victory for meritocracy, describing race conscious admissions policies, that he himself benefited from, as rudderless, race based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes. well, justice ketanji brown jackson talked about that claim in her dissent, writing, those who demand that no one think about race refuse to see, much less solve for the elephant in the room, the race linked disparities that continue to impede achievement to our nation s greatest potential. the disconnect from reality that informed this decision will have consequences far beyond the reaches of a college campus. the new york times is already siding royal lawyers, diversity experts, and political activists across the spectrum, warning that, quote, the ruling will discourage corporations from putting in place ambitious diversity policies in hiring and promotion, or prompting them to rein in existing policies by encouraging lawsuits under the existing
the second they accepted the application to the second they accepted or rejected it, race was used in their decisions. the court says harvard s admission process relies on a stereo type that, quote, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer. justice clarence thomas wrote this. the court sees the university s policies for what they are. rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes. those policies fly in the face of our color blind constitution and our nation s equality ideal. the court found that harvard, for the last decade, created the same exact racial mix of every single freshman class. so how did these harvard officials decide that this was going to be the racial mix of every single harvard freshman class year after year after year? well, it wasn t based solely on
party. more specifically, the house democrats, not the house republicans. for years we ve watched as democrats in congress spent your hard-earned tax dollars, like the dollars were imaginary. you have to be worried about what it means to have a weak, rudderless president who cannot stand up to out of control spending. by the way, have the democrats stopped spending? no! sometimes it s stated more as an obvious shared premise than a claim or an accusation that this is all democrats. what s funny is we talk about how american politics have changed, and lately it has, i bet you ve noticed in the last six years or so. but this has not. from the day of newt gingrich to now kevin mccarthy, you have clashes over spending debts and the debt ceiling, and they re against this backdrop where this is a one-note thing. it s the idea that the republicans are the lower spending more fiscally conservative party. is that true?
she is such a believer. in her own perfect view of the way we should go, i i kinda feel like it s the flip side of the jeremy corbyn coin. they know better than we do what s good for us. and don t let the facts get in the way. - she would say you ve signed up to the anti growth coalition. she would, and these i are very good rhetorical, you know, build back better. and these three word rhymes that allow them to sayjust get it done or get brexit done, - whatever it was. she is hoping that it sticks and she can distract us- with this kind - of empty rhetoric. the reality is, i think- the people of britain really need to ask themselves what s going on. - we had a negligent prime . minister in cameron who let the referendum happen, - thinking he could sail through. we had a rudderless. prime minister in may, a narcissistic and vacuous i prime minister injohnson, and now this ideologue. i think the people of this country. | it s interesting, the polls.