Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Split Decision: Supreme court upholds grad policy, strikes Undergrad
MSNBC Live | 06-23-03

Posted on 06/23/2003 7:15:56 AM PDT by Brian S

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; criticalmass; dredscott; education; korematsu; minorities; roevwade; ruling; scotus; uofm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 641-647 next last
To: MississippiMan
"'This is why we MUST fight for all of Bush's judges.'
It would help if he fought himself."

Yes! It would be nice if Bill Frist and the rest of the wimpy Senate Republicans woudl actually fight for the nominees. I am so sick of their ineffecuality I could scream!




181 posted on 06/23/2003 7:48:33 AM PDT by ImpotentRage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
"I've considered becoming black. What if you just changed your racial categorization on all goobermintal forms and such? How could they prove you weren't 1/128th or some such?"

I tried that when I moved to Alabama and tried to get a drivers license. The clerk looked into my blue eyes and said "you're not black" and changed the racial designation required on the drivers license.

182 posted on 06/23/2003 7:48:48 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
183 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:02 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Most people know pornography when they see it.

Tax dollars shouldn't be going to pay for the rights of perverts to fullfill their sock fantasies in public libraries. I'm sure the NAMBLA website was a big hit at many libraries nationwide.

184 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:36 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Good grief, takes with one hand and gives with the other. This is so absurd--a ruling to confuse and increase litigation. I'd be happier if it had gone all the way to undergrad--at least there'd be more than smoke to fight...

That's why Congress and the Supreme Court exist: to employ more lawyers!

185 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:36 AM PDT by texson66 ("Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing." - Lord Moulton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The way I see it, the buyrden of proof is rightly placed on the accusers in these cases.

In the former case, the law school, it was kinda hard to lay down the proof that it was discriminatory. It was, in essence, a judgement call on the part of the admissions folks, and I don't think that ought to be taken away. There are thing that might not show up in test scores or GPAs.

The latter case, on the other hand, is one where the accussers met the burden of proof that it was pretty f***ing blatant discrimination. I would insist on that proof no matter what race the accusers are. If the burden of proof is NOT met beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must acquit.
186 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:44 AM PDT by hchutch ("If you don’t win, you don’t get to put your principles into practice." David Horowitz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Numbers Guy
I wish that those who think "diversity" only means skin color/race would consult their dictionaries for the real meaning of that word.
187 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:48 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: All
To me it's a split decision. Some good some bad. But after reading ALL the posters on this thread someone brought up that it's not going to be an overnight thing to get rid of AA.

I'm willing to wait. I think the NEXT Supreme Court justice will hopefully get rid of it totally. O'Connor wants to step down, so hopefully we will have someone more conservative.
188 posted on 06/23/2003 7:49:51 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

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

Well, if he had said that, he would have been right.

Instead, he blamed Bush first. Which, of course, he doesn't just like one of Jung's monkeys.

189 posted on 06/23/2003 7:50:01 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Oh...my....pigs are flying these days.....you mean they ruled PORN is NOT a FREE SPEECH RIGHT?
190 posted on 06/23/2003 7:50:23 AM PDT by goodnesswins (FR - the truth, and nothing but the truth.........getting to the bottom of journalistic bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: arasina; TLBSHOW
The administration did not issue the amicus brief that Ted Olson wanted declaring in ringing terms that racial diversity is NOT a compelling governmental interest. Instead, the brief waffled on that very issue (but could be taken to lean in the direction of declaring diversity a compelling interest.)
191 posted on 06/23/2003 7:50:30 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I meant to qualify that but was to quick to the button.

I was speaking specifically on the matter at hand, legalized discrimination.

Definately should have taken the time to be more specific.
192 posted on 06/23/2003 7:50:38 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
This is the signal for all kinds of affirmative action schemes to be hatched and strengthened.

Go back to Nixon's era and you'll find that affirmative action was intended to redress past oppression and slavery. Was intended only for Blacks and Indians. I am very pissed that all kinds of frauds have climbed onboard the gravy train. On what basis is a woman or a gay entitled to affirmative action? On what basis is a Hispanic or Haitian immigrant, or child of immigrants, entitled to affirmative action? They were never slaves or oppressed by America and came to this allegedly racist nation because they wanted to.
193 posted on 06/23/2003 7:50:59 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
It's ok. This will stand until someone gives extra points to a applicant for being white. Then it will be racist.
194 posted on 06/23/2003 7:51:31 AM PDT by Lost Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Can????

Well today had been an interesting day

195 posted on 06/23/2003 7:52:12 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
but the generation after me is f--ked

Which generation are you? Still being slightly young, I just wanna get a general concensus feel for when people think the sh*t is really going to hit the fan. I'm preparing for my escape right now. Problem is...where can I escape to?

196 posted on 06/23/2003 7:52:14 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: xrp
By yolly, you are right! And how about Swedish-Americans from Texas???
197 posted on 06/23/2003 7:52:14 AM PDT by texson66 ("Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing." - Lord Moulton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: laconic
"They were told at the time that these were horrible appointments and they went forward with them anyway."

Perhaps, but at least their authority to make them was upheld, which is not the case with President Bush. You think the obstructionists are bad now? Just wait till he tries to make a pro-life appointment to the supreme court.

198 posted on 06/23/2003 7:52:16 AM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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

TLBSHOW WAS wrong. Bush went public with his views on this matter, coming out strongly against Michigan's policies. What more can he do? Lobby SCOTUS? Come on now.

199 posted on 06/23/2003 7:53:47 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Excellent quote. Thanks for posting it.
200 posted on 06/23/2003 7:53:50 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Have *you* taunted a liberal today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 641-647 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson