SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[Shadowy Man]

Not one senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade", which was the real question whose answer they wanted to know. They did not ask because such a question would be impermissible. So instead they sought assurance from proxy questions.

And extremely few senators felt assured by their responses to these questions. Except Susan Collins who was either extremely naive or just being politically expedient.

Conservative Justices all learned from Bork not to answer with their real opinions. But it’s not clear their answers are convincing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not one senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade", which was the real question whose answer they wanted to know. They did not ask because such a question would be impermissible. So instead they sought assurance from proxy questions.

And extremely few senators felt assured by their responses to these questions. Except Susan Collins who was either extremely naive or just being politically expedient.

Conservative Justices all learned from Bork not to answer with their real opinions. But it’s not clear their answers are convincing.

Their answers were in fact not convincing. The way they answered them constituted something that someone could play dumb about.

The evasiveness was clear.

Personally, I would rather ask for a legal analysis of Roe, and a question of whether they concur or dissent on the questions of Roe as it was decided, and to do a writeup of this opinion and their legal reasoning behind it.

This is a reasonable thing to ask, and is on topic as to their understanding of constitutional law and it's interaction specifically with the matter of medical privacy.

It does not ask whether they would overturn Roe, but would instead isolate their legal opinion on the matters of this particular settled law.

Knowing in advance their position on these issues allows the senators to properly confirm the justice as one who aligns with their opinions on constitutional law with respect to a major question put to constitutional law.

I would offer as an obvious foil to the "know nothing/non-answer" "it's state decisis" that to say such will be interpreted as concurrence with the opinion, in the absence of offered dissent, and that to say it is "settled" would then be to exclude "wrongly" if not offered.

No senatory was either clever or determined enough to ask for this.

Then this whole thing also could have been avoided if they had rewound to that flash on his calendar where he actually had a party listed that roughly fit with the timeline of events that nobody questioned about further...

 

[Shadowy Man]

That sounds great but would it have made a difference? It’s not like any democrats voted for him (Manchin excepted).

It didn’t seem to matter that he was extremely rude in his hearing (e.g. answer to Klobuchar: “have you?”) and that should have disqualified him for not having the appropriate demeanor for a SC justice. It also didn’t seem to matter that he apparently lied about drinking while underage.

Maybe Susan Collins wouldn’t have voted for him but I think he still would have been confirmed.

 

[Elixir]

It didn’t seem to matter that he was extremely rude in his hearing (e.g. answer to Klobuchar: “have you?”) and that should have disqualified him for not having the appropriate demeanor for a SC justice.

Yup. The rudeness, the contempt for institutions - even those of which you are a part - is a defining attribute and major selling point of the dead red MAGAt political party. Best believe that the devastation will accelerate if people support Big Lie candidates on Tuesday.

 

[bilby]

Personality science is a thing.

What are the 16 Personality Types? By [Myer Briggs]

Yes indeed. In mainstream psychological research, there is a personality model called the Five Factor Model or the Big Five.

• Openness to Experience: ideas, esthetics
• Conscientiousness: diligence, orderliness, conventionality
• Extraversion: being outgoing and assertive
• Agreeableness: being considerate of others
• Neuroticism: emotional instability, tendency to experience negative emotions

I don't know why the MBTI has continued to be advocated for so long, and why the mainstream of the psychological community has not pushed the Big Five model as an alternative. I've found very little research into the MBTI, and much of it is comparing the MBTI to the Big Five.

• Free open-source BigFive personality traits test - Big Five
• Big Five Personality Test
• The Big Five Project - Personality Test
• Personality Test #1 Free and Scientifically Valid Big Five Personality Test
• Big Five Personality Test
• The Big 5 (OCEAN) Personality Test I Psych Central

 Big Five personality traits

For my part, I'm high in openness and conscientiousness, medium in agreeableness, and low in extraversion and neuroticism.

MBTI is astrology for people who think they're too smart for astrology.

 

[ZiprHead]

Conservative Justices all learned from Bork not to answer with their real opinions. But it’s not clear their answers are convincing.

Bork's problem was he was too honest in his opinions and scared the crap outta poeple.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Conservative Justices all learned from Bork not to answer with their real opinions. But it’s not clear their answers are convincing.

Bork's problem was he was too honest in his opinions and scared the crap outta poeple.

Nowadays he’d probably be fine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

Their behavior is clearly discriminatory, they're being smart about doing something I consider on the evil side.

Evil... When I think evil, I think Nazis, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, that asshole who cut me off. College admissions, even back in the days of not allowing blacks into their schools (like Harvard) not getting up there.

Evil comes in degrees. Harvard isn't in the same league as the Nazis but a lesser evil is still evil.

 

[Derec]

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

It's not a matter of who is smarter. It's a matter of values and ideology. Harvard admins believe it's ok to discriminate by race to achieve a racial mix they want. I believe that is not ok.

 

[Derec]

That you seem oblivious to the significance of that in America due to our history of centuries of discrimination and theft that only finally started being addressed in the 1960s, but certainly not well is an inadequacy you need to deal with.

