Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
We are talking anout recent history and given that black women only make up 2% of judges, it is unlikely we would have one on the Suoreme Court statistically speaking. Minorities are over represented on the court.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
We're gonna rock this town
Rock it inside out
We're gonna rock this town
Make 'em scream 'n' shout
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
James Daulton
Footballguy
Clearly not. Jon noted how minorities are overrepresented on the SCOTUS. Didn't comment on their representation as federal judges though...
Probably something to do with all the white male discrimination we face these days.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
115 justices have served on the US Supreme Ct. 108 have been white men.
Jon mx’s take: “Minorities are over represented on the court”.
James Daulton
Footballguy
James Daulton
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
I believe the Supreme Court is presently 78% non-Hispanic white. The US is 57.8% non-Hispanic white.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Really does not matter. All that matters to anyone it it matters it that they are on their side. And even then, they could not name more than one judge.
Over or under representation for racial groups can exist without there being discrimination. The NBA is 70% black. If blacks want to become lawyers I don’t think they’d encounter any more obstacles than whites. It might even be easier for them due to college admission standards that favor minorities. Maybe the legal community and trade associations should do a better job recruiting you black students to pursue a career in law. My industry (insurance) has had a gross level of under-representation by minorities, but that is changing through outreach efforts.
bigbottom
Footballguy
I was simply responding to the assertion that minorities are overrepresented on the Supreme Court.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
quick-hands
Footballguy
Did I accidentally stumble into the Supreme Court thread?
massraider
Footballguy
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): We've been taken by surprise by the whole thing. We're not the only ones who were, but we are willing to admit it. The only thing more embarrassing than being wrong in your estimates is pretending that you weren't.
So why didn't we see this coming, this total loss of control? Well, because we assumed that if things were dire, serious people would be involved in fixing them. But we looked up and we saw Kamala Harris involved, and that reassured us.
...
Kamala Harris' job is to trot down to the blue room periodically to greet delegations of TikTok influencers, or to cut occasional PSA's for children's dental health awareness month, which is in February, so we assume she will be working on that right now.
But averting war with Russia, saving the civilized world? Come on, that is absolutely not Kamala Harris' job. That was our assumption. But, as noted, we were wrong.
Why were we wrong? Well, we spend a lot of time watching Kamala Harris. You probably don't. Unless you are junior producer at MSNBC, you're probably not that familiar with Kamala Harris.
We should say, by the way, we didn't underestimate Vladimir Putin, we overestimated Joe Biden. But we knew that once Kamala Harris was involved, it couldn't really be that serious.
So why didn't we see this coming, this total loss of control? Well, because we assumed that if things were dire, serious people would be involved in fixing them. But we looked up and we saw Kamala Harris involved, and that reassured us.
...
Kamala Harris' job is to trot down to the blue room periodically to greet delegations of TikTok influencers, or to cut occasional PSA's for children's dental health awareness month, which is in February, so we assume she will be working on that right now.
But averting war with Russia, saving the civilized world? Come on, that is absolutely not Kamala Harris' job. That was our assumption. But, as noted, we were wrong.
Why were we wrong? Well, we spend a lot of time watching Kamala Harris. You probably don't. Unless you are junior producer at MSNBC, you're probably not that familiar with Kamala Harris.
We should say, by the way, we didn't underestimate Vladimir Putin, we overestimated Joe Biden. But we knew that once Kamala Harris was involved, it couldn't really be that serious.
The General
Footballguy
Coach Beard
Footballguy
Who had an easier path from birth to Supreme Court nomination: Ketanji Brown Jackson or Brett Kavanaugh?
Yenrub
Footballguy
The NBA is not 70% black. The players may be 70% black but there are far more people than the players who make up NBA organizations
Assuming the minimum requirement for being qualified is a lawyer, then the makeup of the qualified population is 85% white. And considering it is a given we are getting a black female next, it will be at 66 - 33.
Last edited by a moderator:
quick-hands
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
What was her lsat anyway. Did she release it?
They appear to come from the same class. Their fathers were both lawyers. Kavanaugh’s mom was a schoolteacher and Jackson’s mom was a Principal. Kavanaugh went to Yale and Jackson went to Harvard. I don’t know their credentials for getting in, but I do know that based purely on race it is far easier for a qualified black person to get into an Ivy League school than a similarly qualified white person. As far as who had an easier time getting appointed as a Judge I wouldn’t know that.
I guess I’m a little annoyed at the implied premise that blacks always have a harder time achieving things than white people. I’d say by and large it is more difficult growing up black in America, but on the flipside there’s also some great opportunities. I mean, Kamala Harris always paints herself as someone who was underprivileged when the exact opposite is true. Her mom was a Doctor and her father was a Stanford professor.
Zow
Footballguy
1. Release it? It’s not like a diploma or something worth hanging onto it. Or, you know, tax returns.
2. She may not even remember it. I genuinely don’t recall exactly what mine fwiw. I know about what it was but not exactly.
3. I say the above because it’s relatively meaningless once one actually goes to law school, graduates with a GPA, and, you know, starts and excels in a career where performance actually means something.
To be clear, I’m not saying the LSAT is worthless. It’s a general measurement of intelligence and critical thinking and, probably more so, a measure of a prospective law student’s willingness to prepare for the test.
Ultimately, most lsat takers are in college and in their early 20s - so it seems silly to even care what they did on a test when their focus should be learning new subjects and developing socially. And it seems especially silly to even care decades later when there’s a clear track record of the prospective justice’s career of actually practicing law and/or serving as a judge or whatever.
joffer
Footballguy
Judging Merit by Identity
With the coming retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden is poised to fulfill his campaign pledge to nominate a black female to the Supreme Court. It is worth revisiting, therefore, a little-noticed announcement from Biden’s second month in office.
In February 2021, the Biden administration signaled its intentions to lower the standards for federal judicial appointments. Traditionally, presidents have submitted their judicial nominees to the American Bar Association for evaluation before announcing their choice in public. The ABA assigned potential candidates scores of “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified,” based on research about the nominee’s legal competence, integrity, and temperament. A “not qualified” rating, though confidential, served as a de facto veto.
The White House Counsel’s Office disclosed in February 2021 that it would not involve the ABA in preclearance. Republican presidents have also cut the ABA out of the confidential vetting process in recent years, on the ground that the association was biased against conservatives. That charge was plausible. The reason that the Biden administration gave for sidestepping the ABA, however, strained credulity: The ABA was insufficiently attuned to the need for “diversity” on the bench. Allowing the ABA to vet candidates was incompatible with the “diversification of the judiciary,” explained a member of the White House Counsel’s Office.
The idea that the ABA is indifferent to identity politics is laughable. Its leading members are obsessed with the racial and sex demographics of corporate law firms and law school faculties. This is the same ABA that gave its highest rating to Supreme Court nominee Sonia (“over 100,000 children . . . in serious condition, and many on ventilators” from Covid) Sotomayor. It is a measure of how far the Biden administration intended to stray from even a diversity-driven standard of competence that it saw the ABA as a roadblock.
The Obama years, however, had revealed that the bar association’s expectations still possessed some remaining taint of meritocracy. The ABA rated a higher proportion of Obama’s judicial nominees “not qualified” than the nominees of Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, and of Obama’s successor Donald Trump. Most of those deemed not qualified were minorities or females, slowing down Obama’s own drive to “diversify” the federal bench.
Biden officials attribute the Obama nominees’ low scores to racial and gender bias. A more credible reason is that the Obama administration had lowered the bar for a judgeship beyond what even the ABA was willing to stomach.
