General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
Forbes Breaking News
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "'Isn't That Very Stereotypical?': Roberts Presses Harvard Lawyer In Affirmative Action Case" video.

The Supreme Court always publishes the briefs, so I can tell you what they are arguing about: there is a long line of precedent that permits consideration of race in addition to a number of other factors, and previous Courts have ruled that a limited use of race in that way was legal as long as things like legacy admissions weighed so strongly against all non-Europeans. Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and is in front of the Court all the time, is arguing that the criteria for using race in a limited way was clearly met by Harvard's admissions policy. Well, now you can guess what the other side is arguing: they believe the line of precedent that allows using race should be overturned. The lead attorney for the other side is a U of Chicago and Cambridge (UK -- that Cambridge) grad who once considered becoming an astrophysicist. This gives you an idea of the brainpower applied to this case. What is at stake also is that Harvard can forgo federal funding. It's a private school, and can continue its admissions policies exactly as they are, as long as it accepts no federal funds. Its policies are not the type that would easily trigger scrutiny under other federal laws. So, in the end, it's about the money. The big question is why Harvard grads are so heavily advantaged for the rest of their lives. Chief Justice Roberts was a Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law graduate. He really did do well in school his whole life, however, and he wasn't admitted as a legacy. He actually worked in a steel mill one summer.
4
@jeffreyrichard2575 Actually, they are discriminating against Asians in favor of whites. Read the brief.
3
@jeremiahdavis360 I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who truly distinguished themselves? That is one way to add real diversity to their class and base it on merit as well. I wonder if they ever thought of that.
3
@laertesindeed Say. I have an idea. Shut up and read the briefs. Your identification of me? I bet you don't even know whether I'm a man or a woman. You don't strike me as too swift on the uptake. You would also benefit from a good book on writing. Style: Ten Lessons In Clarity and Grace is my favorite. Also, Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. A must-read.
2
Except that we didn't fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination.
2
Yes, and there are easily 1000 students who did exactly that for every one seat at an Ivy League school. What do you think this debate is about? I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who really distinguished themselves? That would increase black and Latino enrollment right there, as well as contribute to diversity.
2
Constitutionality isn't an issue. Harvard is a private university, and its admissions are protected by First Amendment freedom of association. Their problem is that they accept a ton of federal funding, which means their admissions can be scrutinized. A limited use of race in admissions has been legal up until now, based on a long line of Supreme Court cases. The other side wants that precedent overruled and to have all use of race declared illegal for any university accepting government funds. The briefs are really interesting. The Court always publishes them.
1
In prison, huh? Did anyone go to jail for banning Henry Miller, or Hustler magazine, or the musical Hair? How about for refusing to register the marriage of an interracial couple? Or running a segregated pizza parlor? 🤣🤣🤣
1
@laertesindeed All right, so you will try to string together words you may not understand to console yourself. Please do. Your feelings about criminal law have nothing to do with reality, but they are your feelings. No argument there.
1
@laertesindeed The issue in this case concerning whether Harvard's admissions policy discriminates based on race has nothing to do with the Constitution. The case is based on federal statutes, and the fact that Harvard takes federal money every year.
1
@laertesindeed You really have something wrong with you -- the only question is how much. In any case, enough that I wouldn't want you prowling around my house or garage. Blocked. Get a good book on writing. You want to write well, but can't yet. Study, and you will improve. Make that your resolution.
1
I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who truly distinguished themselves in uniform? That is one way to increase black enrollment.
1
@acloserlook5823 Absolutely it is. But if you see how those cases were written, then you can figure out why they turned out the way they did at the time they were decided. The briefs in this case are actually fascinating and are worth the time to read. I was surprised that the petitioners, representing Asian students, were so direct in their request that those cases be overturned. This isn't an easy case, and everyone called in their top guns for a reason. (EDIT: "at" changed to "that")
1
Private college, so it actually can. That literally could tip the balance one time in 15 years, or something.
1
They are a private university. I wouldn't expect them to base admissions on those criteria.
