Thread by @RewireNewsGroup

*taps mic*

Oh hello. It's @AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting the beginning of the end of affirmative action.

What am I looking for?

Clarence Thomas, a beneficiary of affirmative action himself, talking about a color blind Constitution.

Alito being a small angry man.

At least Scalia won't be on the bench talking about how maybe Black people should be satisfied with "lesser schools."

That's what he said in the Fisher case. Remember Becky with the Bad Grades?
x

This case is one of the cases this term that promotes white dominance and supremacy.

Winnowing down the number of Black and brown kids in private and public institutions is the point.

Making it so Black and brown people have no upward mobility is the point.

Let's do this.

We start off with the UNC case. Justice Jackson is able to participate in the UNC case. She has recused herself from hearing the Harvard case.

The biggest lie we've heard so far from Students for Fair Admission—the dark money backed group headed up by Edward Blum— is that one of the frigging RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS was race neutral.

Yeah ok.

Sotomayor is disagreeing with SFFA that race doesn't correlate with experience.

She says sometimes race correlates with some experience. If you're Black you're more likely to be at an under resourced school. Ore likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.

SFFA: Racial classifications have always been disfavored.

This is a lie. The Reconstruction Amendments WERE NOT RACE NEUTRAL.

Sotomayor is not having it and giving a history lesson on the Freedmen's Bureau and the efforts to integrate Black students into schools.

Thankful that Justice Jackson can participate in at least ONE of these arguments. She's participating in the UNC case but has recused herself from the Harvard case.

The issue here is a 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger and whether it should be overruled. Grutter said that race can be considered a factor if there are no race neutral alternatives.

Roberts is asking about race neutral alternatives like socioeconomic status.

Sotomayor: Race is never a determinative factor. That was found by the district court. Court said you couldn't prove that race was a determinative factor.

SFFA: No they didn't.

Sotomayor: Yes they did.

Jackson: How exactly does UNC's system work in terms of the use of race. So what is the injury?

As @Hegemommy just messaged me: "shorter KBJ: white feelings are not redressable."

LOL.

Jackson is hammering home that SFFA doesn't have standing because there's no injury.

YOU'RE ASKING US FOR A SPECIAL STANDING RULE.

How can you challenge the use of race as a factor without explaining how it's factoring in and how that harms SFFA's members? Where's the harm?

SFFA tried to argue standing based on Grutter and Jackson was like,

My guy, you want us to overrule Grutter are you going to sit in here and argue that Grutter is the basis for SFFA's standing?

I'm noticing that Strawbridge, the white guy arguing that these schools discriminate against Asians keeps mentioning white people as being harmed first.

"White students don't get an extra point for race.

Uh... oh yeah and neither do Asians."

(not an exact quote.)

What's shocking is that SFFA is flat out lying about what the lower court found and using the Supreme Court as a trial court in this case and the Harvard case.

They are relitigating facts. SCOTUS justices are not fact finders.

But the Fed Soc 6 don't care so here we are.

Jackson: How is race being used in this process. You keep saying we object to the use of race standing alone, but as I read the record, t's never standing alone. It's in the context of all the other FORTY factors.
You haven't shown one situation where all they look at is race.

SFFA: But those other factors aren't unconstitutional/

Jackson: But race has to be used. Is there a constitutional violation if a student volunteers their race but that never comes into play during the admissions process?

Jackson cont'd: You're saying applicants have to mask their identities.

honestly.

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1587089018638024705

They want university admissions to be like blind auditions for an orchestra where you audition behind a screen.

But there's no way that's possible. An applicant's race can be discerned by their name ffs.

For example, IMANI GANDY is not a white person. lol

Jackson is arguing that SFFA is advocating that applicants be stripped of their identities before being considered which is just asinine.

Sotomayor wants to know how much of a decline in enrollment for Black and brown students will result.

And then says she doesn't think SFFA even cares about that. It doesn't matter if minority enrollment falls through the floor.

SFFA: If that's the result, then that's too bad.

Sotomayor You say it just doesn't matter if our institutions don't reflect America.

Doesn't it? These are the pipelines to leadership on our society. military, business, law. If universities aren't racially diverse, then all of those institutions won't be diverse either.

Sotomayor cont'd: I thought part of what it meant to be an American is that our institutions are reflective of who were are as a people.

