Affirmative action ban not unconstitutional, California Supreme Court rules [ Calif Prop 209 ]

latimes.com ^ | Aug 4 2010 | Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

[NoLibZone]

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that Proposition 209, the ballot measure that banned affirmative action by government, did not violate the federal Constitution.

In a 6-1 ruling, the majority rejected a defense argued by San Francisco after it was sued over a program that gave women and minorities an advantage in obtaining city contracts.

The court said the affirmative action program may continue only if the city shows it was narrowly tailored to address intentional discrimination by the city against businesses owned by women and minorities and that preferences were necessary to rectify the discrimination.

"Even in the rare case in which racial preferences are required by equal protection as a remedy for discrimination, the governmental body adopting such remedies must undertake an extraordinary burden of justification," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority.

San Francisco Deputy City Atty. Sherri Kaiser said the ruling was "the first time that any case has acknowledged that Proposition 209 is not a flat-out bar to affirmative action programs."

Although disappointed that the court failed to declare the 1996 initiative unconstitutional, Kaiser said she believed the city would be able to justify its program.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm that sued San Francisco on behalf of two companies, disagreed, predicting that the contracting preferences were doomed.

"We are poised for ultimate victory in this case, because it is already clear that San Francisco has no evidence to support its claim of past intentional discrimination by the city or its contractors against minorities and women," said Sharon L. Browne, principal attorney for the foundation.

[NoLibZone]

This will make it to the Supreme Court.

While the DNC controlled court will reject hearing Prop 187, Prop 8 or SB1070 type laws.

[Clock King]

Sounds like we need to get rid of SF. Vote them off the mainland, declare them an independent city-state.

[Deagle]

Since when does giving advantages over others not violate the equal protection clause? Something is seriously wrong here!

[Candor7]

Its fascist rhetoric from the bench. Thats whats wrong here.

Its been a long time cominng, you can read about it here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

We are in the throws of a fascist movement which we must defeat by roundly rejecting their ideology, and its enforcement through court based legislation from the bemch. Every federal judge should be elected, by the people.And thats a fact.Or we will deny them entry to the courts, just as was done in Worcester, MA in 1774, if that is what it takes.

It is also why Kagan should not be allowed a seat on SCOTUS.

[DesertRenegade]

Openly queer judge Walker is in for a big surprise. Not only is his idiotic ruling going to be overturned, but the California voters are going to remove this liberal activist from the Court. He should have recused himself from the case. He screwed up big time.

[longtermmemmory]

federal judge no recall.

[Deagle]

That REALLY needs to change...along with some other limitations on government officials!

[Lurker]

but the California voters are going to remove this liberal activist from the Court.

When exactly did California voters put him on the Court?

L