I'm not famaliar with teh specifics of this case so I haven't formed an opinion on how I think the court will rule in this one.
On Affirmative Action as a whole.. I think it will be coming to an end in the not so distant future. I understand the reasons it was put in place and that there was a need but. like so many other things, people got carried away in the implementation and took things much farther than the original intent. AA became a method used to achieve other social agendas by various groups (both pro and con) and has been overtaken by "political corretness".
If the premise is that all people are created equeal and that all have a right to be treated/considered equeally then any program that elevates any one group above another is in direct opposition to end end objective. I'd guess that within teh next 20 years teh general concensus will be that 2 wrongs don't make a right and AA, as a general rule, will be a thing of the past.
I'm not sure this is an unbiased SCOTUS to hear this case. I feel there are at least 5 wolves liking their lips!
The court that put it into place wasn't exactly unbiased either...
The convincing arguments I see are the ones that says if preferences can be handed out of traits such as music, atheletics, how much money or power daddy/mommy has, priot generations at this school, etc. then, these candidates are unfair to the general population also.
The AA theory is that there is payback for the losses over the last 177+ number years and segregation tactics.
Now for this thread, if we are talking fairness - then this court is the more (I will put in a weight factor for so many judge me harshly for my absolutes where I mean none) biased. However, if we are talking where things will go for the next 15-25, the country will move towards more for the white, upper class, male (may be able to take this category away) and more segregation for the minorities. It will be a do for your own kind society, I'm afraid.
I would like to add that this court sometimes makes decisions that totally astounds me, I think it is an attempt to say, "see, we are compassionate-here's a carrot".
But, in the next few years, wow-do watch out. In 15 years we may have a National Religion and a King.
I see completely wiping out Affirmative Action as a tool as another case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like so many programs started to help citizens better themselves this one was begun with the highest of motives. But, just like virtually every other such program, it was instigated then not tinkered with to ensure it was working well. Result: inequities giving ammunition to those with agendas for its destruction.
The Court has decided to hear these cases, as i understood a radio news report, in advance of decisions by lower federal courts--an unusual move to say the least. Given the conservative activism of this court, i don't take this as a good sign. I think it highly unlikely that most universities are turning anyone away at the undergraduate level, they need the money too badly. Graduate admissions, most specifically in schools of law and of medicine are the cases usually at issue. These are bastions of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, and, as such, should be the last to be "unburdened" of the Affirmative Action initiatives. I don't disagree that this has been carried too far in many cases--but the courts are the remedy, and i'm not at all convinced that the Supremes need to visit this topic. I strongly suspect the motives of Rhenquist and company in taking this up in so highly unusual a manner.
On a side note, i cracked up when i saw SCOTUS, although i quickly figured out the acronym. A religious scholar, then of no small repute, in the late 13th Century, was John Duns Scotus. His theological teachings, were however, the subject of scorn at the University of Paris, which was the scholarly center of Europe in the 14th century. The scorn eventually spread back to England, where the adherents to his teachings were known as "Dunsists." The word eventually evolved into dunce. Given my very biased opinion of this batch of Supremes, i had a good laugh.
To bring life back to a subject that has now been decided a second time. Interesting to see comments in 2002.
Is this the same methodology that SCOTUS is using with the Voting Rights Act, threaten it now so they can eliminate it in the future?