[COGlory]

Some of the original Supreme Court cases upholding these policies went so far as to say that in the future, these exact things should be revisited because they were trying to bandage over decades of institutional racism.

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/publications/w...

> In her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded that affirmative action in college admissions is justifiable, but not in perpetuity: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.”

There are lots of criticisms of the SC, but I don't see why everything they rule should be absolute ground truth forever. They can (and do) revisit cases for good reason.

[lost_tourist]

I think it's mostly about the current MAGA heavy SCOTUS though that got there mostly by duplicity and hamstringing Senate procedures and pure luck. The judges weren't selected for talent, they were selected for an agenda.

[Clubber]

>I think it's mostly about the current MAGA heavy SCOTUS

That's modern liberal opinion news talking. It's about law. AA is a direct contradiction to the 14th amendment and it dilutes it. I'm sure just about everyone, including previously and currently oppressed minorities would prefer the protections of 14th amendment over the protections of AA.

[lost_tourist]

No, not true at all and I don't agree. Otherwise no government program could take race into consideration, but they do. Are you saying any kind of programs that are "race based" should now be null and void? Because you can't nit pick situations given your logic. Also downvotes don't hurt me and I don't care, I will continue to speak my peace.

[Clubber]

>Otherwise no government program could take race into consideration

Can you give an example of a government program that takes race into consideration other than Affirmative Action programs?