Supreme Court unanimously upholds affirmative action statute

[JollyRoger]

Congress enacted the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, §§502, 503, 120 Stat. 3431–3436 (codified, as amended, at 38 U. S. C. §§8127, 8128). That Act requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to set more specific annual goals that encourage contracting with veteran-owned and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses. §8127(a). The Act’s “Rule of Two,” at issue here, provides that the Department “shall award” contracts by restricting competition for the contract to service-disabled or other veteran owned small businesses.

On the merits, we hold that §8127 is mandatory, not discretionary. Its text requires the Department to apply the Rule of Two to all contracting determinations and to award contracts to veteran-owned small businesses. The Act does not allow the Department to evade the Rule of Two on the ground that it has already met its contracting goals or on the ground that the Department has placed an order through the FSS.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-916_6j37.pdf

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court that upholds a statute that cuts deeply against the free market principles that our soldiers fight for over there so we do not have to fight for them over here. It is a cut and run from the jurisprudence of the 4 more conservative justices on the Court.

Just a note - as this is a non-RD thread, please make an effort to ensure that your posts fall below RD standards.

 

[Berzerker]

payment for services rendered is not AA

 

[schlaufuchs]

AA for'uh VA, eh?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

payment for services rendered is not AA

Does it have to be in the form of government contracts ?
Why not just pay them a pension ?

 

[JollyRoger]

payment for services rendered is not AA

So a program that allows only one race to be hired for a job is not AA so long as those hired are paid for the services they render?

 

[Berzerker]

veterans earned their benefits, it dont matter what race they are

AA could be used to deny a veteran a job because of race

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm not so sure that affirmative action in the bidding process is an earned benefit. Especially in the current case. The veteran in this case ended his service before Congress passed this legislation, so he did not serve in reliance on being given this particular affirmative action perk in the bidding process.

 

[Zkribbler]

payment for services rendered is not AA

Berzerker is correct. Affirmative action is to remedy past discrimination or to increase diversity. This program is solely to reward veterans for past services.

Also note: this statute mandates that 100% of the awards go to veterans. Numerical quotas were outlawed for integration purposes by the Supreme Court's decision in Bakke back in the 70's. Don't tell RWs though; they are forever railing against quotas.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, this program is in place in part because veterans have historically been discriminated against. It creates an island to affirmatively protect them from the discriminatory biases of the free market.

 

[Arwon]

It's kind of weird that there's enough former military people that it's feasible to do all your contracting with them

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, this program is in place in part because veterans have historically been discriminated against. It creates an island to affirmatively protect them from the discriminatory biases of the free market.

with a program that discriminates based on a different bias

 

[Flying Pig]

Interestingly, 30% of the US military identify as 'a minority', which does not include the 11% who identify as Hispanic or similar. 63% of the US population identify as white. In other words, a programme which favours veterans - especially one which disproportionately benefits ORs rather than officers - will also give a slight nudge in favour of non-Hispanic racial minorities.

 

[EnglishEdward]

A proven willingness to kill people is not something most employers prefer on a CV.

I could argue that such affirmative action discriminates against conscience objectors and pacifists.

What I dislike is this concept that merely because people have served in the military they
are all heroes and that the rest of the population automatically owes them a favour.

I am not anti-military, but is not pay and pensions normally enough?

I certainly hope that this thinking will not drift East across the Atlantic.

I envisage the military compact as being more about helping with
re-training, and those suffering permanent disablement etc.

I cannot see why preferred contracting status should be offered to those
who leave the military, in their 20s, 30s or 40s, but are fit and well.

 

[Berzerker]

the population sends them to war, of course we owe veterans

 

[EnglishEdward]

the population sends them to war, of course we owe veterans

But is this anymore than firemen who risk their lives putting out fires?

 

[Berzerker]

yes, fighting fire takes a toll but fighting people is far more stressful

combat soldiers > cops > firemen

I imagine PTSD cases reflect that order

 

[MagisterCultuum]

the population sends them to war, of course we owe veterans

Wrong. Politicians send them to war. Those politicians owe the veterans. Those politicians do not have any moral right to force others to pay their personal debts. Perhaps those voters who supported those politicians share some of their debt to the enlisted, but not the whole of the body politic. The people and the veterans are both their victims, but in an age without conscription the soldiers have a lesser case against them than the civilians as they did not need to volunteer to act as the politicians agents.



A large portion of PTSD is actually Moral Injury. Most people naturally feel bad about killing other humans, especially when their lives are not personally at risk, and suffer psychologically from attempts to justify the orders they chose to follow. PTSD is more common among those in less risky positions, like drone pilots, than among those who fought in close combat. It is usually worse among those who refuse to publicly acknowledged their feelings of guilt and insist that their actions must be treated as honorable.

Some of PTSD is also withdrawal from the tribal identity that the army tries to cultivate in their soldiers to improve unit cohesion. Intense bonding and subordinating one's personal will to a group is a powerful and dangerous drug. It can cause a sort of euphoria and allow men to excuse groupish actions that an individual would consider barbaric if he stopped to think about them independently. Former soldiers often long for a return to that level of bonding much like drug addicts do to the chemicals on which they have grown dependent.

 

[Zelig]

It's kind of weird that there's enough former military people that it's feasible to do all your contracting with them

Solution: mandatory military service for everyone when they turn 18. Keep total military personnel levels constant by retiring the oldest members to make room for each new year's recruits.

 

[Akka]

I know it's clearly not a RD thread, but well it's the Internet, and I'm pretty sure there IS people able to not see the difference between a race (which you get at birth and have no choice about) and a profession (which is a decision you take later in life and supposedly knowing the consequences).

Wrong. Politicians send them to war. Those politicians owe the veterans. Those politicians do not have any moral right to force others to pay their personal debts. Perhaps those voters who supported those politicians share some of their debt to the enlisted, but not the whole of the body politic.

Actually, yes. That's the rule of the democratic game : everyone participates in electing the government, and as such everyone is indirectly responsible for what the government does.
Democracy is not the political version of a company (personal benefit without personal responsability).

 

[Thedrin]

So if a person is unable to enlist in a branch of the military due to health / disability that person will be unable to compete for contracts with the Department?