Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Supreme Court upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban


Recommended Posts

 

High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban

image001-png_162613.png

By MARK SHERMAN1 hour ago

PlaySeek Back 5 SecondsSeek Forward 5 SecondsVolume UpVolume DownMuteNext VideoOpen Hotkey Menu

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions despite one justice's impassioned dissent that accused the court of wanting to wish away racial inequality.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

The decision bolstered similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment. Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically.

"But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

Judges "ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society," Sotomayor said. She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.

At 58 pages, Sotomayor's dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Thomas agreed with Kennedy.

Responding to Sotomayor, Roberts said it "does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate."

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California's top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state's growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

The case was the court's second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a whole thing about some black girl complaining that she didn't get into Michigan a few weeks ago. She only had a 3.5 and a 23 ACT though.... she didn't deserve to get it. We're one of the top universities in the world, it is hard to get in. Yes you get a major boost by being in state, but not that much. There is a group in campus that want AA back and wants basically more minorities on campus.

 

I think we should just take the most qualified students, regardless of race, gender, etc etc.

 

If there is going to be any form of AA, it should be based on financial status. I can see that argument that students from poorer areas would not have the same opportunities I had growing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's stupid. I wish you knew stuff so you could enjoin our conversation on a legit level,

regardless of what political side you'd tend to be on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes yes, you disagree with me therefore I am not smart enough to have a "discussion" with you.

 

You are the dumb one if you do not understand what I just said...

 

 

You aren't looking for a "discussion" or a "debate". You are just looking for more insane sources to tell you you're right. You're everything that is wrong with politics in America and why nothing gets accomplished. Your head is so far up your own right wing ass you think anyone that disagrees with you is some super left liberal. You're a moron. A gullible idiot. You think you are some real "patriot", some "real american". That's bullshit. You are scared of change and you cling to your archaic ideologies born out of your fairy tale books and old school morals. Society changes bro, that doesn't make those people pushing for the change "anti american" or whatever Retarded shit your news "sources" tell you. YOU are the one with no intelligent responses dipshit. YOU are the one that can't hold a conversation. YOU are the "butt of this board".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling something reverse racism or reverse discrimination is in itself racist and discriminatory, lol

Well, no it isn't? Affirmative action is discriminatingly favouring someone from a minority group over someone else from the main demographic - Traditional racism - good old fashioned american racism?:P - is discriminating against someone from a minority group. The two are pretty much opposite, so calling it 'reverse racism' or positive discrimination or whatever is pretty much right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no it isn't? Affirmative action is discriminatingly favouring someone from a minority group over someone else from the main demographic - Traditional racism - good old fashioned american racism? :P - is discriminating against someone from a minority group. The two are pretty much opposite, so calling it 'reverse racism' or positive discrimination or whatever is pretty much right.

How about Britishism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will Chris some of you seem to think discrimination is okay if ito favors one of your selected minorities but think about it... You are also discriminating against Arab Americans, Jews and Asians who traditionally do better in academics that even whites.

WSS

What's your point? :S I've said before that discriminating based on race is not an acceptable practice, so whether you're discriminating in favour of or against whites/asians/jews/filipinos/mexicans or whatever, you're doing something wrong. At least, when it comes to things like admissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And woody, he disagrees with you therefore he is everything that is wrong with politics stupid etcetera etcetera etcetera blah blah blah, correct? Just using your logic.

WSS

No, don't be an idiot. Idc if someone disagrees with me or not. Way more goes into Cal being a moron than that. Try to keep up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no it isn't? Affirmative action is discriminatingly favouring someone from a minority group over someone else from the main demographic - Traditional racism - good old fashioned american racism?:P - is discriminating against someone from a minority group. The two are pretty much opposite, so calling it 'reverse racism' or positive discrimination or whatever is pretty much right.

I don't believe there is any mention of minority in the definitions of racism and discrimination. White people discriminate against back people. Black people discriminate against white people. Black people don't "reverse" discriminate against white people.

 

Racism is racism. The parties involved don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to keep up woody. It would be helpful if you ever said anything worthwhile. I'm always willing to learn.

WSS

Yes yes. I never say anything worthwhile. Got it. That's getting pretty old. It seems like, at some point, some posters on here would be better off just actually responding to my posts. I guess not.

 

 

If you think I said what I did about Cal only because he disagrees with me then you're slow in the head or you don't read what I post. I don't feel like explaining it all to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes yes. I never say anything worthwhile. Got it. That's getting pretty old. It seems like, at some point, some posters on here would be better off just actually responding to my posts. I guess not.

 

 

If you think I said what I did about Cal only because he disagrees with me then you're slow in the head or you don't read what I post. I don't feel like explaining it all to you.

it does get old bud. I expect more than half your content is calling somebody idiot.

