Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal appeals court strikes down Michigan ban on race, gender in college admission process
Washington Post.com ^ | July 1, 1:32 PM | Associated Press Via Washington Post

Posted on 07/01/2011 11:40:27 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg

DETROIT — A federal appeals court has struck down Michigan’s ban on the consideration of race and gender in university admissions.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; michigan; uofm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
Good day for the Race pimps. Too bad for the Rest of America.
1 posted on 07/01/2011 11:40:34 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Wonder what the SCOTUS will do with this.


2 posted on 07/01/2011 11:42:56 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

They said it is unconstitutional because it “burdens minorities”.

This will be overturned by the SCOTUS. The constitution is not about group rights. It is about individual rights.


3 posted on 07/01/2011 11:45:41 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"Wonder what the SCOTUS will do with this."

My fear is they will punt and deny cert. (or whatever the term is for when they pass on an issue)

Of course the greater fear is they will uphold.

4 posted on 07/01/2011 11:46:24 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

This is pretty serious. I don’t think they’ll punt. And unless there is some twist that makes this more than it appears to be, they will overturn.


5 posted on 07/01/2011 11:51:21 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

SCOTUS will agree with the court and uphold the reversal. Several years ago, SCOTUS upheld the University of Michigan’s right to use affirmative action in its admissions process. The vote was 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the liberals. I’m sure the vote on this case would be the same.


6 posted on 07/01/2011 11:56:13 AM PDT by RedStateNotShirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"This is pretty serious. I don’t think they’ll punt. And unless there is some twist that makes this more than it appears to be, they will overturn."

I pray you are right but I bank no such notion anymore ever since SCOTUS upheld eminent domain claims by the Government on private property because the Government can garner higher Real Estate Taxes thus doing the most people the most good.

Once you witness such things it shakes your confidence in SCOTUS in regards to them ever defending the Constitution again.

7 posted on 07/01/2011 11:57:30 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Gotta love the reasoning. A law that requires that everyone be treated equally violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. How Orwellian.


8 posted on 07/01/2011 11:59:41 AM PDT by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockvillem
"A law that requires that everyone be treated equally violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. How Orwellian."

Welcome to the Obamanation!

9 posted on 07/01/2011 12:02:31 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RedStateNotShirt

>>SCOTUS will agree with the court and uphold the reversal. Several years ago, SCOTUS upheld the University of Michigan’s right to use affirmative action in its admissions process. <<

That was a different case. It is similar in principle but different on the raw, black and white legal facts. In that case, the court said they could do it. In this case the lower court said the vote of the people could not say they cannot do it.

Put another way, in that case the court said they had a right to do something. In this case the lower court said the people did NOT have the right to do something.


10 posted on 07/01/2011 12:05:12 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Government-sponsored racism is good.
11 posted on 07/01/2011 12:05:55 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenel des Ursins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grellis

This deserves a Michigan ping.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just thumbed its nose at the will of the people. Remember voting for Prop 2 back in 2006? Well, your vote was just negated.


12 posted on 07/01/2011 12:40:26 PM PDT by Mad-Margaret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I can see them denying cert. They do it all the time. But I think if they do hear the case they will almost certainly overturn the Circuit Court but probably not without the dissents of at least Breyer and Sotomayor


13 posted on 07/01/2011 12:44:15 PM PDT by wrhssaxensemble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Springman; sergeantdave; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; ...
MICHIGAN PING LIST

Please freepmail me if you wish to be added or dropped from the mitten ping.

14 posted on 07/01/2011 12:46:41 PM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Cole, R[ansey] Guy Jr.
Born 1951 in Birmingham, AL

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 29, 1995, to a seat vacated by Nathaniel Raphael Jones; Confirmed by the Senate on December 22, 1995, and received commission on December 26, 1995.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Southern District of Ohio, 1987-1993


Education:
Tufts University, B.A., 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Professional Career:
Private practice, Columbus, Ohio, 1975-1978
Trial attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, 1978-1980
Private practice, Columbus, Ohio, 1980-1986, 1993-1995


Daughtrey, Martha Craig

Born 1942 in Covington, KY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 6, 1993, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1993, and received commission on November 22, 1993. Assumed senior status on January 1, 2009.

Education:
Vanderbilt University, B.A., 1964
Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 1968

Professional Career:
Private practice, Nashville, Tennessee, 1968
Assistant U.S. attorney, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville, 1968-1969
Assistant district attorney, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Tennessee, Nashville, 1969-1972
Faculty, Vanderbilt University School of Law, 1972-1982, 1988-1990
Assistant professor of law, 1972-1975
Lecturer in law, 1975-1982
Adjunct professor of law, 1988-1990
Associate judge, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Middle Division, 1975-1990
Associate justice, Tennessee Supreme Court, 1990-1993

15 posted on 07/01/2011 1:08:25 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
"Federal appeals court strikes down Michigan ban on race, gender in college admission process"

This title doesn't make any sense, particular when the ban in question was a ban on race & gender discrimination in collage admission process.

16 posted on 07/01/2011 1:14:43 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

So in the age of the first black american president, we are relegated backwards to quotas once again.


17 posted on 07/01/2011 1:16:05 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

“They said it is unconstitutional because it “burdens minorities”.”

Being race-neutral burdens ‘minorities’.

In other news, “Freedom is Slavery” and “War is Peace”.


18 posted on 07/01/2011 1:43:08 PM PDT by WOSG (Herman Cain for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

>>Being race-neutral burdens ‘minorities’.

In other news, “Freedom is Slavery” and “War is Peace”.<<

Precisely. Which is why I think the SCOTUS will overturn.


19 posted on 07/01/2011 1:48:17 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Fed judges should mind their own business. WE the citizens of Michigan voted on this. Almost as bad as the 9th Circus...


20 posted on 07/01/2011 3:02:10 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson