The Fisher v. University of Texas case is very simple and does not require a heated emotional discussion (it also has nothing to do with physics or any other subject), as long as we stick to a pure logic.
There are only two alternatives to consider:
1.Everyone (literally!) who applies to a university gets automatically accepted without any consideration.
2.From the people applying to a university some people are accepted and some are not.
If we select the latter choice we must set the selection process, which must include parameters of such selection, for example an age, a GPA, etc., and the ranges for each parameter (as well as a procedure to be used to make an exception: for example, we can set the minimum age to 16 but consider and accept a 13 year old genius).
The process of selecting such parameters historically depends on the socioeconomic views of the people making this selection, in this case - the Supreme Court Justices.
The first question the Court should answer is: “Should the race of a person be one of the parameters to be considered for an applicant”?
This question is one of many similar questions, such as: “Should the height of a person be one of the parameters to be considered for an applicant”? “Should the gender of a person be one of the parameters to be considered for an applicant”? “Should the place of the birth of a person be one of the parameters to be considered for an applicant”? “Should the credit score of a person be one of the parameters to be considered for an applicant”? (you can write dozens of more questions like that).
Every such question is a “Yes” or “No” question and neither answer contradict the Constitution of the United States, because - depending on specific circumstances -either answers can be correct or wrong (assume, you answered “No”; but there always be a hypothetical situation which would require another answer, which makes selecting “No” legally impossible).
Which leaves us with a simple conclusion; the Fisher v. University of Texas case is NOT a constitutional case, it should not have been accepted by the Supreme Court in the first place, but now, since it has been accepted, the ruling should dismiss the case and let each state to do the same. And each state should dismiss a similar case (if it would have been brought to the state court) and let each university to draw its own policy.
P.S. We need to keep in mind that when discussing a case Justices have to probe all possible directions of reasoning, and sometimes they use their questions or statements to provoke others and to draw them into a contradiction, plus, as humans, sometimes they just want to have their own fun, so it is useless to come to any conclusion based just on what they said or asked – until the ruling is published we do not know what they really think.