"One way or the other, Justice Kennedy will decide the fate of affirmative action."


At The Huffington Post, Stephen Menedian highlights the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, which the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. At issue is the constitutionality of the university's race-conscious admissions policies. As Menedian explains, when the Supreme Court last heard a case dealing with affirmative action in higher education, 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger, perennial swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented from the majority opinion which had upheld the University of Michigan Law School's contested admissions policy. Menedian argues that given the Court's current make-up, this dissent by Kennedy "is a roadmap to the outcome in Fisher." He writes:

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kennedy agreed with Justice O'Connor that the proper rule for evaluating affirmative action derives from Justice Powell's opinion in the 1970s Bakke decision, an opinion had not enjoyed clear support of a majority of the Court until Grutter. In his opinion in Bakke, Justice Powell asserted that promoting diversity is a compelling government interest that would justify the use of race-conscious admissions. However, such a program must be narrowly tailored to safeguard the rights of innocent non-minority students. Therefore, it follows that Justice Kennedy, like Justice O'Connor, believes that promoting racial diversity is a compelling governmental interest, and would uphold any affirmative action program that is narrowly tailored. However, unlike Justice O'Connor, who voted to uphold the University of Michigan Law School's holistic admissions plan, Justice Kennedy did not believe that University of Michigan's diversity plan was narrowly tailored. In particular, Justice Kennedy cited the fact that the narrow fluctuation band of minority enrollment over the years "subverted individual determination." In addition, Justice Kennedy was concerned that the undue attention to the 'daily reports', which updated university admissions administrators on the number of minority applications accepted, undermined the individualized review throughout the entire admissions process.

Read the rest of Menedian's article here.

It's also worth noting that Kennedy has long been skeptical of race-based government classifications, and believes that such classifications always deserve strict scrutiny from the courts. Consider his dissent in the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. F.C.C., which dealt with the government's preferential licensing treatment for minority-owned stations. "Once the Government takes the step, which itself should be forbidden, of enacting into law the stereotypical assumption that the race of owners is linked to broadcast content," Kennedy wrote, "it follows a path that becomes ever more torturous."

For more on the law and politics of affirmative action, check out Reason's previous coverage here.

NEXT: Diplomats Say Iran Cleaning Up Evidence of Nuclear Tests, 216,000 Jobs Added in February, FBI Turns Off 3000 Tracking Devices: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think I will have another taco after all.

  2. "compelling government interest"

    Oh how I hate that phrase.

    1. Is there a legally defensible definition of that phrase? E.g., "is necessary and proper for the execution of an enumerated government power."

      1. I don't know. All I know about it, is that it's invoked anytime the gov't wants to do something they know they shouldn't be, and/or which is clearly unconstitutional. It's used a lot as an "exception" to the BoR.

      2. No, it just means they really, really want that power.

      3. The only thing I can think of would be some military secrets. There is a compelling government interest that our current training tactics/weapons tech/whatever not be made public to other militaries.


      4. Isn't "compelling state interest" a phrase that comes from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? I've always thought that little noxious caveat negated the whole concept of freedom to which the DotRoM pretended to aspire. The French are weasels to the end.

      5. Whenever the SCOTUS wants to allow something, it finds a "compelling government interest." When it doesn't, it doesn't.

    2. That phrase makes me wet, Gojira. You must be into grandma-starving kink.

    3. The stars never compel; they merely impel.

  3. OT: Look! More quantitative easing/debt monetization coming our way!

    Under the new approach, the Fed would print new money to buy long-term mortgage or Treasury bonds but effectively tie up that money by borrowing it back for short periods at low rates, according to a story in The Wall Street Journal.


    Apparently, the Fed is just trying to figure out how to manipulate the market for long-term debt, without actually allowing the people it buys the debt from to use the proceeds for anything, which would be inflationary.

    Although we were told previously that QE without these restrictions wasn't inflationary.

    And I'm wondering why anyone would do this unless they were dumping toxic assets or knew the repo deals would be short-lived.

    1. Yeah, I saw that earlier. Pretty sneaky. What could go wrong?

      1. Somewhere, Ivan Boesky is smiling.

        1. You stupid Christ-fags know nothing about economics.

          1. So educate us, shrike:

            What is the economic benefit of manipulating the bond markets to suppress returns and inflict financial repression on savers and investors?

            What is the economic purpose of buying bonds, but not allowing the sellers to use the proceeds?

