Posted on 03/26/2004 5:59:25 PM PST by Alia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, March 26, 2004, CONTACT: Tim O’Brien 313.550.9000, SOUTHGATE, MI
JUDGE REJECTS REQUEST TO HALT MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS PETITION DRIVE
In a sharply worded opinion, Wayne County Circuit Judge Susan Borman, denied a request by two attorneys to halt the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative petition drive to amend the state constitution by prohibiting race and gender preferences by state and local government.
Two attorneys brought the motion claiming that the circulation of the petitions should be barred because the effect of the amendment would be to undo the recent Grutter v. Bollinger decision by the US Supreme Court that permitted government consideration of race in university admissions.
The court pointed out that the issue was clearly not “ripe” for judicial review since there was no way to know if enough signatures would be obtained to even bring the proposal to the ballot this fall, let alone whether or not the voters would actually approve the amendment.
She noted that issuing such an injunction prospectively based on the potential impact of a law or amendment not yet passed would be completely unprecedented. “You have not cited a single case,” Judge Borman castigated plaintiff/attorney Milton Henry, “where a court anywhere in the United States, at any time in the history of the United States, has ever issued an order like this.”
The more attorney Henry tried to justify his motion, the more incensed the judge grew. “What you asking this court to do,” she thundered, “strikes at the very roots of our democratic process!”
The judge went on to cite at length the actual controlling cases on challenges to initiatives, all of which held precisely the opposite of what the plaintiffs were arguing.
In issuing her opinion denying the motion Judge Borman said the plaintiffs should feel free to appeal. “If you go to the Appeals Court, the Supreme Court, or even take it to federal court,” she said, barely controlling her obvious annoyance, “you won’t get any different ruling.”
MCRI officials and their attorneys were, of course, pleased with the ruling. “You don’t normally expect to experience a sense of relief when the court does nothing more than uphold the plain letter of the law and a couple of centuries of precedents,” said MCRI campaign manager, Tim O’Brien. “But after yesterday’s bizarre ruling by Judge Manderfield against the Board of State Canvassers, I’m actually grateful for the simple, common sense shown by Judge Borman.”
These lawyers are so blinded by their obsession to discriminate against Whites and Asians, that they don't know the difference between "permit" and "require."
Nothing in the Grutter decision said that reverse discrimination was required---only that discriminating against Whites and Asians may be permitted in certain circumstances.
Again, yours about "vampires" is apt.
Not likely. :) Where else but the US can one exercise such freedoms?
Well, not really. What laws in the US do is facilitate the process, through law, for and of a civil society. For example, we do not have laws which demand we respect "life". Instead we have laws that punish the taking of another's life. The choice is always up to the citizen to uphold and respect life and live in a civil society, or rather to break the law through taking another's life, and suffer punishment for doing so.
If you'll permit me a wee rant here...
The so-called Civil Rights movement has gone SOOO way off track from its original purpose. The 14th Amendment was already enshrined in law. Some areas of the country were in serious breach of that law. The Civil Rights Movement of MLK Jr's time moved to STAND UPON (enact, enforce) that which was already Constitutional Law -- and stand up to those who were in breach of that Amendment/body of laws. No discrimination, no preferences - Basically -- the 14th in a very, very kernel-ized bit, here. The so-called Civil Rights movement took the movement built by MLK and others and have used it to seize powers that are not constitutional -- preferences and also discrimination. Deny some access to public entities due their being the wrong "racial identity" and accelerate and boost others of the "correct racial identity" into public institutions. Basically, the so-called Civil Rights movement morphed into the very same type of enemy which had originally began its movement. Except, the morphing used a great many newer techniques. Instead of lynchings, for example, there were sleight-of-hand statistics and ideologies permitted to create these non-constitutional practices.
In addendum, I read the other day that MLK's widow was tagging onto the "gay marriage" issue -- likening it to her past-husband's movement. This is a sad fallacy she has endorsed, IMHO. Maybe she's tired.
Sure, there's nothing that I know of in the Constitution specifically addressing marriage as the Union of a man and a woman -- ipso facto, the gay marriage proponents argue this as the basis for their "case law". I suppose one day, activists might demand the word "water" be spelled out in constitutional law. Then, the word "the". Sniffing around this gnatty type of nitpicking, I smell an attempt to EU our country.
Nonetheless, every single people, every single culture spanning 4,000 years of history has enshrined the word "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman.
The activists' attempted morphing is not to be worried over, IMHO. They simply do not have the numbers nor the facts to marshall against 4,000 years of established, codified history in every corner of the world.
Democrat party members have been demanding and calling for a constitutional "reformation" referendum periodically for as long as I can recall. I see this "gay marriage" issue as their "camel's nose into the tent" in re "constititional reformation". In re Pres Bush's proposal to codify the term "marriage" into our constitution? Yep, I've read numerous thoughts pro and con. I'm for it and his suggestion.
"Keep it Simple" is the best mantra of all. But the reality is, the ball has gotten dropped in America through a number of bad election "choices" governing within the US, so that such a suggestion must be considered. And why? If not now, it will indeed come up again; and I've got my neighbors in mind as I consider Pres Bush constitutional amendment. My neighbors? Yep, countries all over the world. There's NO way many of these countries would be able to do trade with the US should the "gay marriage" issue be forced upon them as a part of trade (export, import; manufacturing, etc.)
You've got to be asking, at this point: Alia? Why'd you bring all this "gay marriage" stuff up in this thread? What's the link?
The UN practices preferences and discrimination all around the world. Some countries are more equal than others, some tribes are more equal than others.
Dittos, within the countries themselves. If the US truly wishes to lead in a responsible democracy, it must therefore lead responsibly. Preferences and discrimination are NOT constitutional. And are wrong and ugly, no matter where they are praticed. Marriage is not a preference and nor does it discriminate. Marriage is in fact, a privilege in a civil society, and the corner stone, the very minute basis for every culture of humanity.
..that they don't know the difference between "permit" and "require."
Blam! Hit the nail right on the head, you did! :)
Yes, you are right; the devil is in the details, nonetheless. It permits affirmative action; but yet U-Michigan denies it practices preferential affirmative action. And they are fighting the MCRI, tooth and nail. Why? They say it will do away with affirmative action; when it fact all it does is do-specifically away with discrimination and preferences which U-Mich CLAIMS (via G v B) they are NOT practicing. Over the years the quota crowds have been trying to include more "Asian" categories in their quota menus.
Here in CA? Students can pick multiple categories; One can pick black and asian, for example. The administrators can then determine which "quota" the institute is "low in" and elect to cast the particular student as either Asian or black -- which of course, negates the actual selection choice by the student. Imagine a very Asian appearing student suddenly telling his pals that he is instead "categorically " black, or vs versa. The point? The racists in the colleges have no clue as to their own practice of racism. They defend it as if people, individuals, were numbers, mere usable blobs of tissue. And, they soften this through their promotions of multi-cultural curriculums (so no one sues).
Glad you liked my rant. :)
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.