Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld by Supreme Court

[OKTexas]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, a key decision in an unfolding legal and political battle nationally over affirmative action.
The justices found 6-2 that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters.

Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld by Supreme Court - CNN.com

The court finally did something right for a change.

 

[Moonglow]

Every once in a while you have to get lucky...

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's time.
Good call.

 

[OKTexas]

It's time.
Good call.

Yep, finally an affirmation of states rights.

 

[Two Thumbs]

federal laws that require discrimination are simply unconstitutional and shit on other peoples civil rights.

imagine a highly qualified black man getting passed over for a lesser qualified asian woman.

 

[bendog]

Interesting case. I'm not so sure about the states rights issue so much as I think the majority fails to see a constitutional deprivation that requires the federal courts, or congress, to get involved. It that's states rights to you, fine by me. But, had Mich's law done the opposite, by telling the Univ to give race preference to minority applicants, then I think the logic is we get the exact same analysis. IF, however, a majority of Justices bought Sontomayor's thinking and found minorities were disencentified (bear with me) from applying because of their race, then you get an opposite result.

UofM is not typical. But, from what I've heard, other states with similar laws saying no racial preference have just moved to giving more help to low income applicants. And that's a huge improvement, imo. AA results in the best and brightest minorities getting a leg up over not just whites but disadvantaged minorities. Gives the African American elite a leg up, and that makes zero sense, because they sure don't need it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I am so happy for minorities over the decision. No longer, in michigan at least, will they be told they can't make it on their own merits or that they need a couple of points added to their "resume" so they will compare favorably to whites. How racist is it to think minorities need an unfair head start.

I can only hope other states pass similar legislation as soon as possible.

 

[OKTexas]

Interesting case. I'm not so sure about the states rights issue so much as I think the majority fails to see a constitutional deprivation that requires the federal courts, or congress, to get involved. It that's states rights to you, fine by me. But, had Mich's law done the opposite, by telling the Univ to give race preference to minority applicants, then I think the logic is we get the exact same analysis. IF, however, a majority of Justices bought Sontomayor's thinking and found minorities were disencentified (bear with me) from applying because of their race, then you get an opposite result.

UofM is not typical. But, from what I've heard, other states with similar laws saying no racial preference have just moved to giving more help to low income applicants. And that's a huge improvement, imo. AA results in the best and brightest minorities getting a leg up over not just whites but disadvantaged minorities. Gives the African American elite a leg up, and that makes zero sense, because they sure don't need it.

This had nothing to do with the UofM, dealt with a State law that banned using race as a determining factor for admissions. Ultimately the court said you can violate the 14th Amendment in an attempt to enforce it. Equal protection is EQUAL PROTECTION, period and racial preferences violate it.

 

[bendog]

Michigan law, UofM is a Michigan school. Effectively, today they undid their UofM law school case of ten years ago.

But, no, they did not say racial preferences violate EP.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s controlling opinion.

“There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”


Supreme Court reverses decision that tossed out Michigan?s ban on racial preferences - The Washington Post

 

[Yurt]

good decision

 

[The T]

I am so happy for minorities over the decision. No longer, in michigan at least, will they be told they can't make it on their own merits. That they need a couple of points added to their "resume" so they will compare favorably to whites. How racist is it to think minorities need an unfair head start.

I can only hope other states pass similar legislation as soon as possible.

Agreed. NO group should ever get preferential treatment of any sort. It just cheapens the meaning of the experience. I too hope this tool used extensively by politicians to BUY VOTES is slowly KILLED in every State in the Union. It's not needed.

 

[The T]

federal laws that require discrimination are simply unconstitutional and shit on other peoples civil rights.

imagine a highly qualified black man getting passed over for a lesser qualified asian woman.

Tht is the first step. STOP lumping people into groups and treat EVERY human equally. Isn't that what the Leftists state they want?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good call. It's time to have a level playing field.

 

[bendog]

Well, again, the actual effect is that states where racial preferences are illegal now seem to, mostly, be giving preferences to lower income/disadvantaged people of all colors.

UofM is sort of unique in that while it is the state's flagship university, it is such a good school, and esp the law school, it's just freaking hard to get in.

But, overall, at schools that don't have such a low admission rate, this is really good news for working class kids who worked hard and want an education.

 

[OKTexas]

Michigan law, UofM is a Michigan school. Effectively, today they undid their UofM law school case of ten years ago.

But, no, they did not say racial preferences violate EP.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s controlling opinion.

“There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”


Supreme Court reverses decision that tossed out Michigan?s ban on racial preferences - The Washington Post

I heard a quote from Scalia on the radio today that basically said what I did. The TX case will finally strike affirmative action once and for all and then you will see a test case against the government and their discriminatory employment practices.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I found most disturbing was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. She suggested that the court should be a vehicle used from time to time to ensure "equality." That made me cringe. The court is impartial, or at least it's supposed to be. They aren't supposed to police the law, they are to interpret it along Constitutional lines.

This 6-2 decision says today that the court will not be that vehicle, and that the people should decide.

Affirmative action is dead.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

federal laws that require discrimination are simply unconstitutional and shit on other peoples civil rights.

imagine a highly qualified black man getting passed over for a lesser qualified asian woman.

Tht is the first step. STOP lumping people into groups and treat EVERY human equally. Isn't that what the Leftists state they want?

It's what they say they want, but they really don't.

 

[The T]

What I found most disturbing was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. She suggested that the court should be a vehicle used from time to time to ensure "equality." That made me cringe. The court is impartial, or at least it's supposed to be. They aren't supposed to police the law, they are to interpret it along Constitutional lines.

This 6-2 decision says today that the court will not be that vehicle, and that the people should decide.

Affirmative action is dead.

What's scary is her and other Supremes wishing to consider International Law when deciding cases.

 

[The T]

federal laws that require discrimination are simply unconstitutional and shit on other peoples civil rights.

imagine a highly qualified black man getting passed over for a lesser qualified asian woman.

Tht is the first step. STOP lumping people into groups and treat EVERY human equally. Isn't that what the Leftists state they want?

It's what they say they want, but they really don't.

That is apparent. Their actions certainly speak otherwise which makes them the liars that they are. It's ALL for control...buying votes from the dumbmasses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I found most disturbing was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. She suggested that the court should be a vehicle used from time to time to ensure "equality." That made me cringe. The court is impartial, or at least it's supposed to be. They aren't supposed to police the law, they are to interpret it along Constitutional lines.

This 6-2 decision says today that the court will not be that vehicle, and that the people should decide.

Affirmative action is dead.

What's scary is her and other Supremes wishing to consider International Law when deciding cases.

They have a low opinion of our national sovereignty. Those who think that don't belong on the bench to begin with.