Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Gr8bawana said:
I'm glad the seat has been vacated.

Justice Scalia Should Resign Seat On Supreme Court After Blatant Racist Comments In Court!
December 14, 2015 by Mark
The ignorance of the conservative movement is on full display. We hear about how much they “love” the Constitution, yet they are very willing to throw out that document anytime it gets in their way. They love to talk about “religious liberty” yet they want to shut down the Mosques in our country.

They love to talk about their “immigrant” upbringing, yet they want to deny immigration to every group except European Christians. Yes, their ignorance is on full display. Only problem is that their ignorance is based in racism.

That was made evident by a Supreme Court Justice just last week. Here is a little background on this issue. What has been described as a mediocre student in the State of Texas is suing the University of Texas because she couldn’t get into the university of her dreams.

But, in full fashion, she isn’t claiming that her grades kept her out of the University of Texas, no, she is claiming that Affirmative Action is keeping her out of the university.

The University of Texas has an admission policy that automatically accepts the top 10% of Texas High School Students. It will then use other factors in helping to determine who gets in. Yes, one of those factors is race. That is the point of contention in this case.

It went before the Supreme Court last week, and things got interesting at the very least. One of the Justices who really hates Affirmative Action pointed out his “concerns” during opening arguments.

Justice Scalia said:

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they do well.”

He cited a brief that, he said, “pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools” where they do not feel they’re being pushed in classes “that are too fast for them.”

He then made things even worse. Scalia also said he questioned the premise that the university “should admit as many blacks as possible…. Maybe it ought to have fewer.”

That “brief” Scalia is citing may have been the so-called mismatch theory, which contends some minority students are harmed if they are admitted to a college or law school when their test scores are considerably below their classmates. But even proponents of this theory, which remains highly controversial and much disputed, do not argue that black students in general do not do well at top universities.

Several Civil Rights lawyers were there to hear the arguments. They sat in stunned silence during Scalia’s remarks.m to make this statement.
Click to expand...

Hopefully he was just being a devil's advocate. Wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean? :D He's smart like Ted Cruz, always leaving an out, like "Well, I was just relaying an argument that has been made by others." :rolleyes: His marriage to the Constitution was one of convenience and it was conditional. But, as many a judge has said, "The Record speaks for itself."
 
This election just got so much more important.

Do not think Obama can slam a candidate thru this year. Cannot believe that Hiliary could make a selection. That would be a disaster!

I am scared!
 
bobbydean said:
This election just got so much more important.

Do not think Obama can slam a candidate thru this year. Cannot believe that Hiliary could make a selection. That would be a disaster!

I am scared!
Click to expand...

I was looking at a potential timeline last night. Longest time for confirmations has generally been less than 100 days.

This will get ugly.
 
Don't forget 3 more Justice's want to retire but are waiting till after the 2016 election to see which way it goes.
 
I think it's funny that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN say they are protected by the 1st amendment but will not support the 2nd and barack HUSSEIN obama said it's his Constitutional duty to elect a new Justice when he won't even cold.
 
All sorts of implications gentlemen. There are presently some serious appeals before the court that stalling could be sent send back to the lower courts' ruling, for instance, unless the court decides to rehear when their roster is complete. Also, the senate, while stifling selection will energize the liberal base for the prez election ....or vice versa.

Obama is licking his chops for a Sotomayor 2.0 and Hillary would follow with 3.0 and 4.0 (or 5) during her term/terms...

A moderate would be the best for the country but policy advancement is King Hussein's and his useful idiots only purview.

Increase the blue map with free shit and guarantee legislation from the bench...rosy picture.

Elections matter.
 
James Riley said:
Hopefully he was just being a devil's advocate. Wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean? :D He's smart like Ted Cruz, always leaving an out, like "Well, I was just relaying an argument that has been made by others." :rolleyes: His marriage to the Constitution was one of convenience and it was conditional. But, as many a judge has said, "The Record speaks for itself."
Click to expand...

He was asking a question about evidence provided in the case, the context of which was never provided in news articles that said "OMG, look at the racist thing he said!!!". There was evidence provided showing that students admitted under affirmative action got lower grades and failed out at higher rates. He was asking about that.

It's a fairly easy example to see. Say a state has (highest to lowest) Schools A, B, and C. A student is academically qualified for C, but gets into B with extra points for race, athletic ability, or family connections. The rest of the students are academically qualified for that school, so they set the pace of the class and the curve on the exams. The scholarship player or affirmative action student struggles to keep up, gets discouraged, and drops out.

This exact scenario happened to a cousin (family connections to a private school) and friend (state champion wrestler on scholarship to a big school), who both struggled, dropped out, and did well at other schools more at their level of academic ability. So maybe don't slur a man as a racist without knowing anything about the case.
 
dwm4375 said:
He was asking a question about evidence provided in the case, the context of which was never provided in news articles that said "OMG, look at the racist thing he said!!!". There was evidence provided showing that students admitted under affirmative action got lower grades and failed out at higher rates. He was asking about that.

