Supreme Court upholds power of states to ban affirmative action

[Geee]

The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in the college admissions process.

 

In a 6-2 ruling, the justices said Michigan voters had the right to change their state’s constitution to prohibit public colleges and universities from considering race.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the plurality opinion in the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

 

Kennedy said the justices determined they do not have the authority to override the will of Michigan voters when it comes to affirmative action.

 

“[We] concluded that there is no authority in the Federal Constitution or in this Court’s precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer agreed with the judgment.

[Valin]

@Geee

 

So in other words 6 Supreme Court Justices are racists, and probably secret Klan members. Right?

[Geee]

@Geee

 

So in other words 6 Supreme Court Justices are racists, and probably secret Klan members. Right?

 

I believe the other 3 are still fighting the 'War on Women"

[clearvision]

Heads are exploding I'm sure... and that is a good thing.

[Valin]

Heads are exploding I'm sure... and that is a good thing.

 

This one will give you a headache

 

Puffington Host

 

Paul Sylvester (noaxe397)

• 125

Political Pundit · 3,011 Fans

What conservatives forget, and have tried for 50 years to muddy, is that affirmative action gets you a shot at the starting line. After that, race doesn't matter anymore. Conservatives want you to believe affirmative action garauntees a less qualified applicant will reach the finish line.

BTW, what happens if voters want to amend their constituions to not want to pay taxes? Think that would fly? With this Supreme Court it just might.

[Geee]

 

Heads are exploding I'm sure... and that is a good thing.

 

This one will give you a headache

 

Puffington Host

 

Paul Sylvester (noaxe397)

• 125

Political Pundit · 3,011 Fans

What conservatives forget, and have tried for 50 years to muddy, is that affirmative action gets you a shot at the starting line. After that, race doesn't matter anymore. Conservatives want you to believe affirmative action garauntees a less qualified applicant will reach the finish line.

BTW, what happens if voters want to amend their constituions to not want to pay taxes? Think that would fly? With this Supreme Court it just might.

 

[Valin]

 

 

Heads are exploding I'm sure... and that is a good thing.

 

This one will give you a headache

 

Puffington Host

 

Paul Sylvester (noaxe397)

• 125

Political Pundit · 3,011 Fans

What conservatives forget, and have tried for 50 years to muddy, is that affirmative action gets you a shot at the starting line. After that, race doesn't matter anymore. Conservatives want you to believe affirmative action garauntees a less qualified applicant will reach the finish line.

BTW, what happens if voters want to amend their constituions to not want to pay taxes? Think that would fly? With this Supreme Court it just might.

 

 

 

 

Lot of ignorant people out there! I wish they would go away, they make my head hurt.

[Geee]

Raced-Based Preferences Forever

 

You can often tell when advocates of one side in an argument fear they will ultimately lose. They change their branding. A few years ago, warnings about “global warming” were replaced with scare stories about “climate change.” One reason? The Earth had stopped appreciably warming in the late 1990s, making the change a PR necessity.

 

Supporters of affirmative action are now signaling similar weakness. What was called “racial quotas” in the 1970s and has been referred to as “affirmative action” since the 1990s is giving way to a new term: “race-sensitive admission policies.” The language shift is telling — race-based preferences are losing intellectual, judicial, and political support.

 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court voted six to two to uphold the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which was passed with support from 58 percent of that state’s voters in 2006. It simply enshrines in Michigan’s constitution that the state should not engage in race discrimination. Opponents of the initiative sued, claiming the measure discriminated against racial minorities who might wish to lobby for preferential treatment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376358/raced-based-preferences-forever-john-fund

[Geee]

Half a Win on Racial Discrimination

 

There’s a reason they call it “progressivism” — for years, the main legal question contested in affirmative-action cases, from Bakke to Grutter, was whether the state should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. In the Michigan affirmative-action case decided today, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the question was whether the state should be required to engage in racial discrimination. The progress, then, has followed the Left’s familiar ratchet-effect model, inching its way from “not forbidden” to “compulsory.” Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the question here was not whether the use of racial discrimination for putatively benevolent purposes is constitutional but whether states “may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution.”

 

The Court came to the correct conclusion, but both Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent suggest very strongly that there is trouble afoot on our highest bench.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376340/half-win-racial-discrimination-editors

[Valin]

Sotomayors Confused Dissent in Affirmative Action Case

Walter Hudson

23 April 2014.

 

On today's Fightin Words podcast: The Supreme Court recently upheld a Michigan law banning the practice of affirmative action in public universities. The dissenting opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor reveals a twisted worldview which seeks equal protection through racial discrimination.

 

(Click On Link For Podcast