Eight months after attorneys for Abigail Fisher argued in front of the Supreme Court that the University of Texas' affirmative action admissions policy discriminates against white students, the justices still have not handed down their decision in the potentially paradigm-shifting case.
The unusual delay has many court-watchers stumped, though as with everything Supreme Court-related, all explanations for the wait are, at best, educated guesswork.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
*************************************************************************
Winkler said he believes the court will rule broadly against the University of Texas in a way that will outlaw affirmative action programs nationwide. He thinks that instead of ruling narrowly against this particular school, the court will overturn its own 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision that said affirmative action is allowable as long as it's not a quota system as a way to ensure schools have a diverse student body. In that decision, the court ruled that eventually, in 25 years, the use of race would again becoming legally suspect, but that until then it's needed to correct societal discrimination.Winkler guesses the decision is taking so long because the liberal justices are writing lengthy dissents to the conservative judges' sweeping decision.*SNIP* "I think the more likely explanation is simply that dealing with tough issues requires a lot of thought and care," said Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego.
Why is 'affirmative action' a legislative relic if there ever was one, a vestigial, anachronistic remnant whose time has come and gone still being utilized in a manner which wreaks havoc with people's lives, having earned their coveted place in society by being the best and the brightest only to have it usurped by those who misguidedly believe they have the right to interfere, create priorities based on racial criteria over that of merit and ability?
The left-wing, liberal holier-than-thou attitude at implementing racial quotas is wrong as it is immoral,patently unfair.
That in 2013, we still employ the archaic, illegal approach in deciding who in society will attain achievement and success by the people's very own criteria that affirmative action so egregiously intrudes upon is unfair to all, everyone.
Why is 'affirmative action' a legislative relic if there ever was one, a vestigial, anachronistic remnant whose time has come and gone still being utilized in a manner which wreaks havoc with people's lives, having earned their coveted place in society by being the best and the brightest only to have it usurped by those who misguidedly believe they have the right to interfere, create priorities based on racial criteria over that of merit and ability?
The left-wing, liberal holier-than-thou attitude at implementing racial quotas is wrong as it is immoral,patently unfair.
That in 2013, we still employ the archaic, illegal approach in deciding who in society will attain achievement and success by the people's very own criteria that affirmative action so egregiously intrudes upon is unfair to all, everyone.
