![]() ![]() ![]() And if the Biden Administration can’t get a new Justice in place before the November midterm elections, it could be an even more lopsided decision. That would surely invite further legal challenges to diversity programs in every other area of American life: hiring, contracting, grant-making, and on and on. Assuming that President Biden will have succeeded in getting a successor to Justice Stephen Breyer seated before the Court hears the case, we can expect a strongly worded 6–3 decision insisting on “color blindness” in admissions, full stop. Now there are no moderate conservatives on the Supreme Court. These have been close decisions, made on narrow grounds, usually with a moderate conservative Justice holding the balance of power. The message is clear: the Supreme Court wants to consider decisively departing from a long string of decisions that have permitted the use of race as a plus factor in admissions. The Supreme Court took the highly unusual measure of short-circuiting the next step, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit-instead bringing it directly to Washington and pairing it with the Harvard case. The second case, a suit against the University of North Carolina, was similarly unsuccessful in federal district court. ![]() It’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court took the case because it wanted to affirm the lower courts’ rulings. The first, a lawsuit against Harvard alleging that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, was unsuccessful in federal district court in Boston, and unsuccessful again in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Opponents of affirmative action in university admissions couldn’t possibly have had better news than the Supreme Court’s announcement, on Monday, that it will hear two cases organized by Edward Blum, the anti-affirmative-action crusader. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |