They could've voted against it b/c they knew it was safe and they could play their role w/ the conservative base. In the same way Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are taking the heat for other Dem senators that don't want to get rid of the filibuster. The same way Roberts upheld Obamacare b/c he didn't really want to overturn it when he had a real opportunity. Plus, they could flip it and use the case to say private schools can discriminate based on religious beliefs.This is not the first AA case. There have been several in the past, and Roberts, Thomas, and all the other conservative justices have all usually voted against it. the only reason it's still here is because they were always outnumbered by the liberal justices whenever a case came up.
Also even if they remove AA they know those schools won't become heavily asian, because schools like Harvard, Yale, etc... recruit heavily from Legacies and athletes. Both of which are primarily white. (The type of athletes Ivy leagues recruits are for sports like fencing, sailing, lacrosse, etc.. AKA shyt only rich white ppl play.)
If they got rid of AA, the first thing the Ivies would do is get rid of SAT/ACT scores. Without those test scores they can ignore all the Asians clamoring to get into those schools. They'll accept the scores (insuring high scorers get in) but they won't be determinative and keep the asian population lower at the school.
The California UC system is getting rid of test scores and pretending they are doing it to help Black people and Latinos. The real reason is so they won't be forced to admit so many asians into the crown jewel institutions (Berkley and UCLA). White people in CA tried to fukk over Blacks and Latinos using Prop 209 and it blew up in their faces when Asians took over the best UC schools.





