Sidebar

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Oh my, the commie pinkos are in a tizzy.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Ban on the Use of Racial Preferences in State University Admissions

On a 6-2 vote, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, the court rejected a challenge to the law, although the justices were divided as to the legal rationale. The court made it clear it was not deciding the larger and divisive question of whether affirmative action admission policies can be lawful.

The court rejected the argument made by civil right groups that the 2006 state constitutional amendment that banned the practice had imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Click to expand...
The dissenting votes came from two of the liberal members of the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sotomayor wrote that the decision was a blow to "historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights."
Click to expand...
 
selmaborntidefan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
So reverse discrimination - per Sotomayor - is a constitutional right? Damn I must have missed that phrase, no doubt next to the phrase "separation of church and state."
 
AlistarWills

AlistarWills

All-American
Jul 26, 2006
4,852
2,223
187
So a state can vote to change this within the confines of their own state, but cannot amend their constitution to ban same sex marriage? Ummmk.
 
Crimson1967

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,765
9,959
187
Sotomayor wrote that the decision was a blow to "historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights."
Click to expand...
Haven't courts already said everyone must have an equal chance to get into a college?
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I am always pleasantly surprised when a Federal judge's opinion bears a faint resemblance to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and rational thought.
 
4

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,631
13,078
237
Tuscaloosa
Crimson1967 said:
Haven't courts already said everyone must have an equal chance to get into a college?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. A number of states have preferences similar to Michigan's, so the precedent was huge.

Plus, "equal" can be in the estimation of a federal judge, who often tries to compensate people who are not and have not been wronged, simply because forbears with similar plumbing / skin color / religious beliefs / etc. were wronged.

alabama mike1 said:
Refreshing to see common sense with our Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Also, notice the vote -- 6-2. That's big. Kagan, another liberal, was recused. But even is she hadn't been, and she had voted according to her history, it still would have been 6-3. That's a commanding verdict in today's split SCOTUS.

Just curious: Any legal eagles out there know why she was recused?

selmaborntidefan said:
So reverse discrimination - per Sotomayor - is a constitutional right? Damn I must have missed that phrase, no doubt next to the phrase "separation of church and state."
Click to expand...
Regarding Sotomayor, yes, that's what she's saying.

Regarding separation of church and state, I like it. The fringe has been allowed to take a sound premise way too far. But that abuse doesn't mean I want a taxpayer-funded church, even if I were able to draw up all its tenets to my personal liking.

AlistarWills said:
So a state can vote to change this within the confines of their own state, but cannot amend their constitution to ban same sex marriage? Ummmk.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the two are entirely consistent. Both are holding that all people are treated the same by the government.

SBTF-- this is one reason I like the separation of church and state. Governments (whether federal, state or local) and any given church can and do have differing views on the issue. Some states recognize gay marriage, some don't. A few municipal governments recognize it. I'm not aware of any municipalities that specifically ban gay marriage, but I'm sure there are a few. Some well-established churches recognize gay marriage. Other equally well-established churches don't.

If church and state are one (i.e., not separated), it's just a matter of time before any one of us is on the wrong side of a subjective issue, with absolutely no place to go for relief. Gay marriage is just the issue du jour.
 
Last edited:
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
I'll have to read Sotomayor's dissent. It'll be interesting to see how she finds constitutionality in purposefully denying the rights of one person to give preferential treatment/results to another -- I'm pretty sure some twisted mental gymnastics are involved. It'll also be interesting to know where she thinks blame lies for a person being "marginalized".
 
Last edited:
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Kagan recused because she had handle that case at a lower level before she joined the Supreme Court.

BTW tide1986 I am not in a tizzy.:biggrin:
 
4

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,631
13,078
237
Tuscaloosa
Tide1986 said:
I'll have to read Sotomayor's dissent. It'll be interesting to see how she finds constitutionality in purposefully denying the rights of one person to give preferential treatment/results to another -- I'm pretty sure some twisted mental gymnastics are involved. It'll also be interesting to know where she thinks blame lies for a person being "marginalized".
Click to expand...
Based on the news accounts of what she read from the bench (and yes, I know it's dangerous to trust the press), I don't think she even tried to justify constitutionality. I think she just tried to play God. If she had had her way, she would have given legal preference to people who have done nothing to warrant it, other than be born with physical characteristics she and she alone deems worthy of preference.

The irony is, we find racial discrimination so abhorrent for precisely the reasons she wants to protect it -- no matter what a person does or how he conducts himself or the character he exhibits, he can do nothing to change the color of his skin. So we've made a lot of effort as a nation to move past the time when skin color trumped everything else.

Except, of course, when a federal judge says that skin color does count. And so, my Caucasian friend, you're behind this person over there. Because whereas his skin color was once denigrated by law, now yours is. Also by law.

I actually think there's a bit of Jack Horner going on here. The judge wants so badly to think he's above all that, that he plays a mental game of Twister in an attempt to "prove" to others (and mainly, I suspect, to himself) that he is in fact incapable of racial prejudice. And he sits there after a ruling with folded arms and a smirk, saying, "What a good boy am I!"

The whole premise is pretty arrogant and self-serving when you think about it.

Note to my liberal friends who think I'm sexist for using "he" throughout: The English language doesn't have a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun that can be applied to a human being. Unless you want to refer to a person as "it," which I most definitely do not. So rather than torture the sentence with endless "he or she," or "his or her" convolutions, or subject-verb disagreements as to number, I'm using "he" as the best gender-neutral presentation I can come up with. I'll use an alternative whenever anyone can identify one for me that doesn't blow up the flow of the sentence.
 
G

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
one day i hope i live in a world where white people arent punished for the slaves they didnt own and black people arent punished for being the slaves they never were.
 
selmaborntidefan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
4Q Basket Case said:
Not exactly. A number of states have preferences similar to Michigan's, so the precedent was huge.

Plus, "equal" can be in the estimation of a federal judge, who often tries to compensate people who are not and have not been wronged, simply because forbears with similar plumbing / skin color / religious beliefs / etc. were wronged.



No kidding. Also, notice the vote -- 6-2. That's big. Kagan, another liberal, was recused. But even is she hadn't been, and she had voted according to her history, it still would have been 6-3. That's a commanding verdict in today's split SCOTUS.

Just curious: Any legal eagles out there know why she was recused?



Regarding Sotomayor, yes, that's what she's saying.

Regarding separation of church and state, I like it. The fringe has been allowed to take a sound premise way too far. But that abuse doesn't mean I want a taxpayer-funded church, even if I were able to draw up all its tenets to my personal liking.



Actually, I think the two are entirely consistent. Both are holding that all people are treated the same by the government.

SBTF-- this is one reason I like the separation of church and state. Governments (whether federal, state or local) and any given church can and do have differing views on the issue. Some states recognize gay marriage, some don't. A few municipal governments recognize it. I'm not aware of any municipalities that specifically ban gay marriage, but I'm sure there are a few. Some well-established churches recognize gay marriage. Other equally well-established churches don't.

If church and state are one (i.e., not separated), it's just a matter of time before any one of us is on the wrong side of a subjective issue, with absolutely no place to go for relief. Gay marriage is just the issue du jour.
Click to expand...

I agree with the separation concept - I was just being an ..., mostly because the creative minds that find stuff in there that isn't in there is nothing short of comical. The "rights" people find remind me of the song "Games People Play."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom