Affirmative Action Ruling
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:59 am
Do you guys think the SC will rule on Affirmative Action this year (given the situation with Justice Scalia)?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=260531
I think the Republicans are going to delay until the fall and then confirm in October. That way they get one messed up term to piss off Obama, but they get to look magnanimous and compromising right before the election.AlexanderJordan wrote:Is there any possibility of Obama appointing a new judge prior to the summer rulings?
Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that Kennedy will vote as he did the first time the case was heard.Applesauce11 wrote:I think the Republicans are going to delay until the fall and then confirm in October. That way they get one messed up term to piss off Obama, but they get to look magnanimous and compromising right before the election.AlexanderJordan wrote:Is there any possibility of Obama appointing a new judge prior to the summer rulings?
There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.lawschoolj1218 wrote:I'm thinking the liberal justices will try to find a way to stall or rehear the case because of the possibility of another liberal judge replacing Scalia. That, and the fact that this and the Texas abortion cases are such huge decisions.
Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.Emma. wrote:There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.lawschoolj1218 wrote:I'm thinking the liberal justices will try to find a way to stall or rehear the case because of the possibility of another liberal judge replacing Scalia. That, and the fact that this and the Texas abortion cases are such huge decisions.
Right. I'm saying there's little reason to hold the case over for a new appointment if that'd only get them to 4-4.Applesauce11 wrote:Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.Emma. wrote:There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.lawschoolj1218 wrote:I'm thinking the liberal justices will try to find a way to stall or rehear the case because of the possibility of another liberal judge replacing Scalia. That, and the fact that this and the Texas abortion cases are such huge decisions.
Sorry. I haven't been using reading comprehension since the LSATEmma. wrote:Right. I'm saying there's little reason to hold the case over for a new appointment if that'd only get them to 4-4.Applesauce11 wrote:Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.Emma. wrote:There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.lawschoolj1218 wrote:I'm thinking the liberal justices will try to find a way to stall or rehear the case because of the possibility of another liberal judge replacing Scalia. That, and the fact that this and the Texas abortion cases are such huge decisions.
Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?fliptrip wrote:Roberts has shown time and time again that he's very concerned about protecting the Court's image and its legacy. Is there any chance he's spooked by the idea of a major decision being made by a 77% full court and using his influence to kick the can down the road again? I do know that AA is one issue where Roberts himself is very clear--he hates it.
Indeed he was, but this is consistent for the CJ. He doesn't truck with what he sees as "racial preferences".Applesauce11 wrote:Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?fliptrip wrote:Roberts has shown time and time again that he's very concerned about protecting the Court's image and its legacy. Is there any chance he's spooked by the idea of a major decision being made by a 77% full court and using his influence to kick the can down the road again? I do know that AA is one issue where Roberts himself is very clear--he hates it.
Really? I mean, I think he's a decent writer- better at least than Alito or Thomas, but I don't get the same warm and fuzzy feeling from reading his opinions that I do when reading a good angry Scalia dissent.fliptrip wrote:Indeed he was, but this is consistent for the CJ. He doesn't truck with what he sees as "racial preferences".Applesauce11 wrote:Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?fliptrip wrote:Roberts has shown time and time again that he's very concerned about protecting the Court's image and its legacy. Is there any chance he's spooked by the idea of a major decision being made by a 77% full court and using his influence to kick the can down the road again? I do know that AA is one issue where Roberts himself is very clear--he hates it.
And since I'm here, I'd just like to let it be known that I consider Roberts a better writer than Scalia. Dude can turn a phrase.
I get what you're saying. I think he feels a responsibility to write like a Chief Justice and he does do it well. I don't think Scalia would get away with calling something "pure applesauce" if he was in Roberts' shoes.fliptrip wrote:I hear ya. I think it's a sign that I am a relatively boring person, honestly.
But this one, is a good one..."the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I guess I fall for his "God speaking on Sinai" authority and tone. But, again, I'm boring.
I mean, we don't know that it would be a definitive 4-4; But, to that sentiment, I was thinking they might not even want to take the risk.....4-4 gets it sent back to the appellate, doesn't it? Or reaffirms their decision? That's basically a win for the liberals.Emma. wrote:Right. I'm saying there's little reason to hold the case over for a new appointment if that'd only get them to 4-4.Applesauce11 wrote:Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.Emma. wrote:There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.lawschoolj1218 wrote:I'm thinking the liberal justices will try to find a way to stall or rehear the case because of the possibility of another liberal judge replacing Scalia. That, and the fact that this and the Texas abortion cases are such huge decisions.
Lol that one always gets me. "Ahhhh, of course!" I think to myself.fliptrip wrote:I hear ya. I think it's a sign that I am a relatively boring person, honestly.
But this one, is a good one..."the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I guess I fall for his "God speaking on Sinai" authority and tone. But, again, I'm boring.