Skip to comments.
US court denies white students' discrimination case
Reuters ^
| 10/03/05
Posted on 10/03/2005 12:41:58 PM PDT by nypokerface
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: nypokerface
Well thats a blow to equal protection and a disappointing first decision for the Roberts court.
2
posted on
10/03/2005 12:45:16 PM PDT
by
gondramB
( We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.)
To: nypokerface
Yet another example of a "justice" system gone mad, upholding a law clearly in violation of the principle of equal protection under the law. IOW, everyone is protected under the law, except when they're not. Where do you turn when the courts and judges are corrupt. Where do you go when the system of "justice" is bereft of justice? I guess we need to learn a lesson from history. When faced with such dilemmas, the patriots of old turned to their ammunition lockers. Could very well happen again if too many mainstream people feel marginalized by the "justice" system in this country.
3
posted on
10/03/2005 12:48:06 PM PDT
by
chimera
To: gondramB
A swing and a miss by Roberts.
4
posted on
10/03/2005 12:54:37 PM PDT
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: nypokerface
The silver lining is that the Court, by simply declining to hear the case, created no additional repugnant precedents.
5
posted on
10/03/2005 12:55:11 PM PDT
by
sourcery
(Givernment: The way the average voter spells "government.")
To: jwfiv
Ward Connerly for SCOTUS ping.
6
posted on
10/03/2005 12:56:17 PM PDT
by
Serb5150
(I'm preparing for the big one. Are you?)
To: nypokerface
Havent we known for a long time that racial discriminations was legal as long as the discriminated was not a racial minority or Asian?
7
posted on
10/03/2005 12:59:14 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: nypokerface
It is a question of monetary damages only at this point. The racist policy used by the law school are no longer in use. The plaintiffs would have had to prove that the school's actions cost the plaintiffs monetary or economic harm. If you are rejected due to a racist admissions policy, you sue to reverse that policy, but economic damages are something else. One might argue that the Plaintiffs would have made an income as lawyers upon graduation, but who says they would have graduated -- that's only a hypothetical. I don't think this was a bad day for the court.
To: gondramB; Mulch
Did Roberts even participate in hearing the arguments and/or making the decision?
9
posted on
10/03/2005 1:02:06 PM PDT
by
Pyro7480
(Blessed Pius IX, pray for us!)
To: nypokerface
How do they know they would have graduated from law school? Yet they sought damages? Either way, the school doesn't have the policy annymore according to the article.
10
posted on
10/03/2005 1:03:27 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(I'm on the 24 plan having the best day ever.)
To: Pyro7480
"Did Roberts even participate in hearing the arguments and/or making the decision?"
I havent been able to find out - you would think the media would be covering it more if it was his first vote.
11
posted on
10/03/2005 1:03:50 PM PDT
by
gondramB
( We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.)
To: nypokerface
To: nypokerface
Government protected racism, the law of the land.
To: gondramB
No it is not. All it says is that they couldn't collect money. If they sued to overturn the whole racial preferences situation and was turned down, THAT would be a blow to equal opportunity. All that happened was that they didn't get their money which happens to people everyday.
14
posted on
10/03/2005 1:06:11 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(I'm on the 24 plan having the best day ever.)
To: nypokerface
What damage did they suffer?
How can money damages be fairly calculated?
I wouldn't take the case either.
15
posted on
10/03/2005 1:06:46 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
To: nypokerface
That does it. Racism is now allowed. I just can't seem to keep up with our ever changing constitution.....
16
posted on
10/03/2005 1:07:59 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: cyborg
"No it is not. All it says is that they couldn't collect money. If they sued to overturn the whole racial preferences situation and was turned down, THAT would be a blow to equal opportunity. All that happened was that they didn't get their money which happens to people everyday."
I see your point - that is a better way to look at it.
17
posted on
10/03/2005 1:07:59 PM PDT
by
gondramB
( We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.)
To: gondramB
I havent been able to find out - you would think the media would be covering it more if it was his first vote. This is from the article:
The Supreme Court said it rejected the appeal in an order issued on the first day of its new term. The court rejected about 1,800 appeals that had piled up during their summer recess.
One of the first orders of business for a new court term is to decide which cases to take, which IIRC requires four votes. (Someone else may know better about the number.) So presumably this is one of the first cases that didn't make the cut. Which would mean Justice Roberts participated, but we don't know whether he voted to hear the appeal or not.
18
posted on
10/03/2005 1:08:38 PM PDT
by
untenured
(http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
To: Patti_ORiley
19
posted on
10/03/2005 1:08:47 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
To: nypokerface
Wait 'till Harriet get there, she'll show 'em! Like Souter did!
20
posted on
10/03/2005 1:10:03 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson