Kenneth, Fisher neither won nor lost, the case is remanded back to the district court where that court must examine the case under strict scrutiny:
The government MUST show a compelling reason that it provides a benefit to one citizen over another citizen -- that is the same basis used to fight DOMA and anti-same-sex marriage. And government SHOULD have to explain why one citizens gets a benefit denied another.
In the Fisher case, the Court made it very clear that Fisher failed to argue whether UT's policy survives strict scrutiny -- and that is going to be a challenge: there is no alternate concept to achieve the goals of AA except AA; Fisher must show that there are other means to AA's goals. If Fisher cannot demonstrate a successful alt plan to achieve AA goals, then the policy stands; if Fisher can show an alt policy, then that policy moves everyone forward.
@Mike: Yeah, I wasn't saying it had been decided one way or the other. I was saying the entire case is bullshit. (I believe it wasn't even her idea, some rightwing nuts recruited her to play the victim.)
I think it's a bit of a stretch -- if not a complete insult to an entire race of people -- to compare DOMA (the deliberate discrimination AGAINST a class of people for no reason) to Affirmative Action (the PROPPING UP one a group of people to right the wrongs of government-institutionalized discrimination), don't you think?!
Kenneth, Fisher neither won nor lost, the case is remanded back to the district court where that court must examine the case under strict scrutiny:
ReplyDeleteThe government MUST show a compelling reason that it provides a benefit to one citizen over another citizen -- that is the same basis used to fight DOMA and anti-same-sex marriage. And government SHOULD have to explain why one citizens gets a benefit denied another.
In the Fisher case, the Court made it very clear that Fisher failed to argue whether UT's policy survives strict scrutiny -- and that is going to be a challenge: there is no alternate concept to achieve the goals of AA except AA; Fisher must show that there are other means to AA's goals. If Fisher cannot demonstrate a successful alt plan to achieve AA goals, then the policy stands; if Fisher can show an alt policy, then that policy moves everyone forward.
@Mike: Yeah, I wasn't saying it had been decided one way or the other. I was saying the entire case is bullshit. (I believe it wasn't even her idea, some rightwing nuts recruited her to play the victim.)
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit of a stretch -- if not a complete insult to an entire race of people -- to compare DOMA (the deliberate discrimination AGAINST a class of people for no reason) to Affirmative Action (the PROPPING UP one a group of people to right the wrongs of government-institutionalized discrimination), don't you think?!