![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm not much enamoured with the leading dissenting voice of the Reagan-Bush wing of the SCOTUS. He's positively giddy when he's in the majority, but is a mewling quim when relegated to the dissent. He's given us "arglebargle" and "jiggery pokery" in support of his losing arguments in the latter column. Last week, though, he showed his true colour as a jurist- and that colour is white, robed and hooded.
The case was brought by a white University of Texas applicant who was denied admission in favour of many other applicants with higher overall file scores. Among the components of the file score was one reflecting diversity, which prior Supremes decisions allow to be factored in- not on a strict quota basis, but as part of the overall candidate consideration. UT did the math, and concluded that even if petitioner Abby Fisher had been given full marks for diversity, she still would've been rejected. But she, and her negative-action supporters, are seeking a SCOTUS decision removing race and other non-numerical factors from the equation altogether.
The decision won't likely come until June, but argument was last week, and Nino, unlike his stonefaced silent partner in nuttery Clarence Thomas, let on to his views on the subject during the colloquy with counsel. Here, courtesy of the Court's transcription service, is exactly Wot He Said (line references omitted):
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less a slower-track school where they do well. One of -- one of the briefs pointed out that that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.
MR. GARRE: So this Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're that they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are too too fast for them.
MR. GARRE: This Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm just not impressed by the fact that that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less. And and I I don't think it it it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible. I just don't think --
Yeah, Your Honor. You just don't think.
In the ensuing days, the Ninoapoloigists have tried to back their patron away from the blatant bias in his inquiry. I heard Limbaugh's defense of it a day or so after the Klan references started hitting the so-called Drive-By Media: That's not what Justice Scalia thinks! He was just engaging in intellectual discussion! Citing briefs submitted to the court which ARGUED that blacks do better in less elite schools! You're putting words in his mouth and ignoring the context! You can't do that!
Horsehockey.
The two key words in his "colloquy" are bolded above:
pointed out
Before I was a lawyer, or even a law student, I was a journalist, and we learned about attributions and weasel words. When it came to attributions, we were taught, you could never go wrong with the repeated use of "said." Any variation on it, from "added" to "zealously advocated," came with a certain amount of editorial loading. So we learned to be careful. "Added" was for quotes that literally came after the previous quote. "Argued" was reserved for quotes arising in an adversarial context. But two of the replacement verbs had an extra layer of meaning to them: "noted," and "pointed out." To use these, we had to be sure that the fact the speaker was "noting," or "pointing out," was, in fact, true.
So here, Mr, Justice Scalia believes his brief to be true. That minority students in leadership positions in their professions do not graduate from the most respected universities. That they'd be better off at "a slower-track school where they do well."
Separate, but, yaknow, equal.
Excuse me. I'm off to party like it's 1953.
The case was brought by a white University of Texas applicant who was denied admission in favour of many other applicants with higher overall file scores. Among the components of the file score was one reflecting diversity, which prior Supremes decisions allow to be factored in- not on a strict quota basis, but as part of the overall candidate consideration. UT did the math, and concluded that even if petitioner Abby Fisher had been given full marks for diversity, she still would've been rejected. But she, and her negative-action supporters, are seeking a SCOTUS decision removing race and other non-numerical factors from the equation altogether.
The decision won't likely come until June, but argument was last week, and Nino, unlike his stonefaced silent partner in nuttery Clarence Thomas, let on to his views on the subject during the colloquy with counsel. Here, courtesy of the Court's transcription service, is exactly Wot He Said (line references omitted):
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less a slower-track school where they do well. One of -- one of the briefs pointed out that that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.
MR. GARRE: So this Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're that they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are too too fast for them.
MR. GARRE: This Court
JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm just not impressed by the fact that that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less. And and I I don't think it it it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible. I just don't think --
Yeah, Your Honor. You just don't think.
In the ensuing days, the Ninoapoloigists have tried to back their patron away from the blatant bias in his inquiry. I heard Limbaugh's defense of it a day or so after the Klan references started hitting the so-called Drive-By Media: That's not what Justice Scalia thinks! He was just engaging in intellectual discussion! Citing briefs submitted to the court which ARGUED that blacks do better in less elite schools! You're putting words in his mouth and ignoring the context! You can't do that!
Horsehockey.
The two key words in his "colloquy" are bolded above:
pointed out
Before I was a lawyer, or even a law student, I was a journalist, and we learned about attributions and weasel words. When it came to attributions, we were taught, you could never go wrong with the repeated use of "said." Any variation on it, from "added" to "zealously advocated," came with a certain amount of editorial loading. So we learned to be careful. "Added" was for quotes that literally came after the previous quote. "Argued" was reserved for quotes arising in an adversarial context. But two of the replacement verbs had an extra layer of meaning to them: "noted," and "pointed out." To use these, we had to be sure that the fact the speaker was "noting," or "pointing out," was, in fact, true.
So here, Mr, Justice Scalia believes his brief to be true. That minority students in leadership positions in their professions do not graduate from the most respected universities. That they'd be better off at "a slower-track school where they do well."
Separate, but, yaknow, equal.
Excuse me. I'm off to party like it's 1953.