2. 新Justice上台，如果是moderate（也就是centrist），AA肯定会被uphold；就算事最严格的conservative上台，supreme court不会在短短几个term就overrule自己先例，9个Justice之间会互相协调讨论，保证supreme court能在短时间内consistent in its position。这种类似的情况在supreme court发生过很多次，supreme court有个原则-- 不给出因为换justice就改变法律的impression。
劝你说话多有 Point, 少谩骂.其实我同意即使 AA 废除，藤校亚裔比例也不会有大的改变，估计他们会再次改变规则，比如不看任何标准考试成绩，不列分项只列总分，这些是利益金钱决定的。但这不能 Justify institutional discrimination endorsed by government. 一个文章里说的好，so being institutional discrimination against Asian American is OK, as it's for the greater good? 这是 AA 的本质。
劝你说话多有 Point, 少谩骂.其实我同意即使 AA 废除，藤校亚裔比例也不会有大的改变，估计他们会再次改变规则，比如不看任何标准考试成绩，不列分项只列总分，这些是利益金钱决定的。但这不能 Justify institutional discrimination endorsed by government. 一个文章里说的好，so being institutional discrimination against Asian American is OK, as it's for the greater good? 这是 AA 的本质。
You are entitled to your ideology, but you do realize that you are not entitled to sacrifice of other people, or other people's kids for your ideology. Hopefully in your self-righteous mind, you could still understand that if people don't sacrifice their kids for your ideology, that does not make these people bad, or selfish, or otherwise inferior to you morally.
劝你说话多有 Point, 少谩骂.其实我同意即使 AA 废除，藤校亚裔比例也不会有大的改变，估计他们会再次改变规则，比如不看任何标准考试成绩，不列分项只列总分，这些是利益金钱决定的。但这不能 Justify institutional discrimination endorsed by government. 一个文章里说的好，so being institutional discrimination against Asian American is OK, as it's for the greater good? 这是 AA 的本质。
2. 新Justice上台，如果是moderate（也就是centrist），AA肯定会被uphold；就算事最严格的conservative上台，supreme court不会在短短几个term就overrule自己先例，9个Justice之间会互相协调讨论，保证supreme court能在短时间内consistent in its position。这种类似的情况在supreme court发生过很多次，supreme court有个原则-- 不给出因为换justice就改变法律的impression。
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in the running to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to share President Trump’s views on immigration and protecting the American worker.
In two dissenting opinions and one concurring opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh sided with American citizens and U.S. industry over illegal aliens and foreign competitors — opinions that align to Trump’s “America First” approach to the U.S. economy, immigration, worker protections, and trade. Kavanaugh: Illegal aliens are not lawful employees in the United States
In 2007, Agri Processor Co. — a wholesaler for kosher meats in Brooklyn, New York — argued that they did not have to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers union that their workers had voted to join because the majority were illegal aliens, and thus their votes were invalid.
That’s when the union filed complaints of unfair labor practices against the meat wholesaler with the National Labor Relations Board.
Kavanaugh: Corporations don’t have a right to import foreign workers
In 2014, the restaurant Fogo de Chao argued that they should be allowed to import chefs from Brazil on L-1B visas, which are supposed to be for immigrants holding “specialized knowledge” that cannot otherwise be found in the United States. When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blocked Fogo de Chao from importing a Brazillian chef on the L-1B visa rather than hiring an American chef, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of Fogo de Chao. Kavanaugh, though, wrote the dissenting opinion, noting that U.S. multinational corporations do not have the right to import foreign workers that they perceive to be better at a particular job than Americans.
Kavanaugh: U.S. has a historical interest in supporting American industry
In 2014, Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, siding with American industry over foreign competitors when it comes to the mandate that products must be marked with “country of origin” labels for consumers.
“May the U.S. Government require an imported Chinese-made product to be labeled ‘Made in China’? For many readers, the question probably answers itself: Yes,” Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion.
Kavanaugh concluded in his opinion that Congress has an interest in protecting American industry from foreign competition and thus country of origin labels serve the interests of Americans. Kavanaugh wrote:
… country-of-origin labeling is justified by the Government’s historically rooted interest in supporting American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers as they compete with foreign manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers. Since the early days of the Republic, numerous U.S. laws have sought to further that interest, sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly.
"semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."
Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text , history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others—with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.
"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi- automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi -automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi- automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."
