Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Affirmative Action

Interesting how it becomes about state's rights when it suits. *ahem*Gore*ahem*

cornflake said:

Interesting how it becomes about state's rights when it suits. *ahem*Gore*ahem*

Click to expand...

Gore?

Former VP and former Presidential candidate Al Gore (D), I presume.

benbradley said:

Former VP and former Presidential candidate Al Gore (D), I presume.

Click to expand...

I assumed as much but I'm missing the connection.

William Haskins said:

i presumed it was lesley gore, of "it's my party (and i'll cry if i want to)" fame.

or, if you prefer, "you don't own me."

Click to expand...

Hahahaha, but I think it was "California Rights", I mean "Nights".

kuwisdelu said:

I assumed as much but I'm missing the connection.

Click to expand...

I specifically added the (D) (just in the case anyone who knows anything about him doesn't know that he's a Democrat) because it tends to be those Racist Republicans that are always screaming "States' Rights!"

William Haskins said:

i presumed it was lesley gore, of "it's my party (and i'll cry if i want to)" fame.

or, if you prefer, "you don't own me."

Click to expand...

Or the followup to "Party," "Judy's Turn To Cry."

I assume the Gore reference was regarding the 2000 presidential election.

Emilander said:

I assume the Gore reference was regarding the 2000 presidential election.

Click to expand...

Forgive me. I was 10 at the time. Was there some brouhaha around Gore and affirmative action in 2000?

kuwisdelu said:

Forgive me. I was 10 at the time. Was there some brouhaha around Gore and affirmative action in 2000?

Click to expand...

No, the election turned into a clusterfuck of sorts and the Supreme Court was brought into it. It had nothing to do with affirmative action, but state's rights. The Court essentially ruled against state's rights in that decision, costing Gore the election. Hence the reference.

Backstory

kuwisdelu said:

Forgive me. I was 10 at the time. Was there some brouhaha around Gore and affirmative action in 2000?

Click to expand...

I'd like to know this too, I was only nine at the time. Still a tiny kidlet really, the election didn't hold my attention much.

Emilander said:

No, the election turned into a clusterfuck of sorts and the Supreme Court was brought into it. It had nothing to do with affirmative action, but state's rights. The Court essentially ruled against state's rights in that decision, costing Gore the election. Hence the reference.

Click to expand...

I remember that part.

If it has nothing to do with affirmative action, the reference seemed rather random, states rights or not.

In any case, I figure racial justice should be a federal matter, not a states rights issue.

kuwisdelu said:

I remember that part.

If it has nothing to do with affirmative action, the reference seemed rather random, states rights or not.

Click to expand...

It illustrates the Court's inconsistency on issues of "state's rights." On the one hand, they ruled against a state deciding on its own laws, i.e., Bush v. Gore. And then there's this decision, in favor of a state deciding its own laws, i.e., banning affirmative action.

I assume that both cases hinged on the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

And that leads us to the Gore reference.

Emilander said:

It illustrates the Court's inconsistency on issues of "state's rights."

Click to expand...

Why is it always characterized as inconsistency?

Isn't it natural that amendments left open to interpretation would be interpreted different ways depending on the situation?

Not that I agree with the decision in this case...

kuwisdelu said:

Why is it always characterized as inconsistency?

Isn't it natural that amendments left open to interpretation would be interpreted different ways depending on the situation?

Not that I agree with the decision in this case...

Click to expand...

I called it an inconsistency because I assume that was cornflake's point. I think, like everything else, personal politics colors how people view the decisions. Those on the left are more likely to take issue with the decisions than will people on the right.

The Equal Protection Clause is pretty straightforward, at least it is to me. The only interpretation needed is whether affirmative action is for the greater good or not.

kuwisdelu said:

I remember that part.

If it has nothing to do with affirmative action, the reference seemed rather random, states rights or not.

Click to expand...

The point being that conservative justices, with a long history of being very much in favor of states rights (as in the Michigan decision) suddenly turned around on the Gore decision and decided that the state had no rights in that case. Why? The only possible answer is because they did not wish Gore to be president – they wanted Bush to be president.

So in Michigan the wishes of the state take precedence, whereas in Florida the wishes of the state could not. See, it all depends on whether you like the values being expressed or not. Imo it has little or nothing to do with matters of law – which is why Supreme Court has gone from being a respected arbiter to nothing more than another political partisan part of the system.

To be fair, the liberal side of the court who often side with the federal government over states also went against their long-held beliefs and decided that the state in this case had every right in the world to demand a recount.

This momentous decision impacted the entire course of our country over the last decade including the current makeup of the court which led to citizens United and various other rulings, the Iraq war, and so on.

However, I find the Michigan decision interesting. As I understand it, the reasoning runs thusly:

Affirmative action came about as a solution to past injustices that came about due to racial discrimination. As a means of redressing a wrong which the states could or would not do, it was an acceptable form of action. And therefore, affirmative action is a valid way to achieve a common good.

But in the Michigan case, harm was not alleged. Instead, the argument was that the goal of racial diversity is intrinsically something for the public good and to be desired.

But the ruling said that the question of whether something is a common good or not, i.e. racial diversity, should be decided by all people, not the just the administrators of a University. And therefore, lacking an allegation of actual harm, a public vote banning the practice is not unconstitutional.

I personally believe that racial diversity on our college campuses especially is extremely important and this indeed a force for good not only for the minorities affected but for the white students as well.

But as much as I dislike this ruling, I see their point. I am not sure the Supreme Court, ruling on a constitutional issue, got it wrong.

kuwisdelu said:

In any case, I figure racial justice should be a federal matter, not a states rights issue.

Click to expand...

Using the same reasoning, I could see where marriage justice (to coin a phrase) should also be a federal matter.

kuwisdelu said:

Why is it always characterized as inconsistency?

Isn't it natural that amendments left open to interpretation would be interpreted different ways depending on the situation?

Not that I agree with the decision in this case...

Click to expand...

I'm wondering what the amendment writers (and the people who voted to pass them) would think about those amendments being "open to interpretation." I would imagine they would be upset.

I also wonder what they would think of this I saw on Facebook, containing three words of an amendment: "What part of 'Well-Regulated Militia' don't you understand?"

benbradley said:

I'm wondering what the amendment writers (and the people who voted to pass them) would think about those amendments being "open to interpretation." I would imagine they would be upset.

Click to expand...

It's naïve to believe such a succinct document would not leave room (intentional or not) for interpretation.

The best you can do is try to write it so it leads most naturally to the interpretations you intend.

Any wise writer will take into account the fact that it will be interpreted.

Emilander said:

It illustrates the Court's inconsistency on issues of "state's rights." On the one hand, they ruled against a state deciding on its own laws, i.e., Bush v. Gore. And then there's this decision, in favor of a state deciding its own laws, i.e., banning affirmative action.

I assume that both cases hinged on the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

And that leads us to the Gore reference.

Click to expand...

Exactly this, thanks.

kuwisdelu said:

Why is it always characterized as inconsistency?

Isn't it natural that amendments left open to interpretation would be interpreted different ways depending on the situation?

Not that I agree with the decision in this case...

Click to expand...

Because it's inconsistant.

No.

rugcat said:

The point being that conservative justices, with a long history of being very much in favor of states rights (as in the Michigan decision) suddenly turned around on the Gore decision and decided that the state had no rights in that case. Why? The only possible answer is because they did not wish Gore to be president – they wanted Bush to be president.

Click to expand...

Also exactly this; also demonstrated by the wording in the maj. opinion that said that allowing a recount to go forward would have the effect of dampening the legitimacy of Bush's presidency, if said recount showed Gore ahead.

So in Michigan the wishes of the state take precedence, whereas in Florida the wishes of the state could not. See, it all depends on whether you like the values being expressed or not. Imo it has little or nothing to do with matters of law – which is why Supreme Court has gone from being a respected arbiter to nothing more than another political partisan part of the system.