An estimated 2 percent of the nation’s lawyers are black females. The introduction of anyextraneous criterion for a job search lowers the average caliber of the potential applicant pool, by putting top contenders who do not possess the irrelevant trait out of reach. Contrary to the nostrums of diversity advocates, the role of a judge is not to “look like” this or that identity-based group; it is to apply the law as accurately and transparently as possible. President Ronald Reagan ignored that fact by limiting his 1981 Supreme Court selection to a female.
Biden’s race and gender restrictions are even more draconian, rendering 98 percent of all possible candidates beyond consideration because they lack “qualifications” that have nothing to do with judging.
Maybe, nevertheless, by some statistical anomaly, Biden’s severely constricted pool of candidates contains a disproportionate share of competitively qualified potential Supreme Court justices. From everything we know about average legal skills, however, the odds are against it, individual exceptions notwithstanding.
After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black law students rank in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students, according to a study of hundreds of thousands of student records from 90 percent of all accredited law schools and comprising 80 percent of all law students. Two-thirds of black students score in the bottom fifth of their class.
The author of that study, UCLA law professor Richard Sander, attributes that unequal performance distribution to mismatch: every remotely selective law school admits black students with academic qualifications on average vastly below their white peers. Mean black and white scores on the 2013–2014 LSAT were separated by 1.06 standard deviations, the Brookings Institution has found. In 2004, only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above on the LSAT, the average score for the most competitive schools, reports The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Whites were more than ten times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above. Yet those schools all admitted what they deem a “critical mass” of black students by race-norming their admissions standards.
The resulting skills gap puts preference beneficiaries at a competitive disadvantage in the classroom; they struggle to keep up with instruction pitched to students with more advanced academic skills. The consequences linger: blacks are twice as likely to drop out of law school as whites; only 45 percent of black law grads pass a bar exam on their first try compared with 80 percent of whites. Blacks are six times as likely to fail the exam after multiple attempts.
Acknowledging—even in private—the effect of mismatch on student performance can be professionally suicidal. An adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center was fired for a private comment lamenting that the black students in her negotiations seminar by and large clustered at the bottom of her class. Little did she know that her confidential observations to a fellow professor were being videoed. Inevitably, her remarks were posted on Twitter. Georgetown law dean Bill Treanor thundered that her comments were “abhorrent” and sacked her.
Treanor was following the pattern established by University of Pennsylvania Law School dean Ted Ruger in his treatment of Amy Wax: if a professor dares to mention the lackluster average performance of his or her black law students, accuse the professor of racism—but never refute the allegedly racist assertion with data to the contrary.
Treanor has again found himself “appalled” at a breach of mismatch taboos. Cato Institute vice president Ilya Shapiro was to assume the directorship of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution on February 1. Last week, Shapiro tweeted out that Biden’s race and sex preconditions for the Supreme Court eliminated the “objectively best pick” for Breyer’s soon-to-be-vacated seat: Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Though Srinivasan would have been the first Asian-American on the court, he “doesn’t fit the last intersectionality hierarchy,” Shapiro wrote, “so we’ll get lesser black woman.” In a follow-up tweet, Shapiro noted that Biden’s nominee would be dogged by the suspicion that she was selected on diversity rather than on merit grounds—a suspicion that conforms to all known facts.
Treanor labelled this latest mismatch infraction “appalling” as well. Though Shapiro has apologized for his “inartful” tweet, his new position at Georgetown surely is in jeopardy.
Our leading institutions—whether the bar, the American Medical Association, or universities—are fast becoming nonserious entities, frittering away our civilizational legacy in favor of the trivialities of identity. The State Bar of California is emblematic, as I discovered last week when renewing my bar membership. Lawyers licensed in the state must now take an “Attorney Census” before they can renew their license. Participation in the census is “vital in helping shape the state bar’s policies and programs for years to come,” the organization explains. Survey-takers can decline to answer the questions, but they must affirmatively opt out of each one.
So what information does the California bar seek in order to shape its legal policies: average wait time to get a court hearing? Length of trials? The rate of fee inflation and whether that inflation impedes clients’ access to due process?