SFFA: Yes but merit and value as a person is not correlated with skin color.

MIGHTY WHITE OF YOU.

Sotomayor: If it doesn't matter that our institutions don't reflect America, they're spending a lot of money and anxiety doing something that doesn't matter.

womp womp.

SFFA views admissions as a zero sum game.

Basically, every time a Black person gets into college, a white angel doesn't get into that college and also loses its wings.

(The prior three tweets weren't Sotomayor. They were Kagan. I swear those women sound very much the same!

Kagan was discussing how universities are the pipeline o leadership. It was such a Sotomayor line of questioning I blacked out.

My apologies for the error!)

Wow. Kavanaugh asked if descendants of slaves should get a plus when it comes to admissions and SFFA's attorney said no.

Kav then asked if students of immigrants should get a plus and SFFA's attorney said yes.

THE ANTI BLACKNESS JUMPED OUT

Kav is claiming that Grutter had a 25 year limit for affirmative action. WRONG.

O'Connor said basically she thought 25 years might be enough.

IT WASN'T A TIME LIMIT.

and clearly it was not enough time.

But Kavanaugh wants a time limit. "When can we kick the blacks out of school."

Justice Kegstand also wants to know whether or not affirmative action can be implemented as a matter of religious freedom under RFRA which is an interesting question that doesn't bode well.

Attorney for UNC is up to talk about diversity as a compelling interest.

Thomas asks for a definition of diversity and what its benefits are.

"I don't know what diversity means. I'm just a caveman lawyer. I don't understand your diversity your equity or your inclusion."

Alito is being extraordinarily obnoxious. He's mad that schools even ask applicants for their race.

He wants to know when race counts and is basically advocating for a one drop rule for admissions.

Jackson is fed up:

Is there a risk of treating people differently by NOT allowing people to talk about their racial and ethnic identity.

Isn't that an equal protection issue?

She is concerned that BIPOC people's identities will be devalued.

Jackson's point is sensible.

If Chad McWhiteman writes an essay about how he made friends with his pool cleaner and that opened his eyes to classism—

but Johnny Blackdude can't talk about how he's descended from slaves in North Carolina, then Chad has an unfair advantage.

We are on hour 2 of args in the UNC case.

FUN FACT: SCOTUS granted cert in this case before judgment. That means the 4th Cir. didn't weigh in.

They just... skipped appellate review.

That's a rare thing but par for this Court which is running on vibes, hubris, and boxed wine.

this is literally the worst.

Thomas still pretending not to understand what educational benefits diversity provides because he went to Yale and everyone was mean and he doesn't like affirmative action because it makes him feel inferior. WAAAAAH.

https://twitter.com/RewireNewsGroup/status/1587098545458671617?s=20&t=5Nz2xu4NRMWp3DN-nz4vEw

Solicitor General Prelogar is arguing that gutting race based affirmative actions at service academies is going to impact ROTC and make the military whiter.

The individuals who are entering colleges today are the closed universe of individuals eligible for leadership in the military.

Sotomayor: If we overrule Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher, diversity admissions programs will have to be reformulated, right?

Prelogar: Yup.

Sotomayor: We're reducing diversity. We're doing all this because race is one factor of among many that is never solely determinative. Seems like a lot to ask.

Schools came up with diversity rationales for aff action after quotas were struck down.

Schools will have to achieve the same goals without taking race into account when this Court strikes down affirmative action but they WILL find a way and white folks will still complain.

Kagan: What would a committed originalist think about the kind of race consciousness at issue here.

KAGAN OFF THE TOP ROPE.

Prelogar: An originalist would say that it is consistent with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Prelogar cont'd: At time of 14th amendment's passage, there were federal and state laws that took race into account for purposes of trying to bring Black people to a point of equality in our society. There's nothing in history to support Petitioner's color-blind bs.

KABLAM

ATTENTION LAW NERDS:

Is your head spinning? Never fear!

At 1 PM ET, @Hegemommy and I (@AngryBlackLady) are doing a live rapid reaction about the SCOTUS arguments in the affirmative action cases #SFFAvUNC and #SFFAvHarvard.

Join us here:

#BoomLawyered

We're going live even though these arguments aren't over because apparently, these arguments are going to last until one of the attorneys blacks out or Ginni Thomas takes her seat as the tenth justice on the bench.