Click to expand...

Not that Silent Thomas and I don't even know wtf is wrong with Scalia at this point are not embarrassments, but Rehnquist with the gold stripes was a special kind of lunacy.

To be fair, the liberal side of the court who often side with the federal government over states also went against their long-held beliefs and decided that the state in this case had every right in the world to demand a recount.

Click to expand...

Meh. I don't think that's really fair - there was no real established mechanism to stop a recount at the federal level. Voting mechanisms have always been a state issue.

This momentous decision impacted the entire course of our country over the last decade including the current makeup of the court which led to citizens United and various other rulings, the Iraq war, and so on.

Click to expand...

More than we can fully comprehend. Thanks for the expanded explanation of what I meant. I kind of assumed major incidences in history, like contested presidential elections, were covered in school!

However, I find the Michigan decision interesting. As I understand it, the reasoning runs thusly:

Affirmative action came about as a solution to past injustices that came about due to racial discrimination. As a means of redressing a wrong which the states could or would not do, it was an acceptable form of action. And therefore, affirmative action is a valid way to achieve a common good.

But in the Michigan case, harm was not alleged. Instead, the argument was that the goal of racial diversity is intrinsically something for the public good and to be desired.

But the ruling said that the question of whether something is a common good or not, i.e. racial diversity, should be decided by all people, not the just the administrators of a University. And therefore, lacking an allegation of actual harm, a public vote banning the practice is not unconstitutional.

I personally believe that racial diversity on our college campuses especially is extremely important and this indeed a force for good not only for the minorities affected but for the white students as well.

But as much as I dislike this ruling, I see their point. I am not sure the Supreme Court, ruling on a constitutional issue, got it wrong.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the entire decision or the lower court's so I'm loath to comment. In a general sense, there have been a couple of cases addressing schools' desires and rights or not to use various criteria to attempt to create a more diverse class, giving 'points' on admission apps for things from socio-economic status to being the first in the family to attend college to race to etc.

benbradley said:

Using the same reasoning, I could see where marriage justice (to coin a phrase) should also be a federal matter.

I'm wondering what the amendment writers (and the people who voted to pass them) would think about those amendments being "open to interpretation." I would imagine they would be upset.

I also wonder what they would think of this I saw on Facebook, containing three words of an amendment: "What part of 'Well-Regulated Militia' don't you understand?"

Click to expand...

Marriage justice will be a federal matter through the 10th. It's only a matter of time until some gay couple who married and moved takes that up the ladder and then every holdout state goes down in one shot. There's no argument to be had there, just a matter of time.

Heh to the latter - I usually say 'it's a whole sentence, not just a clause,' but I like that too.

cornflake said:

Meh. I don't think that's really fair - there was no real established mechanism to stop a recount at the federal level. Voting mechanisms have always been a state issue.

Click to expand...

An excellent point.

At least now we know which two Justices don't sit next to each other in the Supreme Court dining room.

A significant portion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's scathing dissent in the Supreme Court's decision upholding Michigan's affirmative action ban was dedicated to taking on Chief Justice John Roberts' views on race in America.

Here's a snippet from her dissenting opinion (emphasis added), which she took the unusual step of reading from the bench on Tuesday:

In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.
​

Although she didn't mention him by name, Sotomayor was apparently alluding to Roberts' frequently-quoted line from a 2007 case: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Elsewhere in her opinion, Sotomayor quoted that line from Roberts and described it as "out of touch with reality." Her attack wasn't lost on the chief justice, who filed a brief concurring opinion responding to her, alongside Justice Anthony Kennedy's 6-2 controlling opinion.
Roberts wrote:

The dissent states that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.” ... But it is not “out of touch with reality” to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and—if so—that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to “wish away, rather than confront” racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.​

Click to expand...

Bravo, Ms. Sotomayor.



Mr. Roberts...