It's a fairly easy example to see. Say a state has (highest to lowest) Schools A, B, and C. A student is academically qualified for C, but gets into B with extra points for race, athletic ability, or family connections. The rest of the students are academically qualified for that school, so they set the pace of the class and the curve on the exams. The scholarship player or affirmative action student struggles to keep up, gets discouraged, and drops out.

This exact scenario happened to a cousin (family connections to a private school) and friend (state champion wrestler on scholarship to a big school), who both struggled, dropped out, and did well at other schools more at their level of academic ability. So maybe don't slur a man as a racist without knowing anything about the case.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this but I think that is exactly the situation that affirmative action (and integration) was designed to address. Regardless, it is the method society chose to utilize in an effort to address inequality, and unless the "results" that Scalia mentioned are themselves un-Constitutional, he had no business yacking his flaps about them.

Restated: The impact it has on a white kid who was denied *may* be fodder for his speculation, but the fact a black kid might fail after being let in, is not. It is the Plaintiff's case, not a request for a critique on failure to address a problem. If he's going down that road then he can offer a solution, which he does not. And, as a justice and originalist, cannot. That is why people think he sounds like a racist bigot. He should limit his speculation to the merits of the case at hand and the argument of the white chick who was cut out of school and whether that was Constitutional.

Here's an example: Joe sues because X law, designed to prevent mass shootings, infringes upon his right to keep and bear arms. Scalia's purview should be limited to whether X infringes upon Joe's right to keep and bear arms. Scalia should not speculate about whether X prevent's mass shootings. If he goes down that road, it's incumbent upon him to figure out how to prevent mass shootings. And, like the courts that worked on bussing/integration, that would fly in the face of his own judicial philosophy of sticking to the law.
 
Last edited:
The results of a policy actually do come into play when considering it's constitutionality. Courts weigh the intended effect of a policy against the right being infringed. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law (which affirmative action is, by definition, not), and the justices were applying "strict scrutiny" to the U of Texas policy of affirmative action. That means the a policy must meet a compelling governmental interest (eliminating racial inequality was the stated purpose), be narrowly tailored, and use the least restrictive means available in order to be allowed to otherwise infringe a constitutional right (equal protection of the law).

Justice Scalia was questioning the UofT whether a policy of giving all black students preference in admission over equally qualified white students was narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available to discriminate to meet the compelling governmental interest. Given the evidence of worsening academic results for the intended beneficiaries, you can argue a more narrowly tailored approach like a preparatory program for economically disadvantaged students (black and white) would allow the state to meet it's compelling interest (racial equality) without violating the 14th Amendment.

The point being, it was a complicated case and a sound bite without context does not in any way prove Justice Scalia a racist.
 
Last edited:
dwm4375 said:
The results of a policy actually do come into play when considering it's constitutionality. Courts weigh the intended effect of a policy against the right being infringed. The 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination (which affirmative action is), and the justices were applying "strict scrutiny" to the U of Texas policy of affirmative action. That means the the policy must meet a compelling governmental interest (eliminating racial inequality was the stated purpose), be narrowly tailored, and use the least restrictive means available.

Justice Scalia was questioning the UofT whether a policy of giving all black students preference in admission over equally qualified white students was narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available to discriminate to meet the compelling governmental interest. Given the evidence of worsening academic results for the intended beneficiaries, you can argue a more narrowly tailored approach like a preparatory program for economically disadvantaged students (black and white) would allow the state to meet it's compelling interest (racial equality) without violating the 14th Amendment.

The point being, it was a complicated case and a sound bite without context does not in any way prove Justice Scalia a racist.
Click to expand...

My point was, the application of standard and scope is restrictive or expansive, depending upon the individual Justice's personal preference. When one hangs his hat on the restrictive peg, his motives are suspect when he starts getting expansive. Could he have reached his ultimate conclusion, whatever that was, without judicial engineering of alternatives, like prep courses, or whatever? Or without pointing out how the law has failed in the case of some blacks who were in over their heads? A discussion of how narrowly tailored a law could have been does not hinge on how it has failed, in some cases, to accomplish it's goals. Taking the restrictive approach, you merely say: "It violated the Plaintiff's rights thus: . . ."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Desk Pop
Hawaii Supreme Court 2A Ruling
Replies
10
Views
701
HONEYBADGER
H
B
Bianchi v Brown (Frosh) Fourth Circuit AWB Case, SCOTUS Appeal Filed
Replies
1
Views
219
bucdoego
B
belshawelk
Oregon gets something correct
Replies
6
Views
673
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
EKYHunter
  • Locked
Supreme Court Decision
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
5K
Big Fin
Big Fin
Dave N
Going to be a lot of boating accidents!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
howl
H
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,384
Messages
1,956,864
Members
35,154
Latest member
Rifleman270

Share this page

Back
Top