Kids going into college now were born ~2004. That would make them four when Obama was elected. 1960s are so far behind them, even most of their parents were born after that decade.
At what point do you think the past should no longer be used to justify present day racial discrimination? Or do you think it should go on indefinitely?

Getting rid of AA will set African Americans back several more generations, just to catch up to now... and it'll be several more generations down the road. That is an effective caste system.

Nonsense. Sure, without racial preferences fewer will go to Harvard. But there are many US universities. Without racial preferences, they can still get a college education. But not necessarily at schools their merit does not justify them going.

Stats? There is more to a student than a GPA and SAT/ACT scores. Just as there is more to an athlete than a batting average.

Of course there is more. But race should not be one of the factors. Should MBL teams give a "plus" to those who come from races/ethnic groups who are "underrepresented in baseball" aka "URB"? Should those "overrepresented in baseball" get a "minus", lowering their chances?

 

[Derec]

The past term already proved that rationality, stare decisis and consistent legal reasoning are no barrier to the theocrats implementing their agenda, regardless of the societal outcomes. There is no point discussing the expected outcome because it is coming.

What's theocratic about this? And the societal outcome of ending racial preferences would be positive in my opinion.
Note, however, that SCOTUS justices should rule based on legality and constitutionality, not based on potential societal outcomes.

 

[Derec]

Strange. I did that same YouTube search and many white people came up along with black people. I suspect whomever compiled that YouTube list had somewhat of a... bias. And here you are spreading that... bias here.

Disproportionally many black people though.
And it is a well known fact that black and other URM students are heavily advantaged over white and Asian (aka ORM) students when it comes to med school admissions for example.

 

[Derec]

Sure. Donald Trump would have been a resounding success even if he had not inherited a large fortune from his parents. Same with Elon Musk.

I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth. Trump, probably not.
What does that have to do with giving preferences based on race?

 

[bilby]

I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth.

Why??

 

[Elixir]

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

It's not a matter of who is smarter. It's a matter of values and ideology. Harvard admins believe it's ok to discriminate by race to achieve a racial mix they want. I believe that is not ok.

Another good reason you're not in a position to influence such matters; you think you are as privy to and savvy about all the considerations that a major university weighs in making decisions about admissions, as the people administering Harvard Admissions.
HINT: You're NOT

I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth.

Why??

Hubris.
For all of us, it is comforting to fool ourselves into believing that we "could have been" the guy who invented electric cars, the guy who owns lots of golf courses or the guy dictating admissions criteria for Harvard. Acknowledging that the people who ACTUALLY do and have these things, got there through advantages you'll never enjoy, is disheartening - even depressing.
Prob'ly best to let people entertain those fantasies rather than force them to face unpleasant realities that might drive them to irrational and dangerous behaviors.

 

[Jarhyn]

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

It's not a matter of who is smarter. It's a matter of values and ideology. Harvard admins believe it's ok to discriminate by race to achieve a racial mix they want. I believe that is not ok.

Another good reason you're not in a position to influence such matters; you think you are as privy to and savvy about all the considerations that a major university weighs in making decisions about admissions, as the people administering Harvard Admissions.
HINT: You're NOT

I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth.

Why??

Hubris.
For all of us, it is comforting to fool ourselves into believing that we "could have been" the guy who invented electric cars, the guy who owns lots of golf courses or the guy dictating admissions criteria for Harvard. Acknowledging that the people who ACTUALLY do and have these things, got there through advantages you'll never enjoy, is disheartening - even depressing.
Prob'ly best to let people entertain those fantasies rather than force them to face unpleasant realities that might drive them to irrational and dangerous behaviors.

I honestly think that some folks on these forums would stand to be seated as such administrators.

I just think that the errors of hubris, and political games, and double standards, and obvious repeated attempts at spinning presentations with personal biases is the disqualifying factor here.

 

[Elixir]

I honestly think that some folks on these forums would stand to be seated as such administrators.

I agree.

 

[laughing dog]

The past term already proved that rationality, stare decisis and consistent legal reasoning are no barrier to the theocrats implementing their agenda, regardless of the societal outcomes. There is no point discussing the expected outcome because it is coming.

What's theocratic about this? And the societal outcome of ending racial preferences would be positive in my opinion.

These justices are imposing their theological preferences in a variety of cases.

Note, however, that SCOTUS justices should rule based on legality and constitutionality, not based on potential societal outcomes.

You should tell that to these justices, not me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Note, however, that SCOTUS justices should rule based on legality and constitutionality, not based on potential societal outcomes.

Sure, but legality and constitutionality are matters of opinion, so justices can use whatever logic they want to reach the outcome they prefer.

 

[Derec]

Sure, but legality and constitutionality are matters of opinion, so justices can use whatever logic they want to reach the outcome they prefer.

Too often they are, but that's a bug, not a feature of the system. For example, left-wing justices like Sotomayor ignore the obvious illegality of racial preferences because they happen to like it.
I do not see how anybody can read Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and come to the conclusion that it's ok to discriminate based on race.

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.