You asked me. Are you not willing to answer the same question you asked me? If not, rather than talk about Justice Thomas, ask yourself why you find that question difficult to answer.
I will answer the question, my point was it has more force coming from someone it affected. The reason it is a problem, is because there are people like you that will continue to assume he only got into Yale because he was black. You can backpedal and say he deserved to be there, but put yourself in Thomas' shoes and tell me how it would make you feel if someone told you that you only got where you are because of AA--essentially because you are black. You can then tell him that he showed he deserved to be there, or whatever you need to say to justify your biased statements. It doesn't matter. It is biased and offensive. His law school grades tell me there is a very high likelihood that he scored very high on the LSAT, and he would have gotten in regardless. But as long as there is a program in place that perpetuates the assumptions you have made, it is a big problem, especially when the people making the comments can't understand how offensive they are.
Actually, what I said was that AA allowed him to get into Yale, where he demonstrated that he was the equal of everyone around him. In other words, AA gave him the chance to show he belonged. It was you who turned that into "he only is where he is due to AA", not I. Why do you think you mad that inference?
Again, you are proving my point. You state "AA game him change to show he belonged" when you don't even know his LSAT score. You assume it helped him. That he needed help to "show he belonged". Continue to believe what you will, but you comments are biased and offensive. You stated without AA he would have gone to a lesser law school and had a lesser career. It is a flawed assumption that AA caused.
The living definition of bias is focusing on the LSAT score of a man who took the hardest possible curriculum at Yale and performed admirably, because somehow how he got into Yale is more important than what he did there. That's the position every racist takes, it's their primary argument against AA. Why are you adopting the irrelevant arguments of racists?
Yes, I am the biased one here that stated Thomas got into Yale only because of AA. Oh wait, that was you. I believe the guy is a genius as I already stated. As such, I believe he got into Yale based on his academic record, not the color of his skin. If believing someone got where they are on their own accord makes them a racist, I guess you got me pegged. I believe that when people like you assume AA is the reason he got into Yale, that you are the one making the racist statements.
I don't see why we can't have a fix at both levels.
It goes back to your comment on how to fix a broken leg. You don't just put a band-aid on it that won't fix the leg. That is all AA is in current form. You fix the ****ing crack in the sidewalk that is causing people to break there legs so you don't need an ineffective band-aid.
You are using legal terminology that applies to laws, as I understand things (hopefully an actual lawyer will correct me on this if I am wrong, or just generally set us both straight). So. which law do you feel discriminates against class, which survives a rational basis review but would not pass strict scrutiny?
I honestly feel like Constitutional courses should be mandatory in high school. It is a disservice to the citizens of this country not to be taught the very laws that make this country what it is. I'm not going to give you a full lesson on constitutional law, but the recent decision of Heller v. Doe case spells it out clearly. . Heller states that the gov. can't discriminate based on a suspect classification (intermediate/strict scrutiny review depending on classification), a state can pass a law which treats different classes differently (that are not a suspect class protected under the Constitution), and so long as the class is such that the law is subjected to rational basis review only, ANY conceivable rational basis for drawing the classification, even it it wasn't the actual basis for the law, will suffice to pass muster under the rational basis test.
The first example that comes to mind is abortion. There have been cases where the plaintiff alleged that a State's refusal to provide public assistance for abortions that were not medically necessary did not deny indigent women equal protection BECAUSE indigent are not a suspect class, and so it will always pass a rational basis review. If the law instead was written to deny abortion in these same cases to blacks, it would have to pass strict scrutiny, which it never would.
