Re:Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions...
by vageli on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @07:27PM
(#21132004)
> > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent.
> Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem.
> The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."
Are new Roe v Wade like cases being heard by the court? There's a chilling effect to people bringing these cases to consider.
Re:Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions...
by mlevental on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @08:22AM
(#21135601)
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/fede...
I'm sure you're aware that like 10 other states have similar cases working their way through the court system
Re:Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions...
by vageli on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @11:34AM
(#21137568)
Ah, I was aware of a couple of suits in states. None yet heard by the Supreme Court, though (or slated for hearing). I wonder if the court would even hear arguments on what they consider to be settled case law.
Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem.
The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."