@KFuentesGeorge @volkris It strikes me both as a blatant double-standard (no discrimination based on race is ever acceptable, except for … a case of “national interest?” So educated minorities are not in the National interest?) as well as being a pretty clear example of “activist judges” legislating from the bench.
Military academies weren’t even part of the original complaint, yet a specific “carve out” was made for them.
No, not at all. That was not in the opinion. The opinion explicitly said otherwise.
@volkris @KFuentesGeorge The footnote in question is on page 22 of the majority opinion:
“4 - The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”
From military.com:
“However, the Court specifically exempted the military academies from its decision on race-based affirmative action. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said in a footnote that this policy would not impact how military service academies approached admissions, citing ‘distinct interests’ those institutions have.”
I don’t understand where you see the opposite.
Well you quoted it.
You can see that military.com got it wrong seeing as the opinion didn't specifically exempt military academies but rather noted that they simply weren't relevant.
The two quotes you gave say different things, so the SCOTUS version of what SCOTUS said wins.
@KFuentesGeorge
@volkris @KFuentesGeorge it’s the last sentence of the footnote that exempts them from this decision. “This opinion does not address the issue” means it doesn’t apply - i.e. the military academies are not affected because they are not part of the original lawsuits and therefore are not subject to its outcome.
“… in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present” means the court agrees with the amicus curiae filed by the armed forces that there are “potentially distinct” reasons to keep it until an actual lawsuit, filed by a party with standing, specifically challenges it and wins. This is the part that strikes me as “legislating from the bench,” though it could be interpreted as simply signaling the court’s position on the matter should such a suit be filed.