Split Decision: Supreme court upholds grad policy, strikes Undergrad

MSNBC Live | 06-23-03

[Brian S]

Supreme Court rules in favor of U. of Michigan Admissions Policy

[arasina]

I suppose you are going to blame him for global warming next.

He will, but only if RUSH says so.

[Petronski]

SCOTUS: Congress CAN mandate antiporn filters on public library computers...FOXNEWS.

[XJarhead]

Preferences are constitutional. Quotas are not.

The undergrad policy was not a "quota". It was simply the awarding of 20 extra points on a 150 pt. scale. It really is the difference between objective and subjective preferences. That's the effect, anyway. So the trick will be for universities to abandon formal quota systems, and just consider racial preferences on an ad hoc basis. The result might be equally or even more "preferential", but much more difficult to track.

[goldstategop]

A quota is a quota is a quota... why even a blind bat could seet it!

[aristeides]

TLBSHOW was not wrong. For the Supreme Court to rule that diversity is a compelling governmental interest is a giant step backwards.

[Numbers Guy]

I mean 20 points for skin color/race and only 12 for a pefect SAT score.

Not only that, you got 1 point for an essay (raised to 3 after 1999). When I applied to U-M (long before the current policy), they tried to make it sound as if the essay was the most part of the application and I put a lot of time into it (yes, I did get in).

[Puddleglum]

Unless they included a definition of race in the decision, they dodged the issue. Who tells me what race I am? The U of Michigan? The FedGov? If I can call myself whatever race I want, then the ruling means nothing. If someone else can call me whatever race they think I am, then isn't that prejudice?

What a muddle. Lord protect us from well-intentioned idiots.

[Howlin]

The talking heads are saying that it appears they have ruled against quotas. We shall see.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Why don't you see if you can get your idol to run against him in 2004?"

Spongebob For President!

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, it's official. We're no better off with Bush than we would have been with Gore.

Think about the War on Terror with Al Gore in charge.

Think about the kind of sick, vicious rhetoric Gore and the Clinton machine would have put out against any person who supported the plaintiffs in this case.

Think about Klintoon without the sex scandals.

No better off, that's silly. Just so you know, the SCOTUS made bad decisions when Regan was in office, too. We can't have everything, but if we keep drawing moral equivalency between Al the commie and GWB, we will have nothing instead.

[justshe]

---

Let me give you a wake up call, and explain to you why people have lost all respect for you, and the rest of the Bush bashers in this forum.

It's going to take a few days for people who understand these sorts of things to decipher what this ruling means.

Yet, without having read one single word of it, and while the remainder of the ruling had yet to be issued, you are in here bashing the President, calling this a loss, and claiming that he "caved".

---

BINGO!

HEAR HEAR!

STANDING OVATION!

You nailed it, Luis. Even before all facts are known, with only the first ruling announced, the behavior was EXACTLY as you described it. There is a HUGE agenda that has nothing to do with truth coming from certain posters.

I seriously question how much certain posters are being PAID to be disruptors on this forum. The pattern is WAY to obvious to be random or coincidental!

[Consort]

Yes, the meaning of the Constitution is exactly what five members of the Supreme Court interpret it to be and not what any President or any Congress think it should be or what the Founders thought it should be. The Senate, regardless of what party controls it, will not impeach the five justices for doing this.

[finnman69]

from AP


The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.


The court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) siding with the court's more liberal justices to decide the case.


The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the undergraduate case, joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).


Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) dissented.


Michigan's undergraduate admissions structure is tantamount to a quota, the majority in that case concluded. While it set no fixed target for the number of minority students who should get in, the point-based evaluation system gave minority applicants a 20-point boost.


Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, but the undergraduate school's admissions policy is not the way to get there, the court majority said.


The ruling affects tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, that have looked for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.


The University of Michigan cases are the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.

[Lady Eileen]

bttt

[Howlin]

Oh you're right. Frankly, I'm surprised he was able to post a reply since it's not Noon yet.

[dogbyte12]

TLB blamed it all on Bush though, which was silly and pedantic. Sandra Day O'Connor has been making flaky opinions long before President Bush took the oath of office, blaming him for her, is like liberals blaming Clinton for anything Antonin Scalia rules.

[aristeides]

Preferences are constitutional. Quotas are not.

In other words, to have what in effect are quotas, colleges and other institutions have to practice doubletalk. So we get not only racial discrimination, but dishonest institutions to boot.

[TLBSHOW]

Thanks my friend.

[sweetliberty]

"I expect the court to rule that the Texas anti-sodomy law is unconstitutional"

What is your position on that?

[goldstategop]

An arbitrary point system is a quota even if its not labeled as such because a certain group of people are automatically eligible regardless of any other factor. They just get in because they fill it. With preferences on the other hand, its more subjective and presumably every one's chances remain more or less equal. At least that's how the SCOTUS presumably saw it.