Watch: White House holds press briefing | NBC News

Watch as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds a press briefing.

Connect with NBC News Online!

Watch: White House holds press briefing | NBC News

[rayjay]

Why is DOJ going after Abbott, and not HHS or Majorkis ?

[diannawiles]

Where are the 85000 missing children? How many more are missing that haven't been reported?

[bigred]

If the immigrant enter at the point of entry than Abbotts bouy shouldn't affect them

[dhuntman]

The media in this country is pathetic.

[EasyLawBot]

Thanks @NBC News for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.

1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.

2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.

3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.

4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.

6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair.

7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.

8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.

9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.

10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.

*The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
*Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

[henryroman]

It's not a briefing. It's a shitshow.

[cnnothingburgerletsgobrand]

*WHEN BRANDONS ARE EXPOSED PULL THE RACECARD 😂*

[marohan]

The media talking about a dog n a clown running from the police out of all the incidents in the world are the worse of the worse gaslighters.

[cnnothingburgerletsgobrand]

*HOW ABOUT THAT I.R.S. WHISTLEBLOWER 😃*

[dannystaton]

We should have a mine field at the border

[cnnothingburgerletsgobrand]

*THEY SHOULD GIVE HUNTERS HOOKHERS IMMUNITY FOR THEIR TESTIMONY.*

[mikecollins]

Update on the weather? Commies don’t quit

[monicakimball]

At least she can admit that they did NOT learn anything 🤦‍♀️ if I or anyone else made that statement we would be called racists

[jamesbohnenkamp]

why don't you build back the price of food

[filevans]

thumbnail of her is in a blue dress, can't you even pick a current thumbnail?

[pdriot]

Is the President going to legalize weed like he said? The clock is ticking

[Kheti]

Wow! She was up there by herself!! I guess everyone else said, “I’m not going up there! I’m tired of covering for these clowns!”

[mikecollins]

Wow the Chinese plant reporter wants those barriers removed from the river

[gmamis]

Israel just said “In your face, “ Biden!!

[banquetconsultingcom]

can the white house address the passport crisis.