  4. "Promoting diversity" is similar to the "state's rights" argument of the Confederacy: both have something to hide.

    1. Yeah, it's not like any rights are reserved to the states in the Constitution or anything.

    2. "promoting diversity" is code here for "promoting racism, but of the GOOD kind, you know, favoring minorities"

      good to know the swing justice thinks that racism must be narrowly tailored, rather than broadly applied

      1. "Narrowly Tailored" means that the state-sanctioned racism applies to the Negroes but not to the Chinks and Irish.

    3. How is "promoting diversity" via race-based decisions not an explicit position that African Americans, for example, are interchangeable cogs with a monolithic worldview who are defined by their biology rather than individuals with their own thought processes?

  5. "Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices," Holder said. "The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin ... When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?"



    1. Agreed, with a caveat.

      I would add that minorities are entitled to the same exact admissions policies as without bar.

      And that means getting rid of affirmative action.

      Why college admissions aren't done completely color blind baffles the fuck out of me. It should be all about academic aptitude. The smartest/most accomplished get in (according to a particular academic bar set by individual universities), with race having nothing whatsofuckingever to do with it.

      1. Because it's a business, and a large segment of the population finds racial diversity a selling point.

      2. It has long been true that blacks don't fare well on standardized tests. Rather than address root problems, the left wants to paper over it through AA. Everyone is then supposed to pretend that they got there on merit and be comfortable in the fantasy world of noble intentions.

        The rationale has changed over the years. Once, it was to remedy past discrimination, but that notion became a joke when the children of upper middle class AA beneficiaries also started to receive preferences. Not to mention that Asians were excelling academically despite having suffered discrimination of their own.

        this is all an effort to pretend that the massive cultural problems of black America can be solved through a bit of cheap social engineering. Nothing more.

        1. I don't buy into the word "entitled".

          Cue Tony calling me a racist in 3...2...1...

        2. There's zero evidence that the various Gaps can be closed much. However there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that elevating the status of blacks and rich whites above Asians and poor whites has created an elite opinion and political class that is completely fucking retarded.

        3. except it's not "blacks" per se. as sowell and others have pointed out, IMMIGRANT blacks (iow sons of recent immigrants) etc score quite well on these tests.

          this is yet another example of how much cultural capital matters.

          the racist would say blacks score worse because they are genetically dumber

          the liberal would say they score worse because the tests are racially biased.

          the realist understands that culture matters. cultures that value education, studying, etc. more tend to produce kids that do better on tests.

          shocking, i know.

          asians, specifically japanese americans score higher on these tests. they also have much lower rates of criminality, STD's, etc. etc. it's not genetics. it's CULTURE.

          1. except it's not "blacks" per se. as sowell and others have pointed out, IMMIGRANT blacks (iow sons of recent immigrants) etc score quite well on these tests.

            They're lying. It's an (understandably) awkward subject for Sowell, but there's plenty of data on this. He's simply lying.

            this is yet another example of how much cultural capital matters.

            If "cultural capital" was the issue, adoption would solve the problem. It doesn't. In fact, it barely moves the needle.

            1. right. sowell is lying.

              you are saying he is. so it must be true

              1. Find me a decent sized dataset with 2nd gen African adult immigrants scoring near 100 IQ (or the test equivalent). If you can't, (and you can't) Sowell is lying.

                1. i'm not responsible for error checking sowell's work. his work stands as it is. if you are saying it's error laden, then YOU present the data.

                  and fwiw, i wasn't talking about IQ tests anyway. i was talking about college admission tests, which is what i thought was being referred to as "standardized tests" since we are talking about AFFIRMATIVE action and last i checked, most universities don't administer the stanford binet as their "standardized tests" but they administer scholastic apttitude tests, etc.

                  so why are you bringing up IQ tests?

                  1. SAT-IQ correlation is .85. With a reasonable home environment (which 2nd gen African immigrants certainly have), they're virtually the same thing. Sowell is an economist. He doesn't any deference for his IQ data.

                    1. BTW, I know Sowell is susceptible to lying about IQ because he already did with Irish P/C.

                    2. what exactly is your claim? that black immigrants do NOT score better on tests and sowell is lying? again, i am not arguing from authoritah, but if you are claiming he is wrong, then you at least need to present something more than "he's lying. believe me".

                      if he;s wrong, he's wrong. i have no problem with that.

                    3. the results seem mixed e.g. "Blacks immigrants scored 111 points lower on the SAT than Whites and 57 points higher than other Blacks. The differences were statistically significant. Assuming 200 points per SD, the difference amounts to .55 SD. "

                    4. The results are actually much lower than I'd expect. African immigrants are selected by both IQ and culture. NE Asians are selected by the same and they crush native whites. Most of the reported scores are dragged down by SE Asians, but check out the National Merits in states with a decent Asian population. It's absolutely amazing.

                      Blacks immigrants scored 111 points lower on the SAT than Whites

                      As I said, Sowell is (understandably) lying.

                    5. IQ is one thing. Individual economic advancement is another. There is no question that black immigrants in America advance themselves more rapidly than native-born American blacks. Apparently, being told all your life that your life sucks because whitey is always trying to keep you down and that society owes you special treatment somehow affects a person's work ethic. Or maybe being told that you need special treatment destroys your confidence deep down inside no matter how much bravado you display. dunphy is right that culture matters.

                    6. frog hater, I completely agree that culture matters, a lot. I'm only arguing that all evidence suggests that it doesn't matter much for g-loaded tests. African and West Indian immigrants are model citizens in most places. They're hard-working entrepreneurs who deserve citizenship more than many lazy native slouches. Still, Stowell is lying. It's what PC elites do.

                    7. Sidd, I'll admit that The Bell Curve made a pretty convincing case. The one big complaint that I had was that it never addressed what in sports would be called "a winning tradition". I have seen more than a few students make themselves physically ill because they are felt so much pressure to excel academically. Most of those students were either jewish or oriental. In contrast, many black students exhibit defeatist attitudes or act with sneering bravado as if they don't care. I think its possible that expectations play a significant role in IQ test disparities. I can't say that I have studied the matter. TBC is about the only serious book I have ever read on the matter.

      3. I've always wondered how AA interacts with residency issues as regards state universities. Should a more qualified Asian be admitted to State U over a less-qualified Caucasian even though the former is from out of state and the latter not? I can see residents of a state getting steamed as they pay taxes to support a university system that then excludes their kids in favor of out-of-state enrollees.

        1. I would rather see residents getting pissed off when State U admits a lesser student in order to satisfy a check block. There is no way to spin this - it is discrimination and the embodiment of govt madness: the solution is a repackaging of hte problem.

        2. State U's set limits for the number of out-of-state and international students. So it's kinda like AA, except the opposite.

          1. That's kinda what I expected, but it's hard to conclude that some lesser-qualified applicants will be admitted over more-qualified applicants, not because of race quotas, but resident quotas.

            1. **not** hard. I need more scotch.

            2. Well, it seems to me that State U's are in a Catch 22. OOH they receive federal dollars so they should only discriminate against foreigners; OTOH they receive state funds so they should discriminate against out-of-staters.

              1. State Us do discriminate in admissions on the basis of geography, but some of the funding injustice is compensated by tuition differences.

                1. Is it? I haven't looked at this recently but many State Us receive more federal than state funding. There has to be some line across which federal funding should necessitate non-discriminatory admissions. What is it? How many Universities have crossed it?

                  1. I'm sure that the tuition disparity doesn't cover the admission discrimination. Of course there are so many other issues at work. What is the point of University education? What is the point of subsidizing education with tax dollars? What role does and should research grant money play? And what about the tuition of foreign students? What about tuition for legal and illegal aliens?

      4. Right, equality of opportunity is different than equality of outcome.

        Why college admissions aren't done completely color blind baffles the fuck out of me.

        It's really pretty simple. Blacks are louder than Asians. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

        1. Only racist white trash assholes want "color blind" anything.

          1. Yes, "color blind" is clearly racist.

        2. college admissions aren't done completely color blind because if they WERE, the results would infuriate the social engineers.

          fwiw, cops are roughly 85% men. obviously, we are not "gender diverse".

          from my experience in testing, etc. though, male APPLICANTS grossly outnumber female applicants

          iow, it's clear that either th ewomen who apply are being given preference OR the women who apply are better qualified on average, since at every test i've proctored etc. women make up WAY less than 15% of applicants.

          for a while, a lot of PD's had entirely different physical fitness requirements for female vs. male recruits, which is completely insane. even fire dept's have done this.

          iow, they would have two different weight dummys for the applicants to drag. women got the lighter one.

          iow, they are willing to sacrifice fire victims LIVES in order to get more women firefighters.

