We are all equal again, right?

[Dill]

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Dred Scott was overturned because enough citizens finally decided that Blacks were citizens with a right to equal participation in government (13-14th Amendments). Taney's ruling, like many of those of today's court, was not even supported by the majority in 1857. 

I think you'll find that it was overturned because enough SCOTUS justices came to that conclusion.  The opinion of the general populace is not a consideration for the SCOTUS.

I don't think I'll find that "enough SCOTUS justices came to that conclusion."

I think I'll find that Dredd was abrogated by the 13th and 14th Amendments, passed by Congress.

No one maintained that the SOTUS is suppose to consider "opinion of the general populace." But legislative bodies ARE supposed to.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Same for overturning Plessy vs Ferguson. There is no reason to suppose the "facts" which helped decide Brown vs Board would have swayed the Brown court, given the legal philosophy of that majority, which protected white majority discrimination/privilege by affirming legal equality despite separation and ruled out government remedy for social inequality--the same assumption grounding current efforts to roll back civil rights advances. 

Only if you consider discrimination based on ethnicity to be a civil rights "advancement".  I certainly don't, and a majority of Americans appear to agree with me.

 
Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. When it comes to college admissions, elimination of current race-based considerations will mean discrimination against minorities in favor of wealthier white students, especially while the majority of U.S. colleges continue to embrace legacy admissions.

So you don't avoid "discrimination based on ethnicity" by supporting policies and court rulings designed to protect white admissions. And that's one thing if you genuinely don't know the history of the policies and rulings, but quite another if you recognize that history well enough to deflect it. 

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:It was a change in values which created a change in law, to make it more consonant with the values of most Americans at the time. 
Or if you disagree, then let's hear what pertinent "facts" changed between 1857 and 1865 while legal interpretation remained the same. 

So they were doing exactly what the court is doing right now with AA. Thanks for confirming.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/

So I'm NOT going hear what pertinent facts changed. ok. 

And no, Congress passing amendments to change discriminatory law in 1965 =/= "exactly what the court is doing right now with AA." 

You've just argued that it's not the SCOTUS job to bend to popular opinion. They are not in this case, any more than they were in Dobbs. 
A link showing polls favoring the end of AA does not establish motivation for the court.

Your link makes some interesting points--such as the two-to-one majority opposition to AA college admissions among those without college degrees. 

One has to wonder how many in your poll actually understand how the admission policies they approve of actually work.