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 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 641-647 next last
To: Reagan Man
The Law School decision is of minimum importance to me. I could care less about any academic hardship wannabee lawyers are subjected too, by U of Michigan or any other law school.
The Undergraduate decision is correct, and affects far more people. We should be cheering this one. Even better, it's a 6-3 decision...I can't wait to see which liberal Supremes saw the light.
201
posted on
06/23/2003 7:53:50 AM PDT
by
YaYa123
(Hillary VIP = Vicious Insufferable Phony)
To: meema
Incredible!
Justice O'Connor is still getting back at those White Male Law Firms who would only hire her to be a secretary!
How many DECADES has it been since that happened, Madame Justice? Isn't it about time to forgive and forget? What happened to you hasn't happened to others for DECADES!I'm pretty sure more female than male lawyers are being turned out each year
202
posted on
06/23/2003 7:53:55 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: Howlin
Bush wimped out on this one, said one thing on TV and did another with his brief he sent the SC.
203
posted on
06/23/2003 7:53:57 AM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(The Gift is to See the Truth)
To: Reagan Man
The Law School decision is of minimum importance to me. I could care less about any academic hardship wannabee lawyers are subjected too, by U of Michigan or any other law school.
The Undergraduate decision is correct, and affects far more people. We should be cheering this one. Even better, it's a 6-3 decision...I can't wait to see which liberal Supremes saw the light.
204
posted on
06/23/2003 7:54:11 AM PDT
by
YaYa123
(Hillary VIP = Vicious Insufferable Phony)
To: Howlin
How about mandating ideological diversity as a "compelling governmental interest?" ;-)
205
posted on
06/23/2003 7:54:33 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Luis Gonzalez
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". Thanks bud. Couldn't have said it better myself!
To: dennisw
With regard to the law school descision...unless the SC has decided to reverse the law against perpetuities, doesn't it imply that there has to come a time when the "goals" of a.a. have been met, and a.a. can be halted......when does this occur, and who decides it?..shouldn't we have "guidelines"?
207
posted on
06/23/2003 7:56:07 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: xrp
"...Just because they like freedom..."Freedom without responsibility and morality is anarchy.
EXTREMIST LIBERTARIANS SAY: "ANARCHY RULES!"
208
posted on
06/23/2003 7:56:39 AM PDT
by
arasina
(Temporarily tagged out due to renovations.)
To: Brian S
I am disappointed. What was to vote? 5 to 4?
209
posted on
06/23/2003 7:56:57 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Carolinamom
I wish that those who think "diversity" only means skin color/race would consult their dictionaries for the real meaning of that word.The whole "diversity" industry is based on one word in a concurring opinion in the Bakke case written by Lewis Powell. I doubt he meant what they interpreted it to mean and, besides, his was only one vote out of 9 in the case. Yes, the swing vote, but still only one out of nine.
I was talking to U-M's then-provost in 1998 and I asked her "what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down your undergraduate policy?" She assured me they wouldn't, so they didn't need a backup plan. Oops.
To: NYC Republican
Bush went public with his views on this matter, coming out strongly against Michigan's policies. What more can he do? He could have had his Justice Department file an amicus brief that argued that diversity is NOT a compelling interest (as Ted Olson wanted).
To: TLBSHOW
In addition to all the other things you've called Bush (whom you plan to vote for in 2004), you're now calling him a two-faced hypocrite.
To: aristeides
For the Supreme Court to rule that diversity is a compelling governmental interest is a giant step backwards. And I and many others think it is a legitimate function of gov't as long as it's not an overt quota system. When the Univ of Calif. banned affirm action, the UC started focusing on income. As a result, AA has really dropped as a key issue in CA for the time being.
To: arasina
LOL
214
posted on
06/23/2003 7:58:36 AM PDT
by
Mo1
To: TLBSHOW
Don't you think you should wait to see what Rush says at 12:00 before you go out on a limb?
215
posted on
06/23/2003 7:58:54 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Carolinamom
It's best just to ignore him when he goes off like this.....sometimes he has good intentions....but he thrives on the attention...
216
posted on
06/23/2003 7:59:04 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: meema
Justice O'Connor is still getting back at those White Male Law Firms who would only hire her to be a secretary! In retrospect, they seem to have had incredible foresight.
To: Brian S
Try this:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ I got an email from grassfire last night that boldly stated that the Supremes will respond to written letters.
Not to emails or faxes or phone calls, but old-fashioned written letters!
218
posted on
06/23/2003 7:59:38 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: aristeides
For the Supreme Court to rule that diversity is a compelling governmental interest is a giant step backwards. I'd say rather that it's a tiny step sideways. The SC has been saying that for decades, so reiterating it can't be going "backwards".
Not gaining ground isn't the same as losing any...
219
posted on
06/23/2003 7:59:45 AM PDT
by
kevkrom
(Dump the income tax -- support an NRST!)
To: Mr. Silverback
Think about the War on Terror with Al Gore in charge. Oh man! You are asking someone to actually think? Tell me what would Gore have done?
220
posted on
06/23/2003 7:59:46 AM PDT
by
Lysander
(My army can kill your army)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson