Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It’s been months since the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially landmark affirmative action case. So what’s holding up a decision by the justices?

The case of Fisher v. University of Texas is one of the most-prominent and controversial issues in front of eight (and not nine) justices this term. (Justice Elena Kagan is not involved in the Fisher decision, due to her prior position as solicitor general.)

The case was argued last October and it is the last one from that session that hasn’t seen a public ruling by the court.

Again, on Monday, the court didn’t announce a decision in the Fisher case.

There hasn’t been a lot of public speculation about the apparent delay in the Fisher decision, but it isn’t the only case on the court’s radar about affirmative action, after going years without a major ruling on the matter.

The court decided in late March 2013 to hear a second case, in its next term (which starts in October 2013) about an affirmative action suit in Michigan. Justice Kagan is also not involved in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Both cases involve similar issues. The speculation in late March was that ruling in the Texas case was imminent, since the justices agreed to take up the Michigan case in next term.

And two months’ later, the “imminent” decision in the Fisher case is still on hold, with a month left in the court’s current term.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston, writing for SCOUTUSblog, defined one big difference between the Texas and Michigan cases back in March.

“The Fisher case, while it does have fairly broad potential, focuses directly only on the specifics of an affirmative action plan at Texas’s flagship university in Austin, and so the ruling in that case might not go much beyond that plan,” he said.

What say You

mrklean wrote:It’s been months since the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially landmark affirmative action case. So what’s holding up a decision by the justices?

The case of Fisher v. University of Texas is one of the most-prominent and controversial issues in front of eight (and not nine) justices this term. (Justice Elena Kagan is not involved in the Fisher decision, due to her prior position as solicitor general.)

The case was argued last October and it is the last one from that session that hasn’t seen a public ruling by the court.

Again, on Monday, the court didn’t announce a decision in the Fisher case.

There hasn’t been a lot of public speculation about the apparent delay in the Fisher decision, but it isn’t the only case on the court’s radar about affirmative action, after going years without a major ruling on the matter.

The court decided in late March 2013 to hear a second case, in its next term (which starts in October 2013) about an affirmative action suit in Michigan. Justice Kagan is also not involved in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Both cases involve similar issues. The speculation in late March was that ruling in the Texas case was imminent, since the justices agreed to take up the Michigan case in next term.

And two months’ later, the “imminent” decision in the Fisher case is still on hold, with a month left in the court’s current term.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston, writing for SCOUTUSblog, defined one big difference between the Texas and Michigan cases back in March.

“The Fisher case, while it does have fairly broad potential, focuses directly only on the specifics of an affirmative action plan at Texas’s flagship university in Austin, and so the ruling in that case might not go much beyond that plan,” he said.

What say You

You need a history lesson. The USSC has a self imposed deadline of 1 June for all opinions. Then they justices have 14-15 days to review all the opinions and write their concurrence or dissents. They have already voted on each ruling and will present by the end of June. This isn't new.

Affirmative action is for weaklings.

To add to Ibanez' statement, the Affirmative Action case and the gay marriage case may be the last 2 cases released - likely end of June.

The decisions that have the biggest fanfare are usually released as the last opinions.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:It’s been months since the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially landmark affirmative action case. So what’s holding up a decision by the justices?

The case of Fisher v. University of Texas is one of the most-prominent and controversial issues in front of eight (and not nine) justices this term. (Justice Elena Kagan is not involved in the Fisher decision, due to her prior position as solicitor general.)

The case was argued last October and it is the last one from that session that hasn’t seen a public ruling by the court.

Again, on Monday, the court didn’t announce a decision in the Fisher case.

There hasn’t been a lot of public speculation about the apparent delay in the Fisher decision, but it isn’t the only case on the court’s radar about affirmative action, after going years without a major ruling on the matter.

The court decided in late March 2013 to hear a second case, in its next term (which starts in October 2013) about an affirmative action suit in Michigan. Justice Kagan is also not involved in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Both cases involve similar issues. The speculation in late March was that ruling in the Texas case was imminent, since the justices agreed to take up the Michigan case in next term.

And two months’ later, the “imminent” decision in the Fisher case is still on hold, with a month left in the court’s current term.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston, writing for SCOUTUSblog, defined one big difference between the Texas and Michigan cases back in March.

“The Fisher case, while it does have fairly broad potential, focuses directly only on the specifics of an affirmative action plan at Texas’s flagship university in Austin, and so the ruling in that case might not go much beyond that plan,” he said.

