Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a Socialist Democratic Party, was criticized for her bizarre reaction to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in higher education.
Ocasio-Cortez added her voice to the scathing chorus of liberals denouncing the decision, but her own interpretation that many online felt was missing.
“If SCOTUS were serious about their ridiculous ‘colorblindness’ claim, they would have done away with Legacy Entry, also known as affirmative action against privileged classes,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
“70% of legacy applicants at Harvard University are white. SCOTUS didn’t mention that. That would affect them and their patrons,” she added.
Critics of far-left activists said it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to repeal legacy admissions had it not been for the ongoing court case against the policy.
“Legacy admissions are not covered by the constitution. But liberals in charge of Harvard, UNC, etc. can abolish it today. Why don’t liberals demand it?” answered Pradhip Shankar of National Review.
“Some would expect sitting lawmakers to at least really understand how the law and the courts work. You’d be very disappointed.” answered Attorney Scott Greenfield.
“If you want legacy admissions to be ruled, have someone sue them for legacy admissions (or Congress may ban them!). will be examined.” tweeted Dan McLaughlin of the National Review.
“Why would the Supreme Court abolish the cases they heard that weren’t even on issue? This is exactly where progressive thinking about the judiciary goes wrong. We are looking at it, and we do not see it as an adjudicating department. answered Podcaster Mike Cote.
Another popular article called “Totally irrelevant” response. “Prior to SCOTUS, there were no lawsuits related to legacy admissions, and the constitution specifically prohibits racial discrimination and does not recognize privileges for relatives of graduates. That’s why we’re making it a legal issue instead.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made a scathing rebuttal to affirmative action in a concurrent opinion.
“Racism cannot be undone by a different racism or more racism. All are equal and should be treated equally before the law regardless of race,” Thomas wrote.
“It is the only promise that allows us to ignore differences in skin color and identity and look at who we really are. It’s about being an individual with equal dignity and equal rights,” he added. .
More information on decisions against affirmative action can be found here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhXMRTHZko0Supreme Court issues affirmative actionwww.youtube.com
Love Blaze News? Bypass censorship, subscribe to our newsletter and receive articles like this straight to your inbox. Register here!
