Supreme Court upholds Michigan Affirmative Action ban on college applications

[ArcadiaGP]

Supreme Court upholds Mich affirmative action ban - Washington Times

By vote of 6-2, rules that Michigan ban on racial preferences is constitutionally permissible. It did not decide whether affirmative action is legal. It ruled on how states may decide such questions. It ruled that a state may ban affirmative action. Not that a state may or may not have such a system in place.

 

[jforrest]

I believe this decision is only "banning" affirmative action in public colleges and universities. All the other situations where affirmative action can be applied are not the states choice with this decision.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I found Sotomayor's opinion (as announced on the radio), well, interesting. She dissented on the grounds that this ruling *may* lead to discrimination, never mind that allowing affirmative action discriminates all the time. I do not believe that anyone should be less equal on account of race, nor do I believe they should be more equal.

 

[Fargo]

Very interesting to see this final result. I worked for the attorney who represented the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative back when BAMN was intimidating the elections board into not putting it on the ballot and did a lot of research/writing for the mandamus action we won against them in the Michigan Ct. of Appeals. I even drove to Detroit to file the mandamus petition.

It isn't every day you see a case you worked on decided by the U.S. Supreme Court years later, especially in your favor!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Very interesting to see this final result. I worked for the attorney who represented the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative back when BAMN was intimidating the elections board into not putting it on the ballot and did a lot of research/writing for the mandamus action we won against them in the Michigan Ct. of Appeals. I even drove to Detroit to file the mandamus petition.

It isn't every day you see a case you worked on decided by the U.S. Supreme Court years later, especially in your favor!

Congratulations on work well done!

 

[Fargo]

Thank you!

 

[Fargo]

Here is a WSJ article on the events leading up to my small part in it:

Michigan Meets Malcolm X - WSJ.com

and here is one on BAMN's response to losing:

BAMN Goes Violent at Michigan Board of Canvasser?s Meeting | American Renaissance

 

[Kutnupe14]

AA once served a legitimate purpose, and was useful. Now it's simply archaic.

 

[ModernGunner]

Affirmative Action was initially instituted TO discriminate, but by some warped perspective, it was blessed 'okay' because it discriminated in favor of some based on skin color, gender, or similar factors. How 'progressive', come up with a discriminatory law to 'fight' perceived discrimination, LOL.

As I've read, the SCOTUS decision, basically, states that the individual States, and citizen vote, reserve the right to decide upon the AA laws for their respective States.

Sotomayor's dissent, 12 pages, which was longer than the combined submission of the majority, is pretty much her (and Obama's) nonsensical gibberish that discrimination MAY now take place because Michigan decided to prohibit discrimination.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Affirmative Action was initially instituted TO discriminate, but by some warped perspective, it was blessed 'okay' because it discriminated in favor of some based on skin color, gender, or similar factors. How 'progressive', come up with a discriminatory law to 'fight' perceived discrimination, LOL.

As I've read, the SCOTUS decision, basically, states that the individual States, and citizen vote, reserve the right to decide upon the AA laws for their respective States.

Sotomayor's dissent, 12 pages, which was longer than the combined submission of the majority, is pretty much her (and Obama's) nonsensical gibberish that discrimination MAY now take place because Michigan decided to prohibit discrimination.

That would be incorrect. It came about due to discrimination rather than an attempt to implement it.

 

[ModernGunner]

That would be incorrect. It came about due to discrimination rather than an attempt to implement it.

Respectfully, I fervently disagree.

Affirmation Action, from it's inception, invoked a 'quota' system. That 'quota' was determined on irrelevant factors. Abuse of this system was inevitable and began immediately. AA demanded a disregard of factors like qualifications, merit, capability, personal drive, and so forth.

This is a variant of Socialism. And has the intended, not unintended, consequence of 'dumbing things down' to the 'least common denominator'. That's all 'cute and comfy', but it's the recruitment equivalent of giving a 1st place ribbon to the competitor coming in 14th place. The result of that didn't 'lift up' the underachiever, it dragged down the true achievers. Socialism, NOT success.

Were there SOME true 'victories'? Yes. But at what cost? A few positively affected at the cost of millions negatively so. Just like Obamacare, interestingly enough. Another Socialist 'affirmative action' program.

There is no 'right' to succeed.

 

[jamil]

I found Sotomayor's opinion (as announced on the radio), well, interesting. She dissented on the grounds that this ruling *may* lead to discrimination, never mind that allowing affirmative action discriminates all the time. I do not believe that anyone should be less equal on account of race, nor do I believe they should be more equal.

