard Sander do that would make him unqualified to teach black students?
Wouldn’t UCLA Law school deliberately separating out the black law students without their permission, to not assign them to Richard Sander’s class violate Prop209?
Be careful that you don’t over-intertpret “mismatch.” There are many goals at a public U, including serving the needs of the populace, providing opportunity, and fostering change.
“I am still waiting for some one to say what they think about Scalias comments. They have been called racist,disgusting, insulting and inaccurate for starters.”
I think his comments reflect his opinion on Justice Thomas. 
Seriously, his comments are absurd and, IMHO, there is no need to debate it…
@tiger1307 Our opinions of Scalia’s views aren’t relevant to the case. That is why we are not answering that question. Please read the warning at the beginning of the thread.
@lookingforward Our interpretations of mismatch are irrelevant. Scalia’s and Thomas’ opinions and interpretations are relevant to the case. Scalia and Thomas are the two justices who interpret the Constituion most strictly. I suspect they would not agree with you on the goals of the public university.
I don’t see a lot of point discussing Scalia and Thomas. We know they want to get rid of Grutter. They are on record in previous cases- Thomas in Grutter and Scalia in Fisher I. Their votes are offset by RBG and Sontamayer. We aren’t discussing their votes and questions either because they are givens.
Anyone care to rebut the premise of Scalia’s question or are you all just comfortable ignoring it and calling him a racist? And if you do not want to rebut it, then what the heck is oral argument for other than to permit the Justices to test the limits of the theory of each argument?
And @gettingschooled, many people have called Thomas a token, race traitor, Uncle Tom, Oreo, you name it. There have probably been more protests held over even inviting Thomas to speak than any Justice in my memory.
Yes, I know that. And no I don’t care to debate it. There have been plenty of threads on mismatch on CC. This case does not hinge on the mismatch theory.
Scalia is saying he doesn’t believe diversity is a compelling educational interest. He got outvoted on that. Unless he can find enough justices to agree with him, it doesn’t matter. Thomas agrees, Roberts agrees as it relates to Physics classes. I don’t know about Alito but as far as I can tell, Kennedy disagrees. Unless he can change Kennedy’s mind, it is settled.
Fisher could result in a 4 to 4 vote. That is one way to dispose of it
Yes, that would be helpful. Perhaps I’m not a good internet searcher, but I could only find one unsupported anecdote. And I found a claim to that effect by another blogger that was retracted after being sent an e-mail from the Professor saying that UCLA Law does no such thing.
The question is not whether diversity is a compelling interest. The question is whether the use of race in holistic admissions is a narrowly tailored way to meet that goal in the context of a largely race neutral admissions policy.
I do not believe it is at all clear what Roberts or Kennedy thinks about that question. Roberts asked the question about physics class to try to get UT’s lawyer to articulate some reason why UT should be permitted to continue to openly discriminate based on race.
Realize that the attacks on Scalia are likely aimed at Roberts. No one really thinks that Harry Ried and MSNBC calling Scalia a racist, or yet another call to have him impeached, will sway Scalia. Those types of attacks have been pointed at him for decades. It appears to be an article of faith on the left that the President’s and media’s comments about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court swayed Roberts in the Sebellious case. I think it likely there is an attempt to do the same thing again. Like it or not, we live in an era of power politics.
The case will not come out 4-4. It is hard to see why they would have taken the case without some kind of consensus that this was an issue which requires their resolution. Plus, given the subsequent history of Fisher I, they just can’t let the school and the Fifth Circuit continue to ignore their rulings.