1
@Heart2HeartBooks This is Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and has probably argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other living lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts went to Harvard, too. They know each other well.
1
She was a spousal hire. Funny how you don't know that she got her job the old-fashioned way: first, she was very good in her field. Then, she made sure that was noticed, by the right people. She married one of those people.
1
@ccchhhrrriiisss100 She certainly was. She became an expert on bankruptcy law and the laws that pertain to personal finance, and she met her future husband at a prestigious conference.
1
@indonesiaamerica7050 Chief Justice Roberts went to that school.
1
@ccchhhrrriiisss100 Maybe she was very good, and she was an opportunist, too. She is a lawyer, after all. The best ones are both. (She was really very good. BTW. But as we all know, that's never enough.)
1
@ccchhhrrriiisss100 You're making my case for me. She practiced law and was "dishonest." Okay. Now, this is a problem? How? She was a lawyer. It is (considered) a skill to present your case in the very best light possible, without technically committing fraud or deceit. Harvard law profs also practice law, or they become high ranking government advisors and officials. None of them are just "teachers." They argue Supreme Court and appellate court cases. They write books that influence the Supreme Court. Warren is a Senator. I guess you don't know any Harvard-trained lawyers? I'm not understanding your point.
1
@ccchhhrrriiisss100 She is a leading expert on bankruptcy law, and she'll stop at nothing to promote herself. That was my original point. She has a lot in common with Hillary, only she is a much better lawyer than Hillary. Wait. Do you think hard working, highly accomplished lawyers are all virtuous, TOO?? Yeesh.
1
@indonesiaamerica7050 Then read some of her technical articles, not her partisan stuff.
1
@indonesiaamerica7050 Okay, honey. Whatever you say.
1
@indonesiaamerica7050 Michigan Law Review would qualify as technical. Stuff she wrote speaking as a politician, partisan.
1
@indonesiaamerica7050 Chill. Seriously. None of these politicos is worth this much of your precious time. We all know what the prevailing criteria are for being a "good" lawyer. Warren did meet them, amply. I told you where to look to verify that statement. No one suggested lawyers compare with being an astrophysicist, or even a good novelist. Although, the lawyer representing Asian students in their discrimination suit actually did study to become an astrophysicist. Now that is interesting. Of course he is smarter than Warren. But that wasn't the issue.
1
@alesh2275 First of all, Harvard is private, so it does not have to abide by the Equal Protection clause. In fact, the First Amendment freedom of association gives it a lot of leeway in how it determines admissions. What Harvard cannot do is accept federal funds and use impermissible racial criteria to determine any applicant's admission. Up until now, there was a line of Supreme Court cases that allowed limited use of race in addition to other factors, for the purpose of building a diverse class (private schools all do this, starting with private kindergartens). Waxman was arguing that Harvard meets these criteria. The other side wants the whole line of precedent that permits using race in college admissions to be overturned -- or to force Harvard to stop accepting federal funds, and admit whoever it wants on its own dime.
1
@alesh2275 Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. These guys all know each other since forever.
1
The line of Supreme Court cases Waxman relies on all say that Harvard can use race in the way Waxman claims they did. The other side wants those cases overturned. The first discrimination Harvard performs is legacy and "special development" vs. everyone else. All legal, because Harvard is private. Too bad Harvard has the influence it does.
1
@christines8529 No, a university is not a business, nor does it open its doors to commerce or to the general public. I suggest you read the briefs. UNC is a state university, so its admissions are subject to scrutiny for racial discrimination, but Harvard is in this particular lawsuit, and its admissions practices are being scrutinized, only because it accepts federal money. If Harvard didn't, then it could basically admit whomever it wants -- but it has to do that strictly on its own dime. Really sorry to see that we are at the point where we think universities are "a business," but I'm not surprised.
1
@christines8529 What federal laws govern all private university admissions? Meaning, regardless of their charter and regardless of whether they accept federal funds in any form. Please tell me. Have you never heard of women's colleges, the historical black colleges (where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Justice Thurgood Marshall were educated), very strict religious colleges that train people for the ministry? Read the briefs.
