Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

I had seen different data which is perhaps why I feel differently about it.  For example, "a National Study of College Experience led by Espenshade and Radford (2009) showed that a student who self-identifies as Asian will need 140 SAT points higher than whites, 320 SAT points higher than Hispanics, and 450 SAT points higher than African Americans."

 

https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-admission#:~:text=To top the fear%2C a,points higher than African Americans.

 

 

I would have to look into why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers we are citing.  It could be that because Harvard is kind of the elite of the elite, the discrepancy is not as high for as say for elite institution that is not quite as elite.   It would also be interesting to see enrolled student data rather than just looking at admitted student data.  I say that simply because my instinct is that its a very competitive market for the top Black and Hispanic students and elite schools are probably sending out fee waivers and somewhat recruiting to them more so than for other top students.  For the 2020 SAT, I think 24% of Asians scored 1400 or higher on the SAT, 7% of whites obtained that score and 1 to 2% of Blacks and Hispanics obtained that score.  

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/01/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/

 

If I am wrong and race really isn't that big of a boost, then I don't have an issue with it being used in admissions.   My perception of reality is just very different.  I am not really conservative in that I am a Democrat, but I am probably am a lot more conservative than some posters in this thread and may get my information from different media outlets (my favorite news sources are Youtube shows like Breaking Points and The Rising for what is worth)..  I am not going to pretend like I am an expert on this topic so I may have overestimated the boost, but I still think its fairly substantial.

 

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691141602/no-longer-separate-not-yet-equal

 

"collected from more than nine thousand students who applied to one of ten selective colleges between the early 1980s and late 1990s."

 

1.  Not Harvard but 10 elite schools

 

2.  Based on data going back to the 1980s and 1990s.  Which just isn't relevant today based on changes on admission practices (partly due to Supreme Court decisions and partly just on a better understanding of how to achieve a more diverse student body).

 

So not relevant or correct.

 

And 9000 seems to be a pretty pretty small pool if you are looking at students over 20 years from 10 schools.  So I'd be curious where that pool came from and if it isn't biased and so were those numbers right even then.

 

I do agree there is a lot of competition for the high achieving African American students at elite institutions.  I'm not sure why we should consider that bad.  Generally, elite universities don't consider it their goal to get or put out the smartest people.  They want people that are going to make an impact.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Harvard doesn't have a clear formula by which it admits people.   The numbers I've seen is that based on best guess and current practices that if Harvard went to race blind admissions with no other changes, their African American numbers would decrease by just about half.  Currently African Americans are about 11% so from that to about 6%.  The Hispanic poll is smaller but would also drop by about 1/2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
samy316

samy316

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

 

It sucks, but NOTHING will happen.  Why would Alto, Thomas or any other conservative SC judge feel any pressure to stop what they're doing?  SC judges have lifetime appointments, so unless one or both dies suddenly, or grows a conscience really quickly, these stories will just anger the general public, but it will be all for naught.

 

I hate to say this, but we're in this predicament because of RBG.  If she had retired back during Obama's first term, we would be in a better position with a 5-4 SC, instead of 6-3.  I don't know how much Obama & his administration were urging her to retire, but they should've been all in on trying to get a younger SC justice to takeover for RBG.  Obama's administration had a 50+ seat majority in the Senate, so there would've been no issues in replacing RBG.  With Merrick Garland, that was more tricky, and Obama didn't have a solid vote count to appoint Garland.

Edited by samy316
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/transgender-americans-with-disabilities-case-supreme-court/index.html
 

so this transgender person is claiming gender dysphoria is a mental disability and falls under the ADA.
 

im confused. If we’re going to say this is a mental disability - fine. I have no issue with that. But it’s not a pick and choose. Either this is a mental disability or it’s not.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

What are the consequences of ignoring a SC order? Like if the SC says abortion is illegal and Newsome says "Nah, we're not doing that"...what would happen then? Maybe we should look into that...

It depends on what exactly the context is, but this has already happened. States refused to abide by the ruling in Brown and the federal government sent in troops/Marshall’s to enforce it. It’s a pretty significant and well documented part of desegregation….

 

there’s also been states that refused to comply and hence were fined every day they refused to comply. Washington state is one examples, they were fined 100k per day for 3 years. Best I can tell they never paid any of the fine. 
 

but generally SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism. Who does and what it is depends on the context as well as the parties involved and whether they have the political capital and will to enforce it. 
 

but there certainly can be, and have been, standoffs over it. 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

What are the consequences of ignoring a SC order? Like if the SC says abortion is illegal and Newsome says "Nah, we're not doing that"...what would happen then? Maybe we should look into that...


The SC can't declare abortion illegal. That requires legislation. 
 

(Which Washington will enthusiastically provide, the very instant that they can.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Larry said:


The SC can't declare abortion illegal. That requires legislation. 
 

(Which Washington will enthusiastically provide, the very instant that they can.)

 

Well, there is a debate about that.  It is possible that the SC could declare that the Bill of Rights/Constitution apply at the time of conception.  That a "person" is a "person" at the time of conception.  Then abortion is essentially illegal.  This thinking isn't really new.

 

e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20443281/

 

I think most people don't think that's valid.  The 14th amendment specifically says born.  But you get the right set of Justices sitting on the Supreme Court, and it won't matter what most think.

 

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal theory that would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set all sorts of rules for federal elections and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.

 

The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”

 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

 

The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. The doctrine is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

 

Proponents of the strongest form of the theory say this means that no other organs of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections.

 

The case, Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271, concerned a voting map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature that was initially rejected as a partisan gerrymander by the state’s Supreme Court. Experts said the map was likely to yield a congressional delegation made up of 10 Republicans and four Democrats.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Long n Left

Long n Left

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

 

As much as I’ve hated on the SC, they have surprised me with some of their rulings in a good way. I really thought all of this would be a bipartisan slaughter. But, some of them have shown decency here and there. 

 

FIFY

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

As much as I’ve hated on the SC, they have surprised me with some of their rulings in a good way. I really thought all of this would be a bipartisan slaughter. But, they have shown decency here and there. 

For as long as I’ve followed scotus this has been the case. 
 

every time someone sees a ruling they don’t like they declare it all rigged

 

but then they see one they do and suddenly the court isn’t rigged

 

i find it humorous watching it. It’s an endless loop. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

As much as I’ve hated on the SC, they have surprised me with some of their rulings in a good way. I really thought all of this would be a bipartisan slaughter. But, they have shown decency here and there. 

 

Suprised also. These things in a "normal" world would have easily been dismissed as ridiculous. Glad to see there is a line these people still have that they won't cross. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...