What say You

You need a history lesson. The USSC has a self imposed deadline of 1 June for all opinions. Then they justices have 14-15 days to review all the opinions and write their concurrence or dissents. They have already voted on each ruling and will present by the end of June. This isn't new.

Which way will the SC vote??

Looks like the opinion was released today. Affirmative Action continues to be legal. The lower courts in this case did not apply the "strict scrutiny standard" so the Supreme Court remanded the decision to those courts to determine whether UT has proven that its admission program is narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose of diversity or whether there are race neutral alternatives that would produce the educational benefits of diversity at the University of Texas. The burden to prove that it is narrowly tailored is on the University.

Kennedy delivered the Opinion with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joining. Ginsburg was the lone dissent and Kagan had to recuse herself.

tribe_pride wrote:Looks like the opinion was released today. Affirmative Action continues to be legal. The lower courts in this case did not apply the "strict scrutiny standard" so the Supreme Court remanded the decision to those courts to determine whether UT has proven that its admission program is narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose of diversity or whether there are race neutral alternatives that would produce the educational benefits of diversity at the University of Texas. The burden to prove that it is narrowly tailored is on the University.

Kennedy delivered the Opinion with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joining. Ginsburg was the lone dissent and Kagan had to recuse herself.

I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

mrklean wrote:

tribe_pride wrote:Looks like the opinion was released today. Affirmative Action continues to be legal. The lower courts in this case did not apply the "strict scrutiny standard" so the Supreme Court remanded the decision to those courts to determine whether UT has proven that its admission program is narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose of diversity or whether there are race neutral alternatives that would produce the educational benefits of diversity at the University of Texas. The burden to prove that it is narrowly tailored is on the University.

Kennedy delivered the Opinion with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joining. Ginsburg was the lone dissent and Kagan had to recuse herself.

I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Where did you give your opinion?

I am not surprised by the decision of the Court and if I had followed the case more closely (meaning had I read the lower courts opinions that they did not apply a strict scrutiny standard), I would have predicted that this would have been how the courts would have come down. Not sure why the lower courts did not apply that standard in the first place.

Once again, the ruling does not mean that UT has won the case. They need to have proven that it was necessary to achieve diversity.

mrklean wrote:

tribe_pride wrote:Looks like the opinion was released today. Affirmative Action continues to be legal. The lower courts in this case did not apply the "strict scrutiny standard" so the Supreme Court remanded the decision to those courts to determine whether UT has proven that its admission program is narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose of diversity or whether there are race neutral alternatives that would produce the educational benefits of diversity at the University of Texas. The burden to prove that it is narrowly tailored is on the University.

Kennedy delivered the Opinion with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joining. Ginsburg was the lone dissent and Kagan had to recuse herself.

I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Affirmative Action is not about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:
I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

It is because of the lack of opportunity and rejection of minorities by whites in the first place that AA is needed. There are still plenty of racists in position of power that make AA still necessary today. WE are getting better as a society, but not there yet.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

It is because of the lack of opportunity and rejection of minorities by whites in the first place that AA is needed. There are still plenty of racists in position of power that make AA still necessary today. WE are getting better as a society, but not there yet.

I know the history behind AA.

Why must anyone get extra consideration for admissions because of their race regardless of socioeconomic status? It's one thing to have anti-discrimination laws...it's another to basically set the bar lower on admissions for certain demographic groups.

Also, it's interesting that we hear from AA proponents that race is such a small consideration in admissions but at the same time it's absolutely vital for underrepresented minorities to gain admission. Which is it?

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:
I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

Pwns wrote:Why must anyone get extra consideration for admissions because of their race regardless of socioeconomic status? It's one thing to have anti-discrimination laws...it's another to basically set the bar lower on admissions for certain demographic groups.

Also, it's interesting that we hear from AA proponents that race is such a small consideration in admissions but at the same time it's absolutely vital for underrepresented minorities to gain admission. Which is it?

As far as getting into a school, They can have that. I don't think that its as big a problem. I'm more worried about AA when it comes to getting a job or promotion.

mrklean wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

Affirmative Action isn't about hiring the best person. I don't know where you learned that or if you are being a passive-aggressive racist and saying that the best people for any job is anyone but a white person. Once you understand that, then we can have an intelligent discussion on this.

mrklean wrote:

Pwns wrote:Why must anyone get extra consideration for admissions because of their race regardless of socioeconomic status? It's one thing to have anti-discrimination laws...it's another to basically set the bar lower on admissions for certain demographic groups.

