Posted on 06/23/2003 7:15:56 AM PDT by Brian S
Supreme Court rules in favor of U. of Michigan Admissions Policy
The first government that recognized and supported universal, God-given inalienable rights was not the United States but rather Israel prior to the introduction of the kingdom under Saul. The level of personal freedom of the ordinary Hebrew of the times was astounding.
Libertarians, even those who aren't Jews or Christians, who want to increase their political influence would do well to study what the Bible teaches about political liberty: By sharing it with their Christian friends they could convert them into allies.
Yet 5 robes couldn't. The Constituion is rapidly becoming a reference to consult rather than the law of the land. Blecch!
Take a look at the replies you got during your "first hour"........you got hammered.
Split Decision, Clear Result (the Michigan SC cases)
United Press International ^ | 23 June 2003 | John Armor
Posted on 06/23/2003 5:57 PM CDT by Congressman Billybob
This morning the US Supreme Court issued two decisions concerning affirmative action in the admissions policies of the University of Michigan. By a 5-4 decision, it affirmed the race-based policy of the University's law school. By a 6-3 decision, it struck down a similar policy for undergraduate admissions.
In the law school case (Grutter v. Bollinger) the Court issued six different opinions among the nine Justices. In the undergraduate case (Gratz v. Bollinger), it issued perhaps its all-time record, seven opinions in one case. Despite that large number of opinions, some of which are remarkably hostile toward one another, the bottom line conclusion of these two cases is clear – affirmative action is dead in American universities in no more than 25 years.
We start with Gratz, the undergraduate decision. The Admissions Office there awarded 20 points automatically to any applicant who was a member of a "disadvantaged minority," which meant African-Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans. Admission to the university generally required 100 points out of a possible 150. By contrast, the rare student who achieved a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test received only 5 points for that. One racial group, Asian Americans, received no points, because historically students from that group outperform Caucasian students in academics and in qualifications for admission.
The effect of the 20-point bonus was to make "the factor of race .... decisive" for almost every minimally qualified student from those specified groups. It also meant that applicants not from those racial groups, but far better qualified academically, were refused admission.
Led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, six Justices had no difficulty concluding that this amounted to a quota system, which the Court had condemned in the Bakke decision a quarter century ago, and agreed that the undergraduate admission system – and anything like it in any other public college or university – was unconstitutional. (There were separate Dissents filed by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.)
On the face of it, the law school case seems to be the opposite of the undergraduate one. In the Grutter case, the Admissions Office looked at every one of the 3,500 or so applicants for a freshman class of about 350 students. They looked at grade point averages, at scores on the Law School Aptitude Test, at extracurricular activities, and at "life experience." Included in the latter were the racial experiences in the students' lives, including difficulties faced and overcome. Justice O'Connor wrote the Opinion of the Court approving this system, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
In both cases, the University of Michigan asserted that it had a legitimate educational purpose of "diversity" in the student body. It said that students learn not only from their professors but from one another, and diversity is essential to that purpose. In both cases, the Supreme Court accepted that as a legitimate purpose – but in the undergraduate case only, the Court struck down the method chosen to accomplish that "compelling interest."
In the law school, the University said it sought a "critical mass" of minority students, not just the small numbers of minority students who qualified for admission without any special consideration. The University never defined how many students made up a "critical mass," because that would appear to be a quota, which was clearly illegal.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a particularly cutting dissent, used the University's own admissions figures to demonstrate that the "critical mass" for African American students was more than twice the critical mass for Hispanics and four times the critical mass for Native Americans. Both he and Justice Thomas, the Court's only black Justice, referred to the Law School admissions program as "a sham." Justices Kennedy and Scalia also filed dissents.
Both of these cases were decided under the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that no state shall "deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." Both cases started with the presumption that denying admission to one student as opposed to another, solely on account of the different races of the two students, denies equal protection to the student excluded. And all of the plaintiffs in both of these cases were denied admission though they had credentials which would have gotten them in for certain, had they been members of a disadvantaged minority. This factual finding was not questioned by any of the Justices in either of the cases.
What is going on here? Has the Supreme Court turned schizophrenic, approving racial discrimination in one case but rejecting it in the other?
No. There is one critical difference between the two cases. For undergraduates, the advantage for certain students was absolute and solely race-based. Every member of the target race got the advantage, without any consideration of whether it was appropriate. However, for law school applicants the advantage was individually considered. For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage – that child of a doctor and a lawyer, attending good schools in good neighborhoods, would be expected to perform at the same level as any Caucasian or Asian American student.
Some readers might ask at this point whether this means less racial discrimination, but not an end to discrimination. Some might agree with the dissent in the law school case, that this is still a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See for yourselves. The opinions are relatively short and written in plain English. They can be found at either of these websites: www.supremecourtus.gov and www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ The alternative site at Cornell is given because the Supreme Court's official site was overrun with hits today.
There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practices civil rights law in the Supreme Court, and is filing his 17th brief there this month.
Right. Perhaps if Bush declared war on the Supreme Court you would feel better.
Bush is the first President to take a stand against reverse racism. Yet you can only bash him.
Everything Bush says sounds like gospel compared to the BS you post in this forum.
There is a silver lining. Don't tell that to those who are hysterical over today's ruling.
Actually this is not accurate.
It was a split decision..striking down one admissions policy and supporting another.
Main Entry: 2principal
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a person who has controlling authority or is in a leading position: as a : a chief or head man or woman b : the chief executive officer of an educational institution c : one who employs another to act as agent subject to the employer's general control and instruction; specifically : the person from whom an agent's authority derives d : the chief or an actual participant in a crime e : the person primarily or ultimately liable on a legal obligation f : a leading performer : STAR
2 : a matter or thing of primary importance: as a (1) : a capital sum placed at interest, due as a debt, or used as a fund (2) : the corpus of an estate, portion, devise, or bequest b : the construction that gives shape and strength to a roof and is usually one of several trusses; broadly : the most important member of a piece of framing
Dimbulb.
BTW, we aren't the ones who are calling the presdient a traitor and a socialist while still claiming we'll vote for him.
You're the one with no
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but if you are being sincere, there is your answer. Governments must be defined and instituted among men in order to ensure those inalienable rights. Until an objective set of laws is made manifest through a constitution, those rights cannot be defended or "secured." An objective set of laws requires an orderly government. The aboriginies in any land do not possess title to the land they live upon. In fact, their lawlessness is one of their defining characteristics...which is why our settling of the West was so bloody."
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.