Tuesday, October 15, 2013

 

Michigan race policy before Supreme Court

|Blog ---

Michigan race policy before Supreme Court



Supreme Court affirmative actions: Protesters in support of affirmative action in Washington: Tabrian Joe, a student at Western Michigan University, and other protestors in support of affirmative action, gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 15, 2013.
Tabrian Joe, a student at Western Michigan University, and other protestors in support of affirmative action, gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 15, 2013.

The Supreme Court heard arguments over Michigan's ban on consideration of race in admissions to the University of Michigan and other state schools.



Court likely to uphold Michigan affirmative action policy.

WASHINGTON — In a potential boost to opponents of affirmative action, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court appeared inclined on Tuesday to uphold a Michigan law that bans the use of racial preferences in state university admissions.

During an hour-long oral argument, several of the eight justices questioned whether a 2006 state constitutional amendment that banned the practice had imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

None of the five conservative justices gave any indication they were inclined to rule against the state ban. Only eight justices are considering the case because the ninth, Justice Elena Kagan, is recused.

In June, the court issued a narrow ruling on affirmative action in a different case involving the University of Texas at Austin. In a lopsided 7-1 ruling that few expected, the court warned university policies that take race into account could be more vulnerable to legal challenges in the future. But the court did not strike the policy down and instead sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration.

The Michigan case raises a different legal question, focusing not on the state's ban on affirmative action itself but rather the political process that led to the state constitutional amendment being enacted.

Chief Justice John Roberts was one of the conservative justices who appeared comfortable with the Michigan ban, noting at one point that the point of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution "is to take race off the table."

Although regular swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy gave no indication he would vote against the ban, he did appear to have some concerns, including whether it mattered that affirmative action advocates were shut out of the process before they could even seek to challenge the decision before university authorities.

Among the justices on the liberal wing of the court, the most vocal in defending the appeals court decision that struck down the ban was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She said the Michigan law had the affect of "changing the playing field" for those who support affirmative action programs.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

In November 2012, a sharply divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that the 2006 amendment banning the practice, approved by voters in Michigan, imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The state challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court.

Tags : , , , ,

Social

   

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

Read

Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a pilot. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows.

Like you, I used to think the world was this great place where everybody lived by the same standards I did, then some kid with a nail showed me I was living in his world, a world where chaos rules not order, a world where righteousness is not rewarded. That's Cesar's world, and if you're not willing to play by his rules, then you're gonna have to pay the price.

You think water moves fast? You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind. Like it knows it killed the world once and got a taste for murder. After the avalanche, it took us a week to climb out. Now, I don't know exactly when we turned on each other, but I know that seven of us survived the slide... and only five made it out. Now we took an oath, that I'm breaking now. We said we'd say it was the snow that killed the other two, but it wasn't. Nature is lethal but it doesn't hold a candle to man.

You see? It's curious. Ted did figure it out - time travel. And when we get back, we gonna tell everyone. How it's possible, how it's done, what the dangers are. But then why fifty years in the future when the spacecraft encounters a black hole does the computer call it an 'unknown entry event'? Why don't they know? If they don't know, that means we never told anyone. And if we never told anyone it means we never made it back. Hence we die down here. Just as a matter of deductive logic.

Category