and scott peterson is part of that group. now that s why i said again the system failed joaquin, my son, on one of the victims. the real victim, that i still cry every single day because i m not going back home like peterson will today to just celebrate he s free of any charge. by the way, this would have marked a precedent that many parents will celebrate if it was a verdict. i have met with the fathers and mothers from uvalde. fathers and mothers that were trying to see how the police will maybe save their kids and they failed. so law enforcement is receiving a green light here, like like a pass. this guy did not do what he was
justice clarence thomas the conservative, long wanting to overturn precedent. he said he understands the background here, but he thinks everybody should be treated equally. justice jackson on her first term on this court, she really pushed back on what he said. remember, the schools here said, look, we want diversity, we think that schools are a pipeline to society, that s why it s important. and on the other side you had this conservative group that had been fighting this for years, coming up with a victory. and they said this amounts to racial discrimination, and today they won. some very strong language on both the concurring opinions and the dissenting ones. thank you so much. let s bring in cnn legal analyst joey jackson now. joey, thank you so much for being with us. what is this going to mean for admission offices when they go to work tomorrow? yeah, i think it s a very
attacking precedent, it s undermining the rule of law. sometimes a court gets it wrong. dred scott was a precedent of the supreme court. plessy vs. ferguson which upheld segregation was a precedent of the court. those were both wrong because they deviated from the constitution s core principle that the government cannot take account of its citizens based on their skin color. that doesn t mean you can t take socio-economic class into account, geography into account, educational background into account when you make admissions decisions. but schools and universities are now going to have to be like the rest of the government and not look at your skin color. people can still talk in their personal statements, of course, about their experience when it comes to racism or it comes to heritage. but you mentioned right now how things stand. i mean, there s still you know comparatively speaking a lack of hispanic representation at cal. and as you re well aware after prop 209, there was a gian
country, not equal opportunity. it is not everywhere across this country. we cannot let this decision be the last word. our supreme court reporter is back with us. the supreme court look at affirmative action in 2015, in 2003, all the way back to 1978. today s decision markedly different, and it comes with some very heated opinions. yeah, absolutely. court really effectively saying that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration, overturning decades old precedent, precedent that helped blacks and hispanics in this area. this opinion, as you said, it was 6-3, divided along ideological lines. chief justice john roberts, who has long been a critics of race-conscious programs, he wrote the major opinion here. he said invalidating the plans, he said the harvard and unc admissions programs cannot be
that, the fact that the conclusion of the attorney is that this is a political intention? this is not political, my friend. this is ethical. we have the opportunity to mark a precedent, to make a difference. and you, mr. attorney, you re celebrating the fact that this person that obviously, obviously made a mistake and needs to be accountable is now happy with his life. in the meantime, 17 families in addition to any other officer from a school that had made mistakes since you said at the beginning parkland, a little more than five years ago, should be celebrating now. well, i don t buy that. i don t preach that. i don t follow this i think that the right thing to do, the