No: the bar needs to know, as it puts it, which of the “following best fits with the gender identity you identify as [sic]: Female, male, gender variant/Non-conforming/Non-binary, Two Spirit, Not listed.” The bar also wants to know: “Which of the following best applies to you: Cisgender, Transgender, Intersex, not listed,” and: “How . . . you describe your sexual orientation or sexual identity: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Pansexual, Asexual, not listed,” among other identity-based queries.
It takes deep involvement in academic-inspired narcissism to imagine how bar policies could be affected by a survey showing that 0.5 percent, say, of attorneys in the state identify as “Two Spirit” or as “Pansexual.” What if the proportion were 2.5 percent—how would bar programs and policies change, compared with a merely 0.5 percent share? The State Bar deems such knowledge urgent, yet it denied access to its database of public records for a study of how racial preferences in California law schools affect student learning, something of much greater import to the future of law than the number of nonbinary lawyers.
The quality of our jurisprudence matters. The race, sex, and “gender identity” of judges do not. Private parties rely on an opinion’s clarity of reasoning to predict the outcomes of legal disputes. Some of the nation’s most complex moral and political questions have been addressed through the medium of legal decisions, especially from the Supreme Court. The quality of those decisions can strengthen or undermine the legitimacy of the law and of our constitutional order. Commercial matters can be nearly as complex, requiring the reconciling of competing statutes and regulations.
The law is not just about outcomes, contrary to contemporary discourse, which focuses exclusively on whether this or that justice will tip the balance on this or that policy. Under that contemporary perspective, the fact that Biden’s first Supreme Court pick will likely not change the overall ideological tenor of the court in the short term is viewed as more noteworthy than the fact that the new justice will help shape our jurisprudence for decades to come. Half of Biden’s picks for seats on the influential federal appeals courts—eight of 16 new appellate judges—have already been black females, presumably by virtue of the same irrelevant search restrictions. By making race and sex the paramount considerations for his Supreme Court nomination, Biden will likely deal another blow to the quality of our most important institutions—and with it our capacity to achieve excellence as a country and a civilization.
With the coming retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden is poised to fulfill his campaign pledge to nominate a black female to the Supreme Court. It is worth revisiting, therefore, a little-noticed announcement from Biden’s second month in office.
In February 2021, the Biden administration signaled its intentions to lower the standards for federal judicial appointments. Traditionally, presidents have submitted their judicial nominees to the American Bar Association for evaluation before announcing their choice in public. The ABA assigned potential candidates scores of “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified,” based on research about the nominee’s legal competence, integrity, and temperament. A “not qualified” rating, though confidential, served as a de facto veto.
The White House Counsel’s Office disclosed in February 2021 that it would not involve the ABA in preclearance. Republican presidents have also cut the ABA out of the confidential vetting process in recent years, on the ground that the association was biased against conservatives. That charge was plausible. The reason that the Biden administration gave for sidestepping the ABA, however, strained credulity: The ABA was insufficiently attuned to the need for “diversity” on the bench. Allowing the ABA to vet candidates was incompatible with the “diversification of the judiciary,” explained a member of the White House Counsel’s Office.
The idea that the ABA is indifferent to identity politics is laughable. Its leading members are obsessed with the racial and sex demographics of corporate law firms and law school faculties. This is the same ABA that gave its highest rating to Supreme Court nominee Sonia (“over 100,000 children . . . in serious condition, and many on ventilators” from Covid) Sotomayor. It is a measure of how far the Biden administration intended to stray from even a diversity-driven standard of competence that it saw the ABA as a roadblock.
The Obama years, however, had revealed that the bar association’s expectations still possessed some remaining taint of meritocracy. The ABA rated a higher proportion of Obama’s judicial nominees “not qualified” than the nominees of Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, and of Obama’s successor Donald Trump. Most of those deemed not qualified were minorities or females, slowing down Obama’s own drive to “diversify” the federal bench.
Biden officials attribute the Obama nominees’ low scores to racial and gender bias. A more credible reason is that the Obama administration had lowered the bar for a judgeship beyond what even the ABA was willing to stomach.
An estimated 2 percent of the nation’s lawyers are black females. The introduction of anyextraneous criterion for a job search lowers the average caliber of the potential applicant pool, by putting top contenders who do not possess the irrelevant trait out of reach. Contrary to the nostrums of diversity advocates, the role of a judge is not to “look like” this or that identity-based group; it is to apply the law as accurately and transparently as possible. President Ronald Reagan ignored that fact by limiting his 1981 Supreme Court selection to a female.
Biden’s race and gender restrictions are even more draconian, rendering 98 percent of all possible candidates beyond consideration because they lack “qualifications” that have nothing to do with judging.
Maybe, nevertheless, by some statistical anomaly, Biden’s severely constricted pool of candidates contains a disproportionate share of competitively qualified potential Supreme Court justices. From everything we know about average legal skills, however, the odds are against it, individual exceptions notwithstanding.
After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black law students rank in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students, according to a study of hundreds of thousands of student records from 90 percent of all accredited law schools and comprising 80 percent of all law students. Two-thirds of black students score in the bottom fifth of their class.
The author of that study, UCLA law professor Richard Sander, attributes that unequal performance distribution to mismatch: every remotely selective law school admits black students with academic qualifications on average vastly below their white peers. Mean black and white scores on the 2013–2014 LSAT were separated by 1.06 standard deviations, the Brookings Institution has found. In 2004, only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above on the LSAT, the average score for the most competitive schools, reports The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Whites were more than ten times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above. Yet those schools all admitted what they deem a “critical mass” of black students by race-norming their admissions standards.
The resulting skills gap puts preference beneficiaries at a competitive disadvantage in the classroom; they struggle to keep up with instruction pitched to students with more advanced academic skills. The consequences linger: blacks are twice as likely to drop out of law school as whites; only 45 percent of black law grads pass a bar exam on their first try compared with 80 percent of whites. Blacks are six times as likely to fail the exam after multiple attempts.
Acknowledging—even in private—the effect of mismatch on student performance can be professionally suicidal. An adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center was fired for a private comment lamenting that the black students in her negotiations seminar by and large clustered at the bottom of her class. Little did she know that her confidential observations to a fellow professor were being videoed. Inevitably, her remarks were posted on Twitter. Georgetown law dean Bill Treanor thundered that her comments were “abhorrent” and sacked her.
Treanor was following the pattern established by University of Pennsylvania Law School dean Ted Ruger in his treatment of Amy Wax: if a professor dares to mention the lackluster average performance of his or her black law students, accuse the professor of racism—but never refute the allegedly racist assertion with data to the contrary.
Treanor has again found himself “appalled” at a breach of mismatch taboos. Cato Institute vice president Ilya Shapiro was to assume the directorship of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution on February 1. Last week, Shapiro tweeted out that Biden’s race and sex preconditions for the Supreme Court eliminated the “objectively best pick” for Breyer’s soon-to-be-vacated seat: Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Though Srinivasan would have been the first Asian-American on the court, he “doesn’t fit the last intersectionality hierarchy,” Shapiro wrote, “so we’ll get lesser black woman.” In a follow-up tweet, Shapiro noted that Biden’s nominee would be dogged by the suspicion that she was selected on diversity rather than on merit grounds—a suspicion that conforms to all known facts.
Treanor labelled this latest mismatch infraction “appalling” as well. Though Shapiro has apologized for his “inartful” tweet, his new position at Georgetown surely is in jeopardy.
Our leading institutions—whether the bar, the American Medical Association, or universities—are fast becoming nonserious entities, frittering away our civilizational legacy in favor of the trivialities of identity. The State Bar of California is emblematic, as I discovered last week when renewing my bar membership. Lawyers licensed in the state must now take an “Attorney Census” before they can renew their license. Participation in the census is “vital in helping shape the state bar’s policies and programs for years to come,” the organization explains. Survey-takers can decline to answer the questions, but they must affirmatively opt out of each one.
So what information does the California bar seek in order to shape its legal policies: average wait time to get a court hearing? Length of trials? The rate of fee inflation and whether that inflation impedes clients’ access to due process?
No: the bar needs to know, as it puts it, which of the “following best fits with the gender identity you identify as [sic]: Female, male, gender variant/Non-conforming/Non-binary, Two Spirit, Not listed.” The bar also wants to know: “Which of the following best applies to you: Cisgender, Transgender, Intersex, not listed,” and: “How . . . you describe your sexual orientation or sexual identity: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Pansexual, Asexual, not listed,” among other identity-based queries.
It takes deep involvement in academic-inspired narcissism to imagine how bar policies could be affected by a survey showing that 0.5 percent, say, of attorneys in the state identify as “Two Spirit” or as “Pansexual.” What if the proportion were 2.5 percent—how would bar programs and policies change, compared with a merely 0.5 percent share? The State Bar deems such knowledge urgent, yet it denied access to its database of public records for a study of how racial preferences in California law schools affect student learning, something of much greater import to the future of law than the number of nonbinary lawyers.
The quality of our jurisprudence matters. The race, sex, and “gender identity” of judges do not. Private parties rely on an opinion’s clarity of reasoning to predict the outcomes of legal disputes. Some of the nation’s most complex moral and political questions have been addressed through the medium of legal decisions, especially from the Supreme Court. The quality of those decisions can strengthen or undermine the legitimacy of the law and of our constitutional order. Commercial matters can be nearly as complex, requiring the reconciling of competing statutes and regulations.
The law is not just about outcomes, contrary to contemporary discourse, which focuses exclusively on whether this or that justice will tip the balance on this or that policy. Under that contemporary perspective, the fact that Biden’s first Supreme Court pick will likely not change the overall ideological tenor of the court in the short term is viewed as more noteworthy than the fact that the new justice will help shape our jurisprudence for decades to come. Half of Biden’s picks for seats on the influential federal appeals courts—eight of 16 new appellate judges—have already been black females, presumably by virtue of the same irrelevant search restrictions. By making race and sex the paramount considerations for his Supreme Court nomination, Biden will likely deal another blow to the quality of our most important institutions—and with it our capacity to achieve excellence as a country and a civilization.
Coach Beard
Footballguy
They do not come from the same class. Kavanaugh had a grandfather who went to Yale. His mother had a law degree and was a judge for several years, calling her a “schoolteacher” is deceptively underselling her academic credentials and career. Kavanaugh went to a $56K per year prep school that sends most of its students to Ivy colleges. Kavanaugh is an old-money legacy who got into Yale largely because he’s from a wealthy family that sent him to an expensive private school. His undergrad academic record is unremarkable - not GWB bad, but he wasn’t top 20% of his class and wasn’t in the highest tier of honors.
Jackson’s parents are both HBCU alums, went to a really good public high school that has a good record of sending students to competitive colleges. She was a national speech/debate champion in high school. To suggest her path to the Ivy League was easier than Kavanaugh’s is a joke, and yet her academic credentials were more remarkable than Kavanaugh’s.
Kavanaugh couldn’t get confirmed as a judge on his own. His was nominated not on his merits as a legal mastermind, but as a reward for his work on the Starr Report and for working on the Bush side of Bush v Gore. His nomination stalled for three years, barely got out of committee, his ABA rating dropped during the stall, his confirmation was negotiated as part of a larger deal made in the Senate. Kavanaugh only made it to the bench because his party kept lowering the bar for him.
Jackson’s District Court nomination process lasted about three months from hearing to confirmation. Paul Ryan helped generate some bipartisan support on her behalf, praising her intellect and integrity even while disagreeing with her politics. Voice vote passage in committee and full Senate.
But yeah, maybe Tucker Carlson is right and we need to see Jackson’s LSAT score to see how much she benefitted from affirmative action even though her academic record and professional career is more impressive than the last two SCOTUS nominees.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Hey I had to watch a hearing on a fake rape story. High-school bs. I think her showing how she dominated the lsat will be ok. Since she is an affirmative action ish appointee why can't we see if she was let into law school on her own merit.
As Mazie Hirono said "I believe her" and she needs to "shut up, step up, and do the right thing".
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Putin seriously underestimated the Ukrainian people, Europe, USA and NATO.
I think the Biden administration's response has been good so far but good 'ol Tucker still thinks Putin's a genius in this situation. I'm not sure why people watch this guy.
rockaction
Footballguy
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
SCJs LSATs matter as much as a SCJs high school year book. Dems made these rules they can now enjoy them.
timschochet
Footballguy
I would debate it. What is happening instead is that conservatives in this country, by and large, have developed a deep skepticism of these institutions. There are various reasons for this skepticism, few of them justifiable from my point of view. And the responsibility is not on the institutions themselves, but on those expressing the skepticism.
the moops
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
I think you should look back to say 1980 and see who was really challenged and who wasn't?
5 to 1 I'd guess.
timschochet
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
Yenrub
Footballguy
While the bolded may be the case today, I doubt it that way in the late 1980's?
The Ivy League's interest in diversity seems like something a bit more recent (say last 10 or 15 years)
Rockchild
Footballguy
I think she would like to release them but she's under an audit and can't until it's over. Here hands are tied.
quick-hands
Footballguy
That's reasonable. She must have some convoluted financial dealings if the irs is looking that over.I think she would like to release them but she's under an audit and can't until it's over. Here hands are tied.
Don't mess with the irs.
Zow
Footballguy
LSAT is not the only factor for admission into law school - even if we're talking solely about merit factors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
You're equating one of several factors for law school admission decades ago with possible evidence supporting an alleged rape*? That's quite the stretch.
*To be clear, I do not believe the evidence supported that it was more likely than not that Kavanagh committed rape. As for Kavanagh, I would have voted against him because the decorum and character he showed during the hearings was childish and not reflective of somebody who can sit though serious legal proceedings without keeping his personal emotions in check. Similarly, should Biden's nomination throw some hissy fit and behave similarly in response to the LSAT inquiry I would hold the same view for her. But, frankly, equating a rape allegation (which goes to the core of the character of a prospective justice) with an inquiry into one's LSAT score (which, again, is so darn meaningless when the candidate has decades of a legal career to review) is laughably disingenuous.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coach Beard
Footballguy
My family has some recent experience with the admissions process at elite colleges. My takeaway from it all is the three biggest anti-meritocracy factors in admissions to elite USA undergraduate institutions are legacies, megadonors, and athletes. Even at a school like University of Chicago, which we pursued partially because they don’t have a Division I intercollegiate athletic program, we had admissions people asking about varsity sports played and talking about how interest in continuing interscholastic sport in college might help admissions chances.
Clear out the kids who got in only because their family made a seven-figure donation or had a parent/grandparent go there or can row a boat fast or hit a tennis ball hard, and you’re going to open a lot more slots to more qualified students than if you removed race or gender from consideration.
I get that people like Tucker Carlson want you to believe American elite universities are being tarnished because they are letting in too many students who look like Ketanji Brown Jackson or Kamala Harris, but if those schools wanted to commit to pure meritocracy they would stop giving preference to students like Brett Kavanaugh and Jared Kushner.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Yeah, small request. So whom of the latest SC nominees did Tucker inquire about an LSAT ? there's been like what 5 in the last 10 years or so? And if this is the first, why do you think now?
Similar threads
