Contrary to popular reports, affirmative action is not dead. Diversity can *still* be a compelling interest to justify the use of race, and various race neutral options are available to further racial integration in higher ed.
See @Monthly article below.
https://t.co/Dgno9RDt97
@StewartMelissa0 Oh wow! I was such a huge fan! It would have been winning the lottery if I had a chance to meet him as a kid! So you’ve met him before?
The DH is definitely a tradition, just a relatively recent one.
The Court often conflates history with tradition, but they’re not the same. Something becoming a cultural practice recently is a tradition even if it isn’t deeply rooted in the past.
@espinsegall It’s definitely a tradition, it just started relatively recently.
The Court often conflates history with tradition, but they’re not the same. Something becoming a cultural practice fairly recently can still be a tradition even if it isn’t deeply rooted in the past.
⚖️🔥Just in: WLP attorneys filed a brief with SCOTUS on behalf of our brilliant colleague clients @dsc250 @RRebouche @GreerDonley
--> We believe it is the first brief urging the Court to overrule Dobbs https://t.co/xB70M5jHuL
@GreerDonley @WomensLawProj @dsc250 @RRebouche Hi Greer & @womenslawproj -you may find my article critiquing Dobbs useful. I argue the deeply rooted test must be rejected b/c it subverts the Constitution as a whole, by for ex, subverting federal supremacy and the 14th A’s restriction on state power.
https://t.co/1BG93GZMwr
@espinsegall I agree.
But I’m trying to make sense of it by thinking of an EP fundamental rights claim as making a DP rights claim against a law that targets a specific group.
So Eisenstadt banning contraceptive use by single persons as an EP claim for ex.
@GregsTakeOn@VoltaireLaFlare Answer is that law schools admit students of ALL races with lower LSAT scores if they have other strong credentials.
People incorrectly think that a certain LSAT score or GPA is automatic grounds for admissions. No law school admits students that way.
BREAKING: The House votes 352-65 to pass a bill that could ban TikTok in the U.S.
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate. President Biden has said he would sign it into law. https://t.co/7tm20pvbry
The Court’s opinion in Trump is flawed. Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power.
State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS the ultimate decider.
@magi_jay Not going to weigh in on this, but I just want to point you to the federal criminal statute on genocide which mirrors the definition under international law.
Am I missing something? Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power.
State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS, not states, the ultimate decider.