 

I think I have most of your content memorized. You don't like older people you don't like Christians and you think you are a fucking genius because the world is probably older than six thousand years. Oh and you think scientists are cool and that global warming is real but you know absolutely, well almost absolutely, nothing much else about it.

 

And just for the record I don't pick on you because you call tell names. I pick on you because it's all you've got. He can certainly take care of himself and the woodpecker remarks are easily as numerous as the you're an idiot come back.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I insult Cal. He deserves it. I will post in a thread of his, post my opinion or a fact or whatever and his response will be an insult. A "translation" or some other juvenile shit. So yeah, I'm gonna insult him back. It would be great to try to have s fucking debate on here but that won't happen because he's so fucking biased to one side.

 

Also, great summary of my content. It is just a fraction of it, and not completely true, but great job. Read one of my actual posts for once. Shit.

 

I have no problem with older people but I get berated on here daily because I'm 22. Well guess what, I can flip that shit back.

 

You don't want to read what I post, great. Don't fucking sit here and say I add nothing though. I try to have these discussions and debates, nothing comes of it.

 

So, again, these "I don't say anything" posts are getting old. I'm sure it seems like i don't say anything when you don't read what I post...

 

Also, my posts insulting Cal, let that exist in a vacuum. It doesn't concern anyone else or take away from any other post responding to the topic.

 

Finally, the most hilarious part of these posts are you guts assuming you never do that. That your posts are just gold, every one of them. They're always completely in topic and content filled. Give me a fucking break and stop being such hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wooypeckerhead translation:

 

"I suck, don't have a clue, and I....I .....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!"

 

boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any hooo...

 

Sotomayer isnt happy

 

 

 

http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cbs-highlights-liberal-justices-impassioned-dissent-affirmative-action?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=JusticesDissent

 

"She spent about 12 minutes really saying that the six justices in the majority just don't get it, that race still matters. It felt almost personal at times." The journalist added, "[sotomayor] talked about the experiences young people face, racial indignities and discrimination and how race still matters and what the court did yesterday was put unique burdens on minorities."

 

think it doesnt matter? who cares right? well to me - regardless of her position as a SC judge, she chose to take the party line objective

 

out of Barry's er.. Barrack Obama's, Al Sharpton and Jesse J playbook to keep the race thing front and center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and it will be dangerous to allow the empty suit to place another juror on the Supreme Court.

this is exactly why I sneered at the Constitution. It doesn't take too many left or right wing ideologues to make it completely invalid. As I have stated ad nauseum there are more people making the decisions on the Politburo.

anybody see Stephanopoulos with the retired Supreme Court justice who wanted to add just a few words to the 2nd amendment? Just a few, mind you. But it would completely change the amendment. Want to add a caveat allowing only those Americans officially in the state militia to have the right to own a weapon. I'm not kidding.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the woodleys call on college admissions / aid be given to the most qualified student...

 

I know- get Bill Cosby to head that department so he can decide who is best qualified - black or white.

 

 

 

 

^ the only thing we can hope for is that the next appointee will be a complete opposite in terms of how he / she is

 

politically aligned from whom BHO can choose? Lord we need your help.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not want the cloud over my head if I had been appointed to a position while being less qualified than another person trying to get it. Now I don't think that a 001 percent difference is life and death and that both candidates have hey just a chance to do the job properly. But if your child were in the hospital would you prefer the doctor got into medical school through affirmative action or the guy who aced his examinations?

 

to be honest if I were hiring an engineer I'd rather have woody than the guy who was placed in that department through affirmative action.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not want the cloud over my head if I had been appointed to a position while being less qualified than another person trying to get it. Now I don't think that a 001 percent difference is life and death and that both candidates have hey just a chance to do the job properly. But if your child were in the hospital would you prefer the doctor got into medical school through affirmative action or the guy who aced his examinations?

 

to be honest if I were hiring an engineer I'd rather have woody than the guy who was placed in that department through affirmative action.

 

WSS

I thought the idea was that affirmative action was to use race as a decider between two people of equal skill.

 

On a related note, a student doctor friend of mine once told me that there were no grades in his exams, just pass and fail - because nobody wants a doctor who got a C...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually the idea of affirmative action means giving people from selected groups a slight edge by issue an extra points. Possibly more than slight. The case in Boston drama think, included lowering your standards on the examinations so more blacks and Hispanics could make the cut to join the fire department. And as I say I don't think a point or two probably makes a huge difference. But it sets the stage for discontent and suspicion. I'm not sure I'd be happy with the pass fail plan but I can understand the twisted reasoning.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pass/fail penalizes the smart kids and rewards the stupid/lazy kids. It degrades the whole country. You should be rewarded for excelling at whatever it is you are doing. It's like putting all the players who play football in the Hall of Fame 'because they made the NFL'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...