Also, it's interesting that we hear from AA proponents that race is such a small consideration in admissions but at the same time it's absolutely vital for underrepresented minorities to gain admission. Which is it?

As far as getting into a school, They can have that. I don't think that its as big a problem. I'm more worried about AA when it comes to getting a job or promotion.

The USA that existed when AA was needed has drastically changed. We still have a ways to go but there are plenty of minorities that get promoted to manager, partner, VP and CEO levels of business. Many minorities own their own businesses, get elected to public office, get accepted to schools and do well on the merits of their character, education and experience. Hell, even a black man can become President in this country. Stop treating the USA like this is January 1866.

mrklean wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

If you are talking about me in your last line, you actually have no clue what I think about affirmative action based on my responses in this thread.

I just remembered that someone had posted a thread wondering when the Opinion would come down so I bumped it today since the Opinion was issued today along with the explanation of what the Court said. In my other post today, I just said that I wasn't surprised on the decision issued today based on Court precedent and explained the next steps.

mrklean wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

In your line of work its a wash, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

mrklean wrote:

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

In your line of work its a wash, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Was it white wash?

Spoiler: show

Sorry, with Klean, we know it isn't.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:

If we got away from Affirmative Action, do you think the BEST person would get hired??

I'm just waiting for his answer

Affirmative Action isn't about hiring the best person. I don't know where you learned that or if you are being a passive-aggressive racist and saying that the best people for any job is anyone but a white person. Once you understand that, then we can have an intelligent discussion on this.

Kleany seems to be confusing affirmative action with anti-discrimination. I will tell you this right now, I would and do hire the best person for the job. I don't care if they are male/female or what ethnicity they are. You would really be doing a disservice to yourself and your company you didn't. I know there are some racist assholes out there but even here in Utah people really do want to succeed and that means hiring the best person for the job.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Affirmative Action is about accepting the best person. It's about accepting the right amount of minorities to keep racists groups like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition off their backs.

It is because of the lack of opportunity and rejection of minorities by whites in the first place that AA is needed. There are still plenty of racists in position of power that make AA still necessary today. WE are getting better as a society, but not there yet.

So let's hire less qualified minorities and discriminate against more capable white candidates. That's perfect.

mrklean wrote:

tribe_pride wrote:Looks like the opinion was released today. Affirmative Action continues to be legal. The lower courts in this case did not apply the "strict scrutiny standard" so the Supreme Court remanded the decision to those courts to determine whether UT has proven that its admission program is narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose of diversity or whether there are race neutral alternatives that would produce the educational benefits of diversity at the University of Texas. The burden to prove that it is narrowly tailored is on the University.

Kennedy delivered the Opinion with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joining. Ginsburg was the lone dissent and Kagan had to recuse herself.

I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Affirmative action perpetuates racism. Plain and simple.

AZGrizFan wrote:

mrklean wrote:
I told you so. Too bad we have to have this because some azz holes can't or refuse to hire the best person.

Affirmative action perpetuates racism. Plain and simple.

Look in the mirror, Z. It's people like you, old white males, who perpetuate racism.

How many blacks do you have working for you?

How many times did you see a name like Shaniquay Jones on a resume and immediately toss it in the paper shredder?

Bullshit - (Preemptive retort to your inevitable lie about having a tons of minorities working for you. )

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Affirmative action perpetuates racism. Plain and simple.

Look in the mirror, Z. It's people like you, old white males, who perpetuate racism.

How many blacks do you have working for you?

How many times did you see a name like Shaniquay Jones on a resume and immediately toss it in the paper shredder?

Bullshit - (Preemptive retort to your inevitable lie about having a tons of minorities working for you. )

I know 3 guys named Jerome. They are all white. 2 of them applied for a job as Jerome and got turned down. They reapplied as Jerry and got an interview.

Interesting story, ain't it?

Am I reading this right? SCOTUS in a 7-1 decision punted it back to the 5th Circuit, saying the 5th had to determine whether or not UT's race-conscious admissions program met a very strict standard (that schools will presumably have a much tougher time meeting). If it doesn't, race based AA will no longer be allowed. So this means it will be back before the 5th Circuit next year, and possibly the Supreme Ct again in 2015?

So does it look like AA is on life support for maybe another couple of years, but prospects are slim for it surviving past that?