Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "‘Why Do You Do It?’: Samuel Alito Grills Harvard Lawyer On Alleged Asian American Discrimination" video.

Do you think she was passed over because of her race? I don't. Read a few biographies of really successful people -- and I don't mean celebrities or billionaires. I mean an Annie Ernaux, a Haruki Murakami, a Kurt Godel, a Martha Argerich. They are, frankly, nothing like your daughter. It's a different mold. She reminds me a little of the disfavored brother in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Murakami and Ernaux (and J. M. Coetzee and Rebecca Goldstein) all have more in common with Einstein or Socrates than they do with your daughter. I hope she learns a different lesson from the one you seem to have in mind.
3
Seth Waxman is very likely the best lawyer for Supreme Court arguments that America has. He was Solicitor General and is friends with all the Justices.
1
@brighteyes6559 On all matters of law, it is correct that the Supreme Court defers to no other court. On matters of creating a factual record, the district court's findings of fact are presumed to be accurate, though not beyond scrutiny, obviously.
1
@pensiveintrovert4318 I literally laughed out loud, very loud. Now I can go to bed happy. That was wonderful.
1
@bubbagump6625 Have you seen a recent copy of that "standardized test?" It makes me wonder who the test makers are, and how they determine what the test should consist in.
1
@donaldkasper8346 You are telling me they CAUGHT all the burglars?? In my city, they don't catch the murderers.
1
Oh my goodness. And you just reaffirmed the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General and has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other living person. You have no clue what he was talking about -- or that he is friends with all of these Justices, for that matter. But if you get 300+ Likes, well then, you must be right.
1
@lukedaniell You beat me to it. Thank GOD. This was scary.
1
@Lucy-q1b Try looking up the briefs and at least skim those. You might have an idea of what the argument is about if you were to take the time to step away from the YouTube and finding something real to look at.
1
@Lucy-q1b No, he was referring to the trial record in the case, to demonstrate that Harvard is in full compliance with the line of Supreme Court cases that permit considering race in admissions. The other side is asking the Court to overturn those precedents, straight up. That is the only issue stated in their petition for certiorari. Quite remarkable, actually.
1
@shirmelduggins9984 What does "a good fit" mean?
1
@robertmadison1205 With respect to Harvard, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this case. Harvard is private, but accepts public funds. That's why it's in court.
1
@studyboy5829 Ha! If any university excludes any group disproportionately, based on race or ethnicity, we can presume it is discriminating unless proven otherwise. They can't cover it up with tokenism. If 7% of the applicant pool with those achievements is admitted, provided they are white, but only 0.2% with those achievements are admitted when they are South Asian, that needs explaining all right.
1
@Nordic_Sky Do people really not know who the blacks are who get into Harvard, etc.? Many are Africans, or recent African immigrants. This has been true for a long time.
1
@ssuigeneris Great posts. I can see you know what you're talking about. Have you read the briefs in this case? I assure you, they are worth your time. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit to Harvard and other Ivies. How about the decorated ones? That is certainly a mark of merit, and would increase the diversity of the class in a substantial way.
1
@MrTodayistheday The Harvard Law grads I've known are great. Were some difficult? Yeah, but these are lawyers we are talking about. I found most of them really fun to work with and obviously tremendous lawyers. I did not, however, work in shark settings, so my experience cannot be considered representative.
1
@studyboy5829 I'm not saying he was passed over for something he was entitled to. I was just making the point that the existence of people of his ethnic group at a school does not by itself prove anything. I wasn't endorsing the position, I was criticizing obviously poor arguments against it.
1
@robertmadison1205 Please read the briefs. There isn't a quicker way. The civil rights struggle, or most of it anyway, required the passage of new federal laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment "enabling clause." Before certain laws were passed, the 14th Amendment standing alone did not protect anyone from discrimination in the workplace, on common carriers, etc., and "separate but equal" was legal. We don't have a body of federal law governing private college admissions, but we do have federal funding that cannot be used in ways that are contrary to the Constitution or any federal statute. That would mean we are all forced to support what is not in line with our laws. Abortion is a perfect analogy: even during Roe v. Wade, there were federal laws prohibited use of federal funds to facilitate abortion except in certain very limited circumstances, such as saving the life of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy at a VA hospital.
1
@robertmadison1205 Yes and no, because under the Constitution, all federal statutes are the law of the land, but all federal statutes have to have some provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to legislate on behalf of everyone, and preempt laws to the contrary that might exist in the states. And then of course federal laws have to be consistent with the Bill of Rights, etc. The U of North Carolina part of the case does implicate the Constitution in a way that Harvard doesn't, because it's a state school. No state can discriminate against people in any way that the Court has held to be unconstitutional. Right now, Harvard can do pretty much what it wants in deciding which of its applicants to admit, but not on our dime. Congress could probably change that, too, by invoking the 14th Amendment, but don't hold your breath! :/
1
@robertmadison1205 Roe v. Wade was a direct constitutional challenge to all state laws banning all or most abortions, and that case struck them down. Now with Roe overturned, the states have a lot of freedom to pass whatever laws they want, up to the point where children under the age of consent are prohibited from having an abortion, and someone sues based on the 14th Amendment to ensure that they can. Same with serious threats to the pregnant woman's health or life. Etc.
1
@robertmadison1205 The thing about news reports on major cases, is that this isn't hard to explain. It really isn't. But they almost never do.
1
I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones? That is a merit-based criterion and would really increase diversity.
1
Read the opinions and you'll know.
1
@aratosm Then don't read them. You're an American. Reading is for sissies.
1
@aratosm Chief Judge Howard, First Circuit, which affirmed the ruling, was first appointed as a federal prosecutor by the elder Bush, and then as judge by George W. Bush. But never mind. If it feels like he was a "leftist fascist," then that's all that matters. It's true for you.
1
@aratosm Which court? The judge who presided over the case in the U. S. Court of Appeals was a Bush appointee and a life-long Republican. You don't even know what you're talking about.
1
@aratosm Of course not. They are typically a three-judge panel, and Judge Howard was presiding. Three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard this case (it was not heard en banc, which makes sense, since petitioners is asking for an overturn of Supreme Court precedent). At the time the opinion in this case was issued, one of the three who heard oral argument had withdrawn.
1
@aratosm If you think you know everything, you'll never learn anything. But that's your right. You have guns and money, which is everything you need to own truth as well. I mean, let's be serious for a minute. Don't think I don't know that, too.
1
@aratosm You got your own truth. You won't hear any argument from me. When you got guns and money, you don't need lawyers.
1
@aratosm I do?
1
Those of us who read some of the court documents and know the law understood what he meant. But in our Vast Meritocracy, we will never get to ^1000+. 🤣
1
Indeed, how could it? They apparently thought Jeffrey Epstein's was fine while it lasted.
1