Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld by Supreme Court

[TruthSeeker56]

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.

Considering that Detroit is 90% black, and Michigan has the largest middle eastern population in the USA, affirmative action is a moot point in Michigan, anyway.

 

[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.

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

Agreed. They are to decide Constitutionality of LAW...not base decisions on how other countries decided like cases when NONE of them have anything remotely resembling OUR Constitution.

I've heard MANY argue that our Constitution comes from LAW of the past...which may be true...however it is the most unique document ever rendered for freedom of mankind, and why it should be respected and NOT destroyed as these Supremes seem to want to do.

 

[The T]

I am in agreement with most posters here in stating this is the beginning of the END of Affirmative Action...the Race pimps, politicians, HATE merchants have better find another tool for their arsenal of guilt/manipulation to replace it. It will be a tough road for them...but I'm sure wealth envy will do fine for now.

 

[Rozman]

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?

Libs want equal treatment for all untill minorities are treated equally...

 

[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?

Libs want equal treatment for all untill minorities are treated equally...

That's because they no longer will be on the Plantation.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

Libs want equal treatment for all untill minorities are treated equally...

And now, in Michigan, they will be. If a minority person's credentials are EQUAL to or exceed admission standards, they will be granted admission. Previously, a minority with credentials LESS THAN the standards, they could be granted admission anyways.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

This Law is our Law, This Law was made for you and me.....not International Law.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Libs want equal treatment for all untill minorities are treated equally...

Or gays.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am in agreement with most posters here in stating this is the beginning of the END of Affirmative Action...the Race pimps, politicians, HATE merchants have better find another tool for their arsenal of guilt/manipulation to replace it. It will be a tough road for them...but I'm sure wealth envy will do fine for now.

Enough time has passed so that we don't have to worry about going back to white America of the 1950s.

 

[OKTexas]

I am in agreement with most posters here in stating this is the beginning of the END of Affirmative Action...the Race pimps, politicians, HATE merchants have better find another tool for their arsenal of guilt/manipulation to replace it. It will be a tough road for them...but I'm sure wealth envy will do fine for now.

Enough time has passed so that we don't have to worry about going back to white America of the 1950s.

Not according to your dear leader or his attorney general, it's discriminatory to ask a minority for a photo ID.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

More states to follow?

 

[Duped]

Affirmative action is racism against whites! Special treatment based on race is disgusting! This is a good day

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

A blow stricken for equality!

 

[Silhouette]

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.

I know the LGBT cult is upset over this from their POV and hopes for future legal battles. Not sure why. Anyone have any ideas? Race isn't the same as behavior so I doubt the Court will treat the two the same...

 

[Silhouette]

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.

This suprises you from Sotomayor? The can-can Justice? During a year where religious issues are squaring off with deviant sexuality trying to play at "man and wife, father and mother" we have this performance from the austere and unbiased Bench holder in Times Square on national TV no less [she came on to dance the can-can just after Miley Cyrus's act]:

 

[Silhouette]

OK, wait, I read Kennedy's remarks and remember now what was said in Windsor, that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage via consensus under the question and context of gay marriage being legal or not. That makes only 3 states with legal gay marriage. OK. I get why the cult of LGBT is wigging out now. No gay married in California, Virginia, Utah, etc. etc. is legally married. It's not like we haven't been saying so all along. I just think the Court should have been more up front about Windsor. Though it isn't their responsibility to make people read the fine print. People just hear the spin & believe that it is what the Court said. It isn't. This is what Windsor also said:

Kennedy [today]:

“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, a traditional swing vote, wrote for the court. “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.”

Read more: Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Windsor [last Summer], Page 17:

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor

That's a head's up for how the LGBT vs Utah case is possible to go. I think the Court would call that "foreshadowing"..