Because racial based law has a lot more precedent that can jump through legal hoops. This is a challenge to affirmative action. However, because it's really an issue of EO prioritization, it will fail. Precedence also establishes the right to prioritization.
Miller is a disciple of Horowitz. I won't say it's designed to fail, but they surely know it will.
Are you telling me that prioritizing a race of people in legislation is not a violation of the civil rights act so long as it can be claimed as a temporary measure (despite no fixed end date)? Because that sounds like the civil rights act is meaningless.
I'm just saying that the executive has broad authority on how it rolls out legislation. If it was excluding white males, there'd be a case. If it was prioritizing white males, there'd also probably be a case. I just don't see it, when prioritizing protected classes.
The CRA is hardly meaningless. It's just massively unconstitutional, and no judge would ever touch it beyond the margins.
Because racial based law has a lot more precedent that can jump through legal hoops. This is a challenge to affirmative action. However, because it's really an issue of EO prioritization, it will fail. Precedence also establishes the right to prioritization.
Miller is a disciple of Horowitz. I won't say it's designed to fail, but they surely know it will.
Are you telling me that prioritizing a race of people in legislation is not a violation of the civil rights act so long as it can be claimed as a temporary measure (despite no fixed end date)? Because that sounds like the civil rights act is meaningless.
I'm just saying that the executive has broad authority on how it rolls out legislation. If it was excluding white males, there'd be a case. If it was prioritizing white males, there'd also probably be a case. I just don't see it, when prioritizing protected classes.
The CRA is hardly meaningless. It's just massively unconstitutional, and no judge would ever touch it beyond the margins.