Top Law Schools

Do you guys think the SC will rule on Affirmative Action this year (given the situation with Justice Scalia)?

Kagan is recused from Fisher. Because there's no chance of a 4-4 split, it seems unlikely they'd hold it over.

You don't think they'd hold it over until they announce a new judge or have the case re-argued? It's a 7 judge court in this case, I just feel like they may not want to make the decision with less than 8.

Is there any possibility of Obama appointing a new judge prior to the summer rulings?

AlexanderJordan wrote:Is there any possibility of Obama appointing a new judge prior to the summer rulings?

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.

Applesauce11 wrote:

AlexanderJordan wrote:Is there any possibility of Obama appointing a new judge prior to the summer rulings?

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.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that Kennedy will vote as he did the first time the case was heard.

The collateral impact that affirmative action has on Asians is unacceptable, and there must be some safeguarding measure implemented. I know that soft "non-number" factors originate with the Ivy Leagues trying to ensure that their campuses did not have "too many Jews" and in the words of Yale, "immoral Russian Jew boys" during the 1930's. While unfair, a Jewish quota is less unfair than an Asian quota, because Asian-American is applied to all applicants of Asian descent when only certain subgroups of Asian-Americans test disproportionately high. The result of all this is that Vietnamese and other more recent subgroups of Asian-American immigrants are uniquely stunted, and all but legally prohibited from trying to climb the social ladder.

Well this thread was good while it lasted, until jrass showed up.

..

Being completely off-topic has some serious consequences...seriously, dude just went totally off the rails with that one.

..

I predict 4-3 ruling striking down the Texas plan but not making any broad pronouncement about the invalidity of affirmative action nationwide.

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.

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.

There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.

Emma. wrote:

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.

There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.

Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.

Applesauce11 wrote:

Emma. wrote:

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.

There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.

Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.

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.

Emma. wrote:

Applesauce11 wrote:

Emma. wrote:

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.

There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.

Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.

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.

Sorry. I haven't been using reading comprehension since the LSAT

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.

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.

Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?

Applesauce11 wrote:

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.

Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?

Indeed he was, but this is consistent for the CJ. He doesn't truck with what he sees as "racial preferences".

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.

fliptrip wrote:

Applesauce11 wrote:

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.

Wasn't he the one who wrote the decision gutting the Voting Rights act, though?

Indeed he was, but this is consistent for the CJ. He doesn't truck with what he sees as "racial preferences".

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Emma. wrote:

Applesauce11 wrote:

Emma. wrote:

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.

There's no real basis to hold it over if they're just going to get to 4-4.

Kagan had to recuse herself; so the ruling would be 4-3.

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.

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.

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.

Lol that one always gets me. "Ahhhh, of course!" I think to myself.