SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[Oleg]

Keeping talking of generational wealth doesn't make it so.

Generational wealth is an observable fact. Families pass assets. It is delusional to deny the existence of generational wealth.

Paul Krugman is a fan of Piketty's book and said he was quite surprised to learn — as Piketty demonstrated with much evidence — the large portion of income disparity that is attributable to inheritance.

True. The inheritence of cognitive ability is more important than money.

The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood - PubMed

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It has apparently never occurred to Ollie that if Harvard was to accept only those with the highest academic scores, there would be few Americans - and even fewer white Americans admitted. The ones that would make it would be legacy admission, so Ollie - unless, as I suspect, he’s a foreign National - would have a near zero chance.

The stated purpose of Affirmative Action is to help the disadvantaged. But it certainly doesn't do that. The non-Asians and non-Whites who benefit from it usually, if not always, come from well-off families. It is for the elite. That's why they'd never do it based on family income.

There you go. No way to argue against that proclamation. It so well proclaimed without any evidence to dissect.

 

[Oleg]

It has apparently never occurred to Ollie that if Harvard was to accept only those with the highest academic scores, there would be few Americans - and even fewer white Americans admitted. The ones that would make it would be legacy admission, so Ollie - unless, as I suspect, he’s a foreign National - would have a near zero chance.

The stated purpose of Affirmative Action is to help the disadvantaged. But it certainly doesn't do that. The non-Asians and non-Whites who benefit from it usually, if not always, come from well-off families. It is for the elite. That's why they'd never do it based on family income.

There you go. No way to argue against that proclamation. It so well proclaimed without any evidence to dissect.

Ahem.

But affirmative action is very often not targeted at individuals who, because of disadvantage, are achieving below their potential. Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/30/affirmative-action-supreme-court-college-admissions/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Keeping talking of generational wealth doesn't make it so.

Generational wealth is an observable fact. Families pass assets. It is delusional to deny the existence of generational wealth.

Paul Krugman is a fan of Piketty's book and said he was quite surprised to learn — as Piketty demonstrated with much evidence — the large portion of income disparity that is attributable to inheritance.

True. The inheritence of cognitive ability is more important than money.

The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood - PubMed

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Going back to eugenics now are we?

 

[Elixir]

The stated purpose of Affirmative Action is to help the disadvantaged. But it certainly doesn't do that.

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

The non-Asians and non-Whites who benefit from it usually, if not always, come from well-off families.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

It is for the elite. That's why they'd never do it based on family income.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

 

[Oleg]

Keeping talking of generational wealth doesn't make it so.

Generational wealth is an observable fact. Families pass assets. It is delusional to deny the existence of generational wealth.

Paul Krugman is a fan of Piketty's book and said he was quite surprised to learn — as Piketty demonstrated with much evidence — the large portion of income disparity that is attributable to inheritance.

True. The inheritence of cognitive ability is more important than money.

The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood - PubMed

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Going back to eugenics now are we?

Are you just denying science that conflicts with your religious beliefs? The heredity of intelligence and behavior is very well documented and replicated in psychology. Did you not know that adopted children take after their biological, not adoptive, parents? What would be your explanation for that?

 

[Oleg]

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

So the purpose of Affirmative Action is just to advance racial spoils? If it's purpose is not to assist the disadvantaged, then it really should be held unconstitutional.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

Asian and Whites with high scores are less likely than those with low scores to be accepted.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

Are you just denying that the non-Asian and Non-Whites who are accepted are mostly from high income families? Those kids in the innercity with the crime ridden schools; fuck 'em, right?

 

[Elixir]

Are you REALLY positing that a lower academic score makes you more likely to get into Harvard or Yale?

A certain Forrest Gump quote comes to mind.

 

[Oleg]

Are you REALLY positing that a lower academic score makes you more likely to get into Harvard or Yale?

Ah, no. Being non-Asian and non-White gives an incredible boost. Don't know how anyone could dispute that.

 

[Elixir]

One need not dispute the “incredibility” of the marginal advantages conferred upon NA and AA applicants. And why would anyone, when it’s so entertaining to watch RW bigots lose their shit over it?

 

[Oleg]

One need not dispute the “incredibility” of the marginal advantages conferred upon NA and AA applicants. And why would anyone, when it’s so entertaining to watch RW bigots lose their shit over it?

LOL. When the Supreme Court issues its opinions on these two cases, we'll see who looses their shit.

 

[Elixir]

When the Supreme Court issues its opinions on these two cases

Lol! Like we don’t already know how corrupt the Gini Thomas court is …
but the worst it can do in this instance is to force new rationale and methods to be instituted for the inevitable diversification of Ivy League universities.
This will be another case of the “you lost, get over it” morons losing and being unable to get over it. Like the 2020 election.

 

[Oleg]

When the Supreme Court issues its opinions on these two cases

Lol! Like we don’t already know how corrupt the Gini Thomas court is …

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt. That we've long known how the justices viewed these issues is irrelevant. Brilliant.

 

[Elixir]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

 

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

 

[laughing dog]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

So the purpose of Affirmative Action is just to advance racial spoils? If it's purpose is not to assist the disadvantaged, then it really should be held unconstitutional.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

Asian and Whites with high scores are less likely than those with low scores to be accepted.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

Are you just denying that the non-Asian and Non-Whites who are accepted are mostly from high income families? Those kids in the innercity with the crime ridden schools; fuck 'em, right?

I keep forgetting that the collegiate system in the United States is limited to Harvard, the only college or university in the United States of America.

 

[ZiprHead]

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

So the purpose of Affirmative Action is just to advance racial spoils? If it's purpose is not to assist the disadvantaged, then it really should be held unconstitutional.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

Asian and Whites with high scores are less likely than those with low scores to be accepted.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

Are you just denying that the non-Asian and Non-Whites who are accepted are mostly from high income families? Those kids in the innercity with the crime ridden schools; fuck 'em, right?

Why are you taking the word of the plaintiffs in this case instead of using independant research? The plaintiffs are willing to skew anything they can to win their case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'.

Actually, it does. It indicates that something of significance has to change in order to consider the law no longer a precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

You have proven you have no idea what you are talking about. It literally means to leave stand as decided!

 

[ZiprHead]

When the Supreme Court issues its opinions on these two cases

Lol! Like we don’t already know how corrupt the Gini Thomas court is …

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt. That we've long known how the justices viewed these issues is irrelevant. Brilliant.

Four of them lied their asses off to get onto the court. Five if you include thomas.