Split Decision, Clear Result (the Michigan SC cases)

United Press International ^ | 23 June 2003 | John Armor

[TankerKC]

Maybe they've been reading some of the ignorant analysis of the decisions. Look at this title:

Supreme Court gives strong backing to affirmative action:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6153958.htm

[MJY1288]

Thanks for the ping.

[dennisw]

Not too shabby!

[Howlin]

Oh I heard some of those myself.

There were people on here commenting on the decision that don't have TV so they couldn't possibly have seen or heard about it.

[Sandy]

if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

Exactly. And even if we are diverse enough in 25 years, there's nothing in this opinion that prevents another compelling government interest from being tarted up as justification for discrimination.

[wardaddy]

Simply Crap.

[wardaddy]

It's no longer about redress.

It's about diversity.

[MJY1288]

Thanks for the excellent analysis, I didn't consider this a win for the AA crowd either.

If the quota system is taken out of the undergraduate enrollment, it sure isn't going to be there for the post graduate enrollment

[fight_truth_decay]

University of Texas starts work on new admissions policies

By Jim Vertuno

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, June 23, 2003

AUSTIN — The University of Texas will draft new affirmative action admissions policies that include race as a factor as allowed by Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, school President Larry Faulkner said Monday.

Statesman.com

Students at the University of Michigan celebrated Monday after the Supreme Court handed down a decision narrowly upholding affirmative action.

[moneyrunner]

Good summary. Turley also made the point that since this ruling failed to draw bright lines, it will lead to more litigation, requiring another Supreme Court ruling. And if there is even a one-person change in the court’s composition (with one more conservative justice) we could see the end of affirmative action much sooner.

[mikenola]

Justice O'Connor really showed her activist bent with this ruling. Couldn't this 25 year sunset in effect violate separation of powers, ie. stepping on the toes of the legislative branch?

How can the citizens address this activist judiciary? We've tried amending the constitution, but it was basically ignored today. What does the congress do, pass another saying "hey we really meant it with the 14th"?

I admit I haven't read the decisions , but this whole thing stinks to high heaven. Because the liberals will always split hairs and postpone the moment when we are "diverse enough".

[Common Tator]

Remember the media believes they are always right on every single story ... with the possible exceptions of the ones where we know better.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage"

This is laughable, to think that an advantaged black would get no preference. Laughable.

[Carolinamom]

Thanks for your sane and reasoned explanation. The hysteria has been rampant, so your calm and clear voice is welcomed.

[budwiesest]

I'll check Bakke later bump

[Congressman Billybob]

Justice O'Connor did not choose to put in that 25-year limit. She was compelled to do so by prior SC cases that made it clear that such remedies are NOT constitutional UNLESS they have a deadline to end. Even to argue that the law school's AA was constitutional, she HAD to put a deadline on it.

Billybob

P.S. I read all 13 of the opinions in both cases, before I went on radio to talk about them, and before I wrote the UPI article. I've got hard reasons, not guesswork, for what I wrote about this pair of decisions.

[Congressman Billybob]

Fine question, succintly stated. What the Michigan Law School is doing IS unconstitutional. But, five Justices of the Court do not have the guts and/or the intellect to say that this is unconstitutional now -- rather than later.

Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

There's entirely too much hard law, over many decades, on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for the Supreme Court to duck the campaign finance ruling for 25 years. I expect, and am suggesting to them, that they delay their ruling that CFR is unconstitutional, to give Congress 30 days or so to rewrite the law in accord with the Court's instructions.

The SC has given those kind of marching orders to Congress only a few times before. I think the Court will do that again in the CFR case.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his dissent in the Grutter case predicts what you suggest. He says he expects this half-way case to generate a tide of litigation as lawyers seek to push around the fuzzy boundaries of this decision. I think you, and he, are right on the mark to suggest that as the outcome.

Billybob

[Constitution Day]

BUMP