tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949695397805914430.post5004545689548758592..comments2023-04-12T08:14:37.935-04:00Comments on Colored Demos:: What Will Kennedy Do in the Texas Affirmative Action Case?Luis Fuentes-Rohwerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915435038828190903noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949695397805914430.post-82151427673398545542012-02-23T11:05:00.629-05:002012-02-23T11:05:00.629-05:00Bloggybee, I agree that the plaintiffs are not cha...Bloggybee, I agree that the plaintiffs are not challenging the ten percent plan and thought I made that clear above. I don't agree that UT does not have a prayer. Kennedy in Parents Involved clearly left open the possibility that you can in fact have a race conscious plan on top of a race neutral plan. So, the scheme is not impermissible. It may be true that the Court finds this scheme impermissible, but that's a different question from whether it is per se unconstitutional to have race conscious plan balanced on top of a race neutral one.Guy-Uriel Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13561922081190537859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949695397805914430.post-58966211298799963032012-02-23T10:41:17.566-05:002012-02-23T10:41:17.566-05:00The plaintiff is not challenging the Ten Percent P...The plaintiff is not challenging the Ten Percent Plan. They are challenging racial preferences for those who didn't get in with the Ten Percent Plan. And quite honestly, UT doesn't have a prayer of winning this unless something procedural comes up. It's only a matter of whether SCOTUS decides that you can't add racial preferences on top of a race neutral affirmative action policy that already boosted racial diversity OR if the reverse (parts of) Grutter. Parts of Grutter they could deal with including adding stricter scrutiny and whether there is a compelling interest in diversity.bloggybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07266489872545618425noreply@blogger.com