End affirmative action by accepting everyone into college.

The inherent problem with affirmative in the context of college admissions is that you reject one applicant in favor of another applicant based on a racial consideration.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with some one being admitted to college as long as it wasn't not at the expense of someone else.  Therefore I propose that public universities, especially state schools begin accepting all applicants.  Let anyone who thinks they can do well and is willing to finance the endeavor give it their best shot.  The worst case is that they have some college experience and perhaps a little debt.  Universities could charge a premium for students who live in the college dorms (as they currently do) and could offer reduced tuition for e-classes.  Local economies would benefit.  More teaching assistants/graders may need to be hired to meet the demand, but the number of full time faculty positions should not see an increase as technology is now available to increase the reach of the same professors.  Moreover tuition rates would probably go down.  The only remaining moral problem is that wealthier students would be more likely to pay the extra amount to actually sit in for the live lectures and live close to campus while the less fortunate would telecommute and be less likely to enjoy the 'college' experience.  Those matters while not trivial, cannot compare to the benefits of extending low cost education to everyone.  When it comes down to it, most people wouldn't trade a quality education, a good paying job, the ability to support oneself and family, and a secure, future for dorm food, football games, and the smell of chalk.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg. An educated person who has written their own job description.

Quote 1
"The court does not make laws, and it's not in the vanguard of social change, but what it can do and can do effectively is to move along a social change that is already under way in the larger society."

So the court can't make laws, but if a disputed law comes to the court and it is in line with the social views of a majority they can help it along?  The courts job is to uphold the constitution which is designed to be a check on the power of the majority.  The job of the court is then the exact opposite; to make sure that social change under way in the larger society does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

Quote 2
"Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to, to control their own destiny.  I certainly respect the belief of the hobby lobby owners, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work for them who don't share that belief."

Let's take that last sentence and do a word replace.  Swap 'hobby lobby owners' with 'hundreds and hundreds of women' and you get "I certainly respect the beliefs of women, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hobby lobby owners who don't share that belief."  So the argument works both ways, she is just picking the permutation that she likes.

Quote 3
"My hobby lobby dissent didn't turn on the difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship, my point was that no employer, no matter what the business may be, should be able to transfer that religious belief on to people who don't share that belief....One has freedom to move ones arm until it hits the other fellows nose.  Same way with speech same with religion, you can exercise your right freely until it affects other people who share their views."

What a great opportunity to point to a part of the constitution to explain the basis of your dissent....but no, she admits her dissent turned on who she decided was the 'arm' and who she decided was the 'nose'.  If you think about that example though, you could easily just say that the nose should move out of the way.  However, in our system, the nose, remaining stationary is not obligated to avoid the arm which is taking the action.  The action in question here is clear, it is demanding payment for contraception.  Whoever demands payment is then taking that action.  So clearly the women are the ones taking the action, they are the arm, and they are free to demand payment for contraception until it hits someone's nose, that is, anyone who does not want to pay for contraception.  The nose could move, and give up ownership of it's company, but it surely isn't required to.  Now if you change the action to 'refusing to pay for contraception' foregoing that the action itself is a lack of doing something, then hobby lobby becomes the arm, and for the nose (women) to avoid the arm, they would have to pay for it themselves (slowly becoming an old fashioned concept), or find someone more agreeable to pay for it.  Surely less burdensome then giving up ownership of their company.

Justice Breyer in FEC v McCutcheon

"If the average person thinks that what he says exercising his 1st amendment rights, just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his elected representative, he says 'what is the point of the first amendment?'" -Stephen Breyer

Are we really going to abridge one persons 1st amendment rights so another person can feel that the first amendment has a point?  The point of the 1st amendment is Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  The only way someone can feel the 1st amendment has no point is if the congress ignores it.

The Birth Lottery

Intellectuals often speak of the birth lottery in the context of inequality.  The idea is that your station in life is largely determined by the parents to whom you are born.  The argument goes that since this assignment is random that society should seek to reduce any advantage gained that can be attributed to this lottery.

I have several problems with this idea. 

1.  Humans are not randomly assigned parents by some unseen force.
2.  For liberals this idea should seem repulsive because it implies that there is a 'you' before you were born, which of course cannot be true or the abortion argument collapses.
3.  The direct solutions are terrible; 1.  Only allow 'well off' families to reproduce or 2.  Redistribute new babies from families who are struggling to 'well off' families until they are 18 in order that any 'life handicap' has been avoided, and return them to their original parents.
4.  Many advantages/disadvantages of the 'birth lottery' stems from the free decisions of the parents.  For example, I will raise my baby without a father or mother, or I will abandon my child to be raised by his father/mother, or I will not read to my child, I will not feed my child properly, I will not move to an area with the best schools that I can afford, I will not teach my child right from wrong etc.  These are all rights which are (currently) guaranteed to us.  Of course there are some things that are very difficult to control, you may want to be married but can't find a suitable spouse, you may want and be qualified for a better job but the job market may be dismal, you may want to buy higher quality food but the bad food is more affordable, you may want to move but can't afford the costs of moving.

The best option may be, and this is probably true for any lottery, if your odds of losing are great, don't play.  But should we have to contemplate the life chances of our offspring before we have a child? Isn't that eugenics?  If the government attempts to control the prevalence of race or ethnicity, then it probably is and should be avoided.  However if it is the parents who make the choice, I say it is just smart family planning.