          1. They big dogs believe in the Standard Social Science Model even more than you. God Bless Them.

            1. The corollary to the SSSM used by academics is that Western culture is deliberated rigged to benefit white males and must therefore be replaced with a culture which is more just. Somehow "more just" always involves the government dispensing opportunity in political ways in order to buy support rather than on the basis of merit.

              1. The corollary to the SSSM used by academics is that Western culture is deliberated rigged to benefit white males

                That sounds exactly like the SSSM to me.

  6. The whole judicial system has jumped the shark when the Supreme Court must called in to to fix a college's admissions policy.

    1. The whole judicial system f*cking society has jumped the shark gone insane when the Supreme Court must called in to to fix is used to evaluate a college's admissions policy.

      The very notion that 9 unelected and unaccountable lawyers should micromanage policy in a nation of more than 300 million people who are supposed to enjoy self-rule is an outrage.

      The judiciary needs to be smacked down and smacked down hard. The acquisition of so much power by the judiciary may not be the most pressing political problem in the U.S., but it is one of the biggest.

      1. The involvement of SCOTUS in this micromanaging is secondary to actions taken by Congress and the President.

        If they didn't micromanage us, SCOTUS wouldn't, either.

        1. Congress critters and the President can be voted out. Justices can't. And the courts have been exercising legislative authority which is flagrantly unconstitutional. All branches are culpable, but the current environment in which the Judiciary is treated as having the last word on every issue, i.e. that it is superior to the other branches, must be changed.

  7. Limbaugh defends LRA

    1. You had to go all the way back to 5 months ago to find something stupid Rush said?

      1. You had to go back 5 months to find an article in a liberal media outlet that deliberate misrepresents a satirical remark by Limbaugh as though it were serious?

        No one that heard Limbaugh's remark in context could possible have honestly interpreted it as anything but a satirical dig at Obama.

        Haters gonna hate. Liars gonna lie.

  8. We gots niggers in are schools?

  9. was this Breitbart's last smoking gun on Obama?

    1. Can anyone still truly doubt that the man was assassinated? Bueller?

  10. "America is a very litigious society" - negative stereotype or positive value?

    1. Unfortunate side effect of having too many lawyers in public office, Hipster.

      Or too many lawyers, period.

      Damn sure we wouldn't be in such a mess if we had a loser-pays legal system.

      1. That way, individuals will NEVER sue major corps, because if they lose to the team of better lawyers, they'll have to pay the outrageous fees those lawyers demand. That's surely the best way to fix the system!

        1. Uh, sure... whatever.

          1. And now, for something that makes more sense than the post I just replied to:


          2. You hate poor people. You suck.

        2. Yes. It's ridiculous to propose a system which allows the winning defendant to avoid financial injury. That would be fair and unjust!! People should be able to sue willy-nilly without regard to the costs or consequences to innocent defendants.

        3. That's how we intimidate schools and cities into bowing to our demands in out-of-court settlements. We love how well loser-pays works in civil rights litigation!

      2. Loser-pays effectively prevents the middle class from enjoying the legitimate benefits of the tort system. The poor have nothing to lose and the rich, by definition, can afford to lose. Loser-pays is a terrible way to correct our overly litigious system.

        A much better idea is to make those lawyers who abuse the system accountable in a way that really, really hurts them like stripping them of their law license and sentencing them to a mandatory prison term if they recruit clients for fraudulent lawsuits.

        1. I like this "frog hater" guy. That's a good name. Don't be another one-off asshole.

          1. I'm afraid I will be another one-off asshole. I don't really hate frogs ... or toads ... or the French.

      3. Loser-pays effectively prevents the middle class from enjoying the legitimate benefits of the tort system. The poor have nothing to lose and the rich, by definition, can afford to lose. Loser-pays is a terrible way to correct our overly litigious system.

        A much better idea is to make those lawyers who abuse the system accountable in a way that really, really hurts them like stripping them of their law license and sentencing them to a mandatory prison term if they recruit clients for fraudulent lawsuits.

        1. I had to post it twice because I'm so darn right.

        2. Because we allow contingency fees, the incentives for bringing lawsuits are all fucked up.

          As it is, there is no downside to a plaintiff who brings a suit. If they win, they get a lot of money. If they lose, they are out less than they would have paid for a lottery ticket.

          I think you can have loser pays and contingency fees, or no loser pays and no contingency fees.

          What doesn't work is having one but not the other.

          1. Having loser pays and contingency fees won't change the way that risk will factor into the decision by those of different financial means to file lawsuits. Loser pays will have a differential impact.

            No loser pays and no contingency fees will make large institutions all but unaccountable for their misdeeds since corporations, for instance, will be able to defend themselves with massive legal staffs.

            Lawyers, like everyone else, don't like accountability, even though it would be good for their profession. Make the legal standard very high, but throw a few miscreant lawyers into prison and watch how fast the tort system gets cleaned up.

  11. Just got back from the gym. Sat in the spa and had a nice conversation with a couple of people, then Mr Team Blue showed up as we were talking about holidays and how they work. Anyway, he produced to cite some absurd stats like there are states with minimum wages of $2, and that's how they keep people down.

    1. Your gym doesn't have a no-retard rule, do they?

      1. That would be absurd. Who would send them away? They're like scary strong.

        1. 'Tard Guards!

    2. did you deck them?

    3. Minimum wage for waiters in SC (where I was a waiter) is something like $2.13/hour. It sure does suck, but you make all your money in tips. I lived, and paid rent to boot.

      1. No taxes on tips, so its all good.

        1. If only that were true. It was like 6 years ago. Now they tax your credit card tips, and you enter what you earned in cash (usually $0, unless you're paranoid).

          1. I can just see the audit.

            "What, I'm a terrible waiter. I have a bad attitude, asshole. People don't tip me out of their own pocket. I only get tips if they are charging it to their company anyway.

  12. Anyway, he was basically a "Bush=bad/Obama=good guy that got schooled on everything from fractional reserve banking to the abandonment of the 4A. He finally gave up arguing with us and ended with this gem: "Look, National Security trumps the Constitution protections, so Obama murderdroning citizens is fine." And he said oing into Pakistan was OK because we got OBL, and that Bush was a murdered for getting us into Afghanistan and Iraq, but Obama was fine for continuing the wars because he didn't have a choice.

    Anyway, that was possibly my awakening to how blind some peoples' allegiance to Team Blue can be. It was shocking...just shocking.

    Anyway, I wished him well and walked away laughing.

    1. Couldn't have been shrike... he didn't call you a Christ-fag.

  13. Oh, and he said Al Alwaki didn't deserve due process because it was a war. I asked him when the AUMF was signed for it, and he said he wasn't sure. I then asked if Obama voted for the Iraq War, and he said he voted against it. I corrected him and let him know Obama wasn't even in the Senate then, but he voted for funding every time it came up.

    The guy was a deer in the headlights.

  14. Justice Powell asserted that promoting diversity is a compelling government interest


    If the UC system abolished racial discrimination altogether, Berkeley would probably be about 80% Asian, and I'm fine with that. The current "diversity" policy is nothing more than a way for guilt-peddling white leftards to screw over hard-working Asian students, just like their ancestors did with the Chinese Exclusion Act.


    1. The current "diversity" policy is nothing more than a way for guilt-peddling white leftards to screw over hard-working Asian students

      Oh, it is much more than that. "diversity" is used to make government the bestower of favors and the dispenser of political patronage. "diveristy" is used to undermine the concept of advancement by merit and to attack the idea of personal responsibility. "diversity" is a weapon to wage war against capitalism, which is obviously just a system for promoting "white privilege", and advancing socialism, which is, somehow, the core of true "non-white" societies in their native states.

      And don't forget, "diversity" is also increasingly being used to promote people on the basis of their alternative sexual lifestyles.

  15. Kennedy needed a better editor, too. (Too? In addition to, say, this here blog?) He likely meant "tortuous," although a (silly) argument could be made for the term he used. It is a common error. As a recovering common error pointer-outer, now I only comment on one per day. I have to get control of these cravings...!
    - - - - - - -
    ...Kennedy wrote, "it follows a path that becomes ever more torturous."

  16. when people conflate "affirmative action" with racial preferences it is almost as annoying as conflating "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants"

    there are all sorts of ways companies etc. can engage in affirmative action that does not run afoul of the constitution, and that does not give PREFERENCES based on (race, gender, etc.)

    one can support AA in general, w/o supporting racial preferences. the latter is a (imo unconstitutional and odious) subset of a much broader class we refer to as AA.

    1. "affirmative action" is often a form of "racial preferences" in the sense that you can fall into the subset of the latter's preference without any of the previous social conditions that the affirmative action is seeking to requite

    2. You don't know what you're talking about. If elite schools did away with race based AA, they'd all look like Caltech, i.e. many classes would have zero black students. Sure, there's various ways to value background (e.g. points to poor kids or rural kids) but that would only serve to push poor white and Asians over rich whites. There would still be almost zero blacks among elite schools (either nationwide or statewide).

      1. Preach it brother!

      2. i don't care if a class is 0% black or 100% black

        as long as the PROCESS is fair.

        that's the point

        and as numerous have pointed out, admitting kids to elite programs they are underqualified for just means you get much higher dropout rates.

        it's better a kid GRADUATES at a mid-tier school, then gets admitted to an elite one he is not prepared for, and then flunks out

        but why should college classes be "racially equal" to society at large?

        if asians score much better in classes and tests (and they do) then they SHOULD be overrepresented in colleges and especially elite ones.

        i don't give a flying #$()#$ what race my orthopedic surgeon is. i just want him to be good.

        egalitarianism cannot exist without discrimination.

        1. Who is this directed at? The only regular commenter who might reject anything is Tony, who probably doesn't exist.

          1. i wasn't aware it had to be directed at anybody.

            i am simply saying i know that many claim that "diversity" (by which they mean racial diversity) is a "compelling" govt. interest.

            what i am saying is IMO process fairness is a far greater compelling govt. interest.

            results based analysis, and then reversing direction is NOT a good thing.

            1. The compelling government interest is actually hiding the educational disparities between whites and blacks. Lately, they've been in the bidness of hiding the disparities between Asians and whites also. Also... joos. I'm only half joking. Get your local cultural anthropology professor drunk and he'll tell you much the same thing, with pride.

        2. as long as the PROCESS is fair

          Whether they openly admit or not, merit is what most people consider to be the fairest and most just way for opportunities to be dispensed. People may grumble about another's promotion or admission, but if it is due to talent and hard work, they generally accept it.

          Hell, the fact that the U.S. is more of a meritocracy than most countries is a primary reason that it is a preferred immigration destination. Quotas and preferences undermine the meritocracy.

    3. when people conflate "affirmative action" with racial preferences

      Inevitably, when AA ends up in the hands of the civil rights industry, it becomes synonymous with quotas.

      Also, rarely discussed is the fact that white women are probably the biggest beneficiaries of AA although AA is always sold politically using race.

    4. there are all sorts of ways companies etc. can engage in affirmative action that does not run afoul of the constitution, and that does not give PREFERENCES based on (race, gender, etc.)

      Of course, applying the disparate impact analysis that is used to evaluate whether a company is racist, the only affirmative action programs that would not amount to racial preferences would be those that made no difference.

  17. You don't know what you're talking about.

    No shit.

  18. OT

    Barney Frank has to shut up in the House for a day because he accused another member of being disingenuous and his accusation will be stricken from the record scrubbed. Apparently, one member calling another a liar is against House rules. I had thought that it was merely professional courtesy.

    Kudos to the House for silencing Frank. I didn't think it was humanly possible.

  19. In addition to "compelling government interest" as Gojira cited above, I also absolutely hate the phrase "narrowly tailored".

    That is one other wedge they can use to get some law through. The more "narrowly tailored" the worse it is. Always.

    Notice how real laws are general. Mathematical laws, natural laws aren't narrowly or arbitrarily tailored. They're algorithmic. The laws of thermodynamics governing a tornado don't care about homeowners, whether they're church-goers, too poor, etc.

    If you find that you can't make a law applicable to all without exceptions, without being irrational or unethical in some way (start to deconstruct it; Socratic questioning on the law; ask "but what if.." and "but if that, why not this..") then it doesn't deserve to become law.

  20. Looks like those guys are having jsut WAY too much fun man, WOw.


  21. Those guys are just having way too much fun dude.


  22. Mens accessories like belts, bags, caps, cufflinks, shoes, sandals, and others by Lacoste, Calvin klein, John Smedley, Replay, G-Star, Paul Smith, Ted baker, Ripstop, and other finest brands and labels.cheap Lacoste Formal Shoes After acquiring the nickname 'the Alligator' in 1927, Lacoste had all his tennis shirts embroidered with his newly adopted alligator logo. Over the next few years, other members of the French tennis team began to wear and soon players from other countries were requesting his tennis shirts for themselves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.