A crucial supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action could come tomorrow, as colleges and universities grapple with the possibility that race might no longer be a factor in admissions. The Central Question being decided this time is should Affirmative Action continue forever In The Name Of diversity, and are the gains achieved worth the harms allegedly inflicted on Asian American students . This is the most important civil Rights Case of our era. I dont think its an overstatement to say theyre freaking out right now. One admissions official told me, some colleges are so worried about being sued in the wake of this decision that theyre thinking about scrubbing racial and ethnic data from their websites. There has to be some discrimination here. There has to be something against Asian Americans specifically. This case is going to be something more than just about admissions. The notion that noticing race is per se unconstitutional could be devastating for a number of areas of the law. An
add to that the court knocking down joe biden s student debt relief and saying a web designer can t be forced to design a same-sex wedding sight, and site, and you have many infuriated democrats. congressman ted lou says he wants to expand the high court because of its radical, extreme supermajority. keep in mind that court pack turned into a fiasco for fdr are. affirmative action has always had a contradiction at its heart, hurting some people like asian-americans who are also a minority, or helping others such as blacks and hispanics. and it s brought out plenty of ugliness. the atlantic s jemele hill, who is black, saying you gladly carried the water for white supremacy and stabbed the folks in the back whose people fought diligently for asian-american rights, white supremacy? it s perfectly fine for pundits to attack coe discuss i rulings they don t like scotus rulings they don t like, but is it going too far to try to undermine the institution? i m howard kurtz9 and
impose criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. it held at the ordinances were unconstitutional and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. the matter came before the powerful 9th circuit court, which has jurisdiction for the western united states and all of california. the ninth circuit has been regarded as a progressive bastion, but president trump was able to appoint ten judges to the ninth circuit. it limited what idaho could do with regard to its homeless. this time a three-judge panel similarly ruled against a city s effort to regulate its homeless population. when grants pass then sought to have the matter considered by the entire circuit, it could not get the required vote from all a act tiff members of the bench. that s when all hell broke lose. the denial of a full review drew 16 dissents and many statements. as the oregonen reported, many who dissent
s down by the supremek down court as blatantly unconstitutional b and some ofe the president s own allies are asking whether he is really read whethery for another four n office. welcome to the club. but cab.n you blame them afterww what we all see from joe day in and day out. here s a reminder. mr. president, thank you. than.k you. thank you. i appreciate that. thank you. thank you. thank you. don t go anywhere. it s a very exciting day around here. we ll have reaction. i met alone with him. just he and i. and a simultaneous interpreter. 68 times. er68 hours. mo time. remore than 68 hours. all right. god save the queen, man. thank you very much, mr. president. we really appreciate it. and we love you. thank k you.dn t i might add, if i didn t, i dwol be sleeping alone. expla that s explaining to explainin that some long, long time. my wife s a philly girl. all right, where we going? but going to win, and we re going to help. we have plans to build a railroad from t
carolina senator jesse helms was pulling behind his black democratic challenger. so helms called in the political consultants who in turn helped the helms campaign to fight back. this is what theygn came up wit this ad. you needed that job because you were the best qualified, but they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. is that really fair? harvey gains says it is. your vote on this issue, for racial quota, harvey gain, against racial quotas, jesse helms. you were a better candidate than the minority guy that they went with. can you feel the injustice of it all? that ad was exactly what senator jesse helms needed. he won re-election to a fourth term in the senate 54 to 46%. that strategy worked, it worked well, making gant the face of affirmative action, a racial quota system that kept whites at a disadvantage ipfavor of less qualified minorities, it was potent stuff. the race baiting and the zero-sum politics, it moved people because it angered them a