“This case is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. Here, the principle that the consideration of race in admissions is permissible when certain conditions are met is not being challenged. Rather, the question concerns whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of such racial preferences...
...Unlike the injuries in Mulkey, Hunter, and Seattle, the question here is not how to address or prevent injury caused on account of race but whether voters may determine whether a policy of race-based preferences should be continued. By approving Proposal 2 and there-by adding §26 to their State Constitution, Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power, bypassing public officials they deemed not responsive to their concerns about a policy of granting race-based preferences.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf
Sotomayer’s dissent can be distilled down to “the Constitution requires affirmative action so voters are not free to forbid it.”
This fat lesbo, er “wise latina” is beyond a political joke.
This case has ramifications and portends the success of gay marriage amendments in states banning them. LIKE CALIFORNIA !! This is great!! Affirmative action bans will now sweep the country, at last. I don’t read the amendment to state constitution as dis positive at all. When the people speak at the ballot box — It cannot be overturned by a federal law from this day forward. AWESOME. Majority rules!~!