你说的这是布什年代的AA定义。obama年代后的AA不是这样操作，比你说的激进多了。
现在的AA就是事实上的quota，大学不敢明说而已。否则怎么解释人口翻好几倍，录取率基本持平的现象
Blum战队经验怎么也比你丰富吧？照楼主的说法，他花这么大精力打一个结论已经有了的的官司，是不是脑子进水了？
谁死了哈福也死不了，就算哈福输了也不过是换一种玩法而已，有人却是死定了，只不过不自知而已。
除了哈佛，上次普林斯顿也有leak，有招生老师在亚裔的评语里，批量地写“无聊”“乏味”。
碰到一个父亲是莫莫、母亲是韩裔的混血，就表扬说“这样的混血种让人耳目一新”。
这种已经上升到了纳粹级别的种族歧视（纽伦堡法案、犹太混血判定方法）。
白左一时爽，全家火葬场，这样的case上最高法院，一告一个准，到时候都得拉清单。
黑命贵虽然傻，至少也敢正大光明地在马路上游行。
常春藤学校，却不敢公开那些录取材料，藏着掖着，就是因为这里面的歧视实在太肆无忌惮、触目惊心。
不可能毕其功于一役，AA能不能取消另说，
但如果闹到最高法院，那些用AA之名、搞扩大化、行种族歧视之实的，那就要倒大霉。
敲山震虎，后面还会有无穷无尽的class action。
不考虑 Quota, overrepresented, underrepresented 又从何说起？必然是相对于 Quota 才有每个种族应得的 quota 还是超过的 quota.所谓没有 Quota 只能说是没有严格的份额，比如20%上下，有时 19%， 有时22%，这不叫没有 quota.
第二点，川普应该比你聪明点，不会努力劝肯尼迪退休就为了选一个中间派。
劝你多读书，多思考。无知对于你维权，有害无益。
像你这种思路，你要挤着去这种学校干什么那？各类大小藤全是白左集散地，培训基地，你去了不是给自己找不痛快吗？只是好奇而已。根Obama，trump的有关系？trump当政，这些学校就右了？
劝你多读书，多思考。无知对于你维权，有害无益。
你是不是不读新闻只读历史啊？
首先现在 Supreme justice 只需要简单多数，这和历史上不同，也就不需要过多妥协。
其次现在 Short list 已经到处都是了，你看谁像中间派？
进去不学这些左比专业就好了。 藤校顶住洗脑出来的学生发财机会多啊？ 那些被洗的左比们出来直接进福利系统。
你懒得吵为啥又专门开一帖呢？ 大家看你这么傻忍不住跟你吵。 你不开帖不就不用吵了。
☆ 发自 iPhone 华人一网 1.14.01
哈哈， 一针见血。
劝你说话多有 Point, 少谩骂.其实我同意即使 AA 废除，藤校亚裔比例也不会有大的改变，估计他们会再次改变规则，比如不看任何标准考试成绩，不列分项只列总分，这些是利益金钱决定的。但这不能 Justify institutional discrimination endorsed by government.
一个文章里说的好，so being institutional discrimination against Asian American is OK, as it's for the greater good? 这是 AA 的本质。
哦，原来是这么想的，那进去之后精分的可能性很大，一方面要装大爱，因为这是大环境，异类out，另一方面心里装着全是小九九。好miserable的life。你觉得他们在招技术工？你好歹也得装装大爱。不过AO都是火眼金睛的人精，你要真想让孩子去，我劝你给他/她灌输点大爱，否者在申请面试的过程中一准露馅。
还不是被黑男抢被黑女打，被推下地铁。被反对技术移民。
你说说怎么死啊？我洗耳恭听啊。黑膜是会取消龙虾，取消医疗，还是遣返非移啊？
我可以不去哈佛，但是哈佛不能因为我的race不录取我，如果出现这种情况，就要一路告到底
算了，不可能有共同语言
所以你只支持某些人奋斗的政治成果，还是你觉得AA废除不是，用你的话，别人奋斗的政治成果？
保守派大法官，很多也是常春藤毕业的，凭什么不能出淤泥而不染？见识了白左的疯狂，才能认识到保守的可贵。
更何况主要是administration、admission office白左化，认真搞学术的教授中立或者偏右都很正常，哈佛的录取都被自己内部调查批评。
正是因为奥巴马的极左政权，才让这些白左学校（里的部分人）越来越猖獗，
以至于胆敢在录取材料里公然侮辱亚裔，还觉得self-righteous，简直是疯了。
与其说是AA的case，不如说是证据确凿的hate crime的strong case，你再急也没有用的。
没说不让你告，你告他racial profiling没问题，一个劲的反AA干什么，就算你再不承认，在宪法上我们亚裔是在AA这张大伞的保护之下的。你可以说在大学入取上没沾光，就把别人的保护伞全掀了？你知道那是多少代人，黑人为主，也包括我们亚裔挣来的吗？你不觉得自己自私？
You are entitled to your ideology, but you do realize that you are not entitled to sacrifice of other people, or other people's kids for your ideology. Hopefully in your self-righteous mind, you could still understand that if people don't sacrifice their kids for your ideology, that does not make these people bad, or selfish, or otherwise inferior to you morally.
奋斗有各种方式，如果这次成功，不就是奋斗成功了吗？如果你只能理解砸警车烧房子的奋斗，你可能理解不了在法律框架下的奋斗。
这个楼主真真的混淆视听，有空去看看哈佛的校报crimson，报道最近的诉讼很直接，下面的评论看得更过瘾，一片指责哈佛歧视的声音。谁说常青藤里就都是左派的声音了，自然有独立思想的人
你不用苦口婆心权华人不反aa了。 亚裔在aa里面是否得到好处， 人家心里都有数。 只有你这样的脑子算不过来的才觉得自己有好处。 或者你更坏， 改种了， 怕没aa 你利益受损。
这是亚裔的悲哀，八分之一血的黑人还是黑人，三十二分之一血的印第安人还是Pocahonta， 二分之一的亚裔已经不是亚裔了，这是一个悲哀的循环。
先是亚裔被歧视，然后为了避免歧视只要有可能就不 check Asian box, 然后加深亚裔永远是外国人的印象，而更有话语权的亚裔二代三代为了自己不再是亚裔的子女，不会对亚裔被歧视说话。
这个楼主就是专门混淆视听的， 智力有限，说的话颠三倒四，自相矛盾, 天天自恨亚裔，又天天 用中国文字在中国人论坛胡搅蛮缠。大家别较真了，看到他的帖子离远点就好。
华人现在真是， 如果不同意楼主的意见， 你一条一条有理有据的反驳好了。 不要人身攻击吧。
你就看见“大钱”两个字了，你的有多穷啊思想上的，金钱上的，才让你有这种想法。我这跟你费口舌都觉得丢人。
AA于我看来就是种族歧视，对某个种族照顾而实质歧视另外的种族，这就是违宪。
我赞同的是，按经济条件来调剂，贫穷的学生他们在一个pool，每个学校可以预留10%或更多名额给这些学生，名额多少各个学校自己决定，哈佛想搞50%，100%我都没意见，但是，不要把种族拿出来，race blind,然后其他非贫困生另外的pool，一样race blind。我认为贫困生资源就是不如其他学生，所以让他们单独的pool合理，但是不要把种族拿出来，哪怕最后某个种族占了这个名额大头都无所谓，但是你不能说因为你是某个种族，所以我优先录取你或者拒绝你，这是种族歧视。
AA不光是得不得到好处的问题，是对错问题。
另外相关的例子，职场上因为female engineer少，曾经有survey问是否觉得女性在工作中收到歧视，是否应该在招工中对女性设置某些名额，第一个无所谓，很正常的问题，第二个，就直接写了no，招工中为了让女性达到某种比例而lower the bar，这就是错的，period
And here I thought you believe in some ideology
华人无知？你上Twitter reddit 和非华人说呀，非要在这跟无知的华人说啥？
说的好像除了roe vs Wade 就没有最近的案例似的。
我引用一下，新法官提名已经出来了，熟知美国政治历史的楼主，一小时前还在幻想 moderate.
你要觉得他是中间派，你得是个比我还右的右派。基督教原教旨反堕胎的那种右。
而且就Trump track record你觉得还有 moderate 可能？
你是不是不懂conservative什么意思？你是不是不知道conservative在不同view上conservative程度不同？华人如此无知，怪不得华人社会地位低
不知道他的 View 总知道川普的 view.还是你觉得川普也不了解他的 View.
‘America First’ SCOTUS Choice: Judge Brett Kavanaugh Applies Trump’s Economic Patriotism to the Law
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/04/america-first-scotus-choice-judge-brett-kavanaugh-applies-trumps-economic-patriotism-to-the-law/
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in the running to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to share President Trump’s views on immigration and protecting the American worker.
In two dissenting opinions and one concurring opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh sided with American citizens and U.S. industry over illegal aliens and foreign competitors — opinions that align to Trump’s “America First” approach to the U.S. economy, immigration, worker protections, and trade.
Kavanaugh: Illegal aliens are not lawful employees in the United States
In 2007, Agri Processor Co. — a wholesaler for kosher meats in Brooklyn, New York — argued that they did not have to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers union that their workers had voted to join because the majority were illegal aliens, and thus their votes were invalid.
That’s when the union filed complaints of unfair labor practices against the meat wholesaler with the National Labor Relations Board.
Kavanaugh: Corporations don’t have a right to import foreign workers
In 2014, the restaurant Fogo de Chao argued that they should be allowed to import chefs from Brazil on L-1B visas, which are supposed to be for immigrants holding “specialized knowledge” that cannot otherwise be found in the United States.
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blocked Fogo de Chao from importing a Brazillian chef on the L-1B visa rather than hiring an American chef, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of Fogo de Chao.
Kavanaugh, though, wrote the dissenting opinion, noting that U.S. multinational corporations do not have the right to import foreign workers that they perceive to be better at a particular job than Americans.
Kavanaugh: U.S. has a historical interest in supporting American industry
In 2014, Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, siding with American industry over foreign competitors when it comes to the mandate that products must be marked with “country of origin” labels for consumers.
“May the U.S. Government require an imported Chinese-made product to be labeled ‘Made in China’? For many readers, the question probably answers itself: Yes,” Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion.
Kavanaugh concluded in his opinion that Congress has an interest in protecting American industry from foreign competition and thus country of origin labels serve the interests of Americans. Kavanaugh wrote:
… country-of-origin labeling is justified by the Government’s historically rooted interest in supporting American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers as they compete with foreign manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers. Since the early days of the Republic, numerous U.S. laws have sought to further that interest, sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly.
这你要举出例子来。
"semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally
protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."
Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel
upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its
requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the
majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text
, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second
Amendment precedents.
The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as
guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a
detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six
prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a
flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It
bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others—with no particular
explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In
any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case
District of Columbia v. Heller.
"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "the Supreme Court held that handguns—the
vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally
protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common
use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive
constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-
automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have
not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens
for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi
-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than
semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-
automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally
protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."
Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh to SCOTUS
Ann CoulterVerified account @AnnCoulter
The lesson of Trump: Take America's side and you win. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Kavanaugh is the polished lawyer version of America First.
10:42 PM - 7 Jul 2018
前面觉得你也许很了解政治，难道你觉得废除 AA 只有亚裔受益。
这件事你们左派反复说啊，这是白人拿亚裔当枪使。所以这件事才有可能成功。
其实最后藤校比例变化不会太大，但至少不能以法律的名义明目张胆的歧视亚裔孩子，像纽约教育总监那样贬低亚裔吧。
一看你就是根本不懂美国政治。
干嘛要对中国客气，中国对美国一点没客气。处处和美国作对。
这件事已经在 Supreme court agenda 上了，是哈佛那案子按程序走的。司法行政独立你不知道？就这个判决本身不需要川普操心。
不过关于行政能做到的部分， 川普已经行动过了，关心过了，比很多其他重要的事情之前就处理了，你真不看新闻是吧？
re. 其实我最不明白的是，既然别人的奋斗值得尊敬，为什么到了亚裔自己的奋斗就变成了她嘴里的剥夺别人的成果。如果她是觉得这个方式不好，但是除了冷嘲热讽大家的努力以外她也并没有提出更好的方法。 这种没有建设性的批评真的是无法说服任何人也起不到任何科普的效果的。
trump对你做啥了？ 他迫害打压你了？ 这位是不是有被迫害妄想症啊。
我觉得你的问题是没有 Point 可以说的时候就开始 personal attack.
aa只是政治奋斗的一个方面。你如果觉得从AA入手不好或者没有必要，其实可以开帖说你认为的亚裔政治奋斗的正确方向。如果有理有据其实大家都是很愿意看的。上来就说你们的智商不够以 AA 为重点的 strategy 完全不行，但同时也没有提出其他的 strategy, 所以没有办法讨论下去了。
Here you go again.You don't have a point.