1
@christines8529 The pertinent statute is Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 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. -- 42 United States Code Section 2000d (emphasis added) That's from the Asian students' petition for cert and brief in support of granting relief.
1
@christines8529 No, Harvard DOES benefit from federal funds, even though it's a private school, which is why it must also obey federal anti-discrimination laws. That's why this lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is rich enough to finance all of its needy students and to extricate itself from depending on public money. But that is surprisingly hard to do, and complicated, so it won't. Besides, the money is green. What I really think is that these elitist institutions shouldn't have the stranglehold on society and politics that they do. I think their legacy pools and "special development" pools are just as discriminatory, or more, than anything else they do. If they want to be modified four-year country clubs for the Jared Kushners (or Chelsea Clintons) of the world, bless them, they can rely on First Amendment freedom of association and go their merry way. But then they go on to affect the lives of the rest of us, and of the rest of the people on this planet -- and they do it for their benefit, on our dime. A really interesting read was the letter Harvard's President wrote when it was revealed just how much Harvard was mixed up with Jeffrey Epstein. Am I changing the subject? No. To me, this is the heart of the matter. We argue about who is qualified to be admitted to Harvard -- and I say, who cares? Why are they then "qualified" to control the lives of the rest of us? They clearly are not. That's what I care about. There is no way to make Harvard admissions fair. There are too many qualified people vying for too few seats, and too many people who want to game the system, and can. Why do so many people apply? Because it really is as close to a guarantee of success in life as you can possibly find at age 18. But why is it?
1
@LegoAnimationGuy1 That's called legacy admission, and it's legal.
1
@schokoladenritter7969 A lot of immoral things are legal.
1
@schokoladenritter7969 My point is that admissions are not on the basis of merit, and that a private university is allowed to admit using criteria other than merit. Funny how that is. Follow the money, as usual.
1
What gets you admitted is being in the legacy or special development pool.
1
@arctain1 Correct. Today, the Supreme Court pointed out that a number of states have banned race-based admissions, including California.
1
@ezesagus6177 A lawsuit was just filed against the legacy system. Super great news!
1
Harvard isn't the government or an agent of the government. This case is based on the fact that it accepts federal funds. Up until now, its admissions were legal based on Supreme Court precedent. The other side wants that precedent overturned. Interesting case, and harder than it sounds.
1
@samuraimath1864 Let's just cut to the chase: read the briefs. It's actually faster. Also, no court exists to enforce morals. It must rule based on law.
1
@samuraimath1864 Also, no American university is open to the public, which makes it qualitatively different from a restaurant. In Europe, universities are open to everyone, actually, and anyone can simply audit a course. Or at least they used to be. I was there during two waves of terrorist bombings in the 1980s, and it did not occur to anyone to stop the practice of opening all lectures by the department chairs to the public. Now we just had a shutdown over a severe flu-like illness. God help us.
1
@jeremiahdavis360 It's impossible to give a single figure on scores needed for admission, since admission isn't based on scores. First of all, all applications, regardless of race, are divided into legacies and "special development," before any other factors come into play. "Special development" is supposed to be for people like Olympic athletes or gifted musicians, or winners of major science or mathematics competitions, and thus based on merit, but these can also be people whose parents gave a million dollars to Harvard. You can buy your way into a private school, hon. Not directly, of course, because they could still reject you, but if you want a real leg up, the right color is green. We fight over crumbs. Passionately, over crumbs.
1
@jeremiahdavis360 You know that, how? Do you have any idea what the black students at Ivies are like? For one thing, many are children of African immigrants, including refugee families, and many more are children of very prominent, and quite affluent, African people. You're not aware that Nigeria now has a local intelligentsia that looks to rival India's? The world is changing. You have never met these people.
1
@jeremiahdavis360 What "college charter?" What does that refer to?
1
@jeremiahdavis360 Not necessarily. The people whose parents are African immigrants or from prominent, wealthy African families are legacies, or "special development." The rules for admission for them are different from all other applicant pools. Barack Obama is a perfect example -- father went to Harvard, mother related to a half-dozen former presidents. Is the "special development" pool tainted? Is Jared Kushner's degree tainted? You have a strange way of looking at things. Not every black person has a father who can donate seven figures to Harvard. I don't know why you directed the comment to me, by the way. I wasn't justifying any of this. (By the way, see the letter Harvard's president wrote in the wake of the Epstein revelations. I mean, just for some larger perspective.)
1
@RS-oq4wu I can make predictions, too. I can tell you are a white American. Europeans don't think like you. 🤣
1
@TPR-wx1yj But if it gets Likes on YouTube, then he's an Influencer. Just kidding.
1
@mitchyoung93 Exactly. See, for example, Slavery By Another Name, by a Wall Street Journal reporter named Douglas Blackmon. His book started as a WSJ article. We had "separate but equal" for generations. It was only when nearly everyone who had had enslaved grandparents had already died that the US started making progress on equality. The brief on the other side of this case talks about 20th century prejudice against Asians, which has no bearing on the Civil War in any respect. They also claim that whites are by and large the group favored over Asians, not that blacks are. Blacks are barely a double-digit percentage at Harvard, and that includes the children of prominent Africans who are studying in the US, or whose families are recent immigrants to the US. It has zero to do with the civil war.
1
@FamilyManMoving Nothing to do with the constitution with respect to Harvard. Harvard is a private university and can run its admissions pretty much however it wants. (Not so for University of North Carolina, obviously.) What Harvard cannot do is accept public money while doing it. At least, that is the posture of this case. Harvard is arguing that their admissions process fully conforms with existing Supreme Court precedent, which allows limited use of race to meet certain goals, and that that precedent should not be overruled. The other side is expressly asking the Supreme Court to overrule that line of cases. Fascinating argument, actually. The briefs are worth your while if you're interested in this stuff. I'm going to reread them tonight.
1
@FuddOnFirearms You don't have a constitutional right to go to Harvard. Harvard is private, so it has First Amendment-protected freedom of association.
1
@deponensvogel7261 This is a case about federal funding, at least with respect to Harvard. It is not about the 14th Amendment.
1
@deponensvogel7261 I did, too, and I agree.
1
@FamilyManMoving I was struck by the fact that the other side's petition only presented one request -- that the governing precedent allowing for limited use of race in admissions be overturned. Wow! By the way, the lead counsel is from U of Chicago, and he once studied to become an astrophysicist. He does patent law, I believe, in addition to this.
1
@a.wadderphiltyr1559 If your business is small enough, yes, actually. Each of these issues has a federal statute that governs the practice for private actors. It's the government that cannot create any job, benefit, etc., and decide to exclude based on race.
1
Seth Waxman was the Solicitor General. He argued in front of the Supreme Court countless times and they all know each other well. I'd be shocked if they don't go to the same parties. If you look up the briefs, which the Court always publishes, you'll see no one thinks it's a "slam dunk." The other side is represented by a lawyer who considered becoming an astrophysicist, and almost did. No, I'm not kidding.
1
@richcook2007 Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. He's in front of the Court all the time. See my other post.
1
@RS-oq4wu No you can't, because you forget that at the extremes, everyone suffers prejudice that is unpredictable, especially in circles where the person has clearly the lowest, or the highest, intellectual talents.
1
@RS-oq4wu Neither race nor intelligence are genetic or inextricably linked. As for predictive value, what do you think happens to someone with clearly superior intelligence in an unexpected package? Say, a young black man, assuming he lives to grow up? You think everyone welcomes him with open arms? Don't make me laugh. His talents will be his problems, in every group. For example, a black youth with a Master's in mathematics ends up with you as a boss . . . I can predict what will happen.
1
No, because Supreme Court precedent allows a certain, limited use of race in admissions, and has allowed it for generations. The other side is arguing that the precedent that allows this use of race should be overturned. The Court published the briefs, so you can see what their positions are. These are interesting, this time. If Harvard stops accepting all federal funding, it can do whatever it wants about its admissions. But then it has to start spending down its gigantic endowment. Yikes.
1