Oh, I can't wait for the time to read all 54 pages of her rant.

I can see why she's so pissed I guess. She credits AA with a lot of her success. But AA in itself IS racial discrimination. Did someone miss the chance at success because of the racial favoritism shown to her? Not picking the winners based on race, I thought, is what the civil rights movement was all about.

Gotta like Scalia sometimes. He says what he thinks.

Antonin Scalia faults Sonia Sotomayor for 'doubly shameful' suggestion that Michigan voters are racist | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[ModernGunner]

...I can see why she's so pissed I guess. She credits AA with a lot of her success. But AA in itself IS racial discrimination. Did someone miss the chance at success because of the racial favoritism shown to her?

Exactly, Jamil.

And due to that factor, that MOST likely other, better qualified candidates were intentionally passed over so Sotomayor was given preferred treatment, did we really get the 'best' Justice for the job? The same question can be asked for any previous position Sotomayor has held.

Based on her record before and since she was appointed to SCOTUS, the strong indication is NO. America did NOT get the best possible candidate. It appears she was proposed and picked simply because she fits 'multiple minorities'.

Having the 'appearance' of doing the right thing is NOT the same as doing the right thing.

The wording to AA should be one, short, sentence: "The most qualified candidate gets the position regardless of any other factors".
Of course, the socialist boobs would screw that up, wanting 14 paragraphs to describe the bloody obvious!

 

[jamil]

Sotomayer in her dissent said this:

"But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society."


We don't want people to be disadvantaged by ability. But isn't being disadvantaged, racially, in its most literal meaning, what we all want? Race should not be an advantage, it should be a disadvantage in the sense of not favoring any race. I think AA has done more to disadvantage the ability of minorities than any other factor since the civil rights laws were passed.

 

[churchmouse]

Congratulations on work well done!

I 2nd that.

This whole affirmative action thing needs to be pulled back a notch. Lets get back to merit. Earn your spot. School, jobs....across the board.

 

[churchmouse]

Sotomayer in her dissent said this:

"But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society."


We don't want people to be disadvantaged by ability. But isn't being disadvantaged, racially, in its most literal meaning, what we all want? Race should not be an advantage, it should be a disadvantage in the sense of not favoring any race. I think AA has done more to disadvantage the ability of minorities than any other factor since the civil rights laws were passed.

I truly believe Martin Luther King is not smiling.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Respectfully, I fervently disagree.

Affirmation Action, from it's inception, invoked a 'quota' system. That 'quota' was determined on irrelevant factors. Abuse of this system was inevitable and began immediately. AA demanded a disregard of factors like qualifications, merit, capability, personal drive, and so forth.

This is a variant of Socialism. And has the intended, not unintended, consequence of 'dumbing things down' to the 'least common denominator'. That's all 'cute and comfy', but it's the recruitment equivalent of giving a 1st place ribbon to the competitor coming in 14th place. The result of that didn't 'lift up' the underachiever, it dragged down the true achievers. Socialism, NOT success.

Were there SOME true 'victories'? Yes. But at what cost? A few positively affected at the cost of millions negatively so. Just like Obamacare, interestingly enough. Another Socialist 'affirmative action' program.

There is no 'right' to succeed.

That's flat out wrong. You are taking one possible outcome of AA, and incorrectly stating that it is all that it fully encompasses. AA can be as simple as targeting low income minority children to apply to certain colleges with telephone calls, flyers, school visits; while not doing the same in more affluent white area/schools. This doesn't mean, as in the case of my mother, that she was unqualified, it means that as a black female in Arkansas, the possibility of going to a "white" school (something not remotely considered before) was actually a honest option. AA started as outreach programs to groups that had been traditionally discriminated against, and actively informing them that new avenues had opened for their participation. You are attempting to imply that it started as picking one person over another, regardless of qualifications, which is NOT how the practice started. Today, most people understand that they can, for the most part, accomplish anything that is within their ability (which obviously hasn't always been the case) hence why I stated earlier that the practice, in all forms, is archaic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I truly believe Martin Luther King is not smiling.

What's his son doing? Lol

 

[jamil]

What's his son doing? Lol

Trying to sell off his dad's memorabilia.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trying to sell off his dad's memorabilia.

Dagnabit! Wrong guy! Nobody knows who MLK is, but we all know "Jr." And as for his mister scammer, he's a clown, he should've been given 20 years.