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

Skip to comments.

Federal court: Michigan ban on race in college admissions illegal
wtol ^ | 7-1-11 | AP

Posted on 07/01/2011 9:48:42 AM PDT by Main Street

Edited on 07/01/2011 10:39:14 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

DETROIT (AP) - A federal appeals court has struck down Michigan's ban on the consideration of race and gender when enrolling students at public colleges and universities.

In a 2-1 decision Friday, the court said Michigan's Proposal 2 is unconstitutional because it burdens minorities. It was approved by voters in 2006.


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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; ericholderspeeps; michigan; mypeople; uofm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last
Clinton Appointed Judges change law voted in by a majority of voters.
1 posted on 07/01/2011 9:48:45 AM PDT by Main Street
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Main Street

So...it’s unconstitutional to NOT discriminate in favor of certain groups???

And...this is where in the Constitution?


2 posted on 07/01/2011 9:52:15 AM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Whites only = Jim Crow and Illegal.
Blacks only = Affirmative Action and is sanctioned by our government.

Any questions?


3 posted on 07/01/2011 9:53:39 AM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Did they explain how it “burdens minorities”?


4 posted on 07/01/2011 9:53:53 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Time to cut off taxpayer funding of colleges and universities. If they have to start paying their own way, the only color they’ll care about is green.


5 posted on 07/01/2011 9:54:01 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

” Clinton Appointed Judges change law voted in by a majority of voters. “

Wasn’t there a Supreme Court ruling a couple of years ago to the effect that Michigan could eliminate race-based admissions and hiring??

(Or, my leaky old memory might be playing tricks again...)


6 posted on 07/01/2011 9:54:13 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

The only reason “race” is still an issue in the country is the left KEEPs it an issue. Real Americans judge each other on merit, not skin color.


7 posted on 07/01/2011 9:54:35 AM PDT by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street
So let me see if I understand this. Some authoritarians in black robes have ruled that only through government mandated preferential treatment according to race can we achieve the Constitutionally mandated equal protection under the law.

I think Kafka wrote an outline for this story, but then went back to a man turning into a giant bug as more realistic.

8 posted on 07/01/2011 9:55:51 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Tea Party extremism is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Damn straight!


9 posted on 07/01/2011 9:55:57 AM PDT by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

>>>Did they explain how it “burdens minorities”?<<<

Yep. Unqualified minorities can’t get preference over qualified whites and Asians so that’s a problem.


10 posted on 07/01/2011 9:57:07 AM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Liberal judges: never letting that Constitution-thingy get in the way of a good, leftist agenda.


11 posted on 07/01/2011 9:57:48 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

has to be that they have to achieve as much as the next guy?


12 posted on 07/01/2011 9:57:55 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kjo
And...this is where in the Constitution?

I found it right after the right to an abortion at tax payer expense, the right to health car, and the right to a house. /sarc

The RAT party hates the Constitution and the boy king and his thugs are doing everything they can to ignore it. The Judicial branch is being beefed up by the RATS so they have a backstop when the electorate rises up and throws them all out of office on Nov 6, 2012.
13 posted on 07/01/2011 9:58:46 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Another tyrannical Federal judge. Bench the bastard or bitch.


14 posted on 07/01/2011 9:59:26 AM PDT by jimfree (In 2012 Sarah Palin will have more quality executive experience than Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: esoxmagnum

It pisses me off that we do the right thing in Michigan only to have the courts step in to screw us.

Our voter ID law floated in the courts for years after it passed.


16 posted on 07/01/2011 10:00:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes

We desparately need an Administration / Congress backed up by a majority electorate to send a revolutionary message to the Judiciary. You are not our rulers. It is not going to be “do as I say.”. Structural reform rather than focus on judge candidates. Congress needs to remove jursidiction to the extent permissable under the Constitution.


17 posted on 07/01/2011 10:00:35 AM PDT by LALALAW (one of the asses whose sick of our "ruling" classes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

Actually the SCOTUS ruling allowed the University of Michigan to consider race in admittance
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/June16_03/01_decision.shtml
“In a major victory for U-M announced June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of universities to consider race in admissions procedures in order to achieve a diverse student body.
President Mary Sue Coleman called the Supreme Court affirmative action decisions a “tremendous victory for the University of Michigan, for all of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and individuals who supported us.”

In two lawsuits challenging U-M admissions policies, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Law School and, by a vote of 6-3, reversed in part the University’s undergraduate policy while still allowing for the consideration of race in admissions. “

This affected, NEGATIVELY, many other schools and contributed to more dumbing down of America


18 posted on 07/01/2011 10:01:09 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Were these the judges people or Holder’s people?


19 posted on 07/01/2011 10:03:21 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street
Clinton Appointed Judges change law voted in by a majority of voters.

The judge is either an idiot or is cynically buying time. Proposition 209 in California did the same and it was upheld by the SCOTUS.

20 posted on 07/01/2011 10:05:03 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Racism alive and well. Without these racist programs where would Obuttface, The Moocher, and her rats be?


21 posted on 07/01/2011 10:07:07 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Interesting. That was with O’Connor still on the court; Kennedy dissented. That case would likely have a different result today.


22 posted on 07/01/2011 10:07:17 AM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Seeing as how liberals decry the evils of Institutional Racism, I’m certain they will oppose this decision.


23 posted on 07/01/2011 10:10:26 AM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Time to cut off taxpayer funding of colleges and universities. If they have to start paying their own way, the only color they’ll care about is green.
///
yes yes yes!!!

...along with a bunch of other things, that the government has NO right to give our money to.

if a private bank, feels a student is a good risk for a loan, that’s their business. but it is fundamentally wrong to give taxpayer money to blacks and hispanics, and not whites and asians.
(aside from the constitution not making the Government a loan or grant office in the first place...)


24 posted on 07/01/2011 10:10:44 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

The U.S. has already been around the block on this. Affirmative action was a well-meaning, ill-conceived program. Conclusion: academic achievement should be the sole criterion for admission and advancement. Make sure the educational system is good from the earliest grades to give all equal opportunity to achieve, but don’t pretend they’ve achieved when they have not.


25 posted on 07/01/2011 10:11:50 AM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now (From 1963 Congressional Record http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

That’s why we need an affirmative action case to go to the Supreme Court soon. Great chance to kill affirmative action.


26 posted on 07/01/2011 10:12:58 AM PDT by Blackandproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Sooo, instead of may the best person win, it is now the law of the land that if you are a shiftless lazy amish lad wearing your pants to your knees and your dreadlocks in place and you put forth little effort to better yourself in high school, you will get extra special bonus admittance to colege, jobs, etc?
Near time for that little revolution yet?
And Sandra Day O’conner says itis wrong to criticiize judges, many ought be in prison or worse.


27 posted on 07/01/2011 10:14:00 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) NO RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

From the decision:

“Hunter and Seattle thus expounded the rule that an enactment deprives minority groups of equal protection of the laws when it: (1) has a racial focus, targeting a goal or program that “inures primarily to the benefit of the minority”; and (2) works a reallocation of political power or reordering of the decisionmaking process that places “special burdens” on a minority group’s ability to achieve its goals through that process.”

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf

Apparently, any reward of a minority group is legal, and refusing to give special treatment is banned because equal protection is unequal.

Further, any election that results in a minority group losing power is an unconstitutional election.

WOW!

So Obama cannot be removed from office unless the opponent is black, since the election of a white to replace a black would “work a reallocation of political power or reordering of the decisionmaking process that places “special burdens” on a minority group’s ability to achieve its goals through that process.”

Guess Cain is our only hope to defeat Obama, since it would be illegal to frustrate black voters by allowing a white man or woman to replace him.

Alice in Wonderland: equal treatment is illegal because equal protection under the law requires unequal treatment.


28 posted on 07/01/2011 10:14:12 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

Yeah discrimination is fine when you are discriminating in a way that is favorable to liberal goals. It is too bad the constitution doesn’t go further in banning ‘bills of attainder’ and similiar types of special protections for special groups.


29 posted on 07/01/2011 10:17:28 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
I think Kafka wrote an outline for this story, but then went back to a man turning into a giant bug as more realistic.

And, I recall that even that story had an unhappy ending.

30 posted on 07/01/2011 10:18:49 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Some authoritarians in black robes have ruled that only through government mandated preferential treatment according to race can we achieve the Constitutionally mandated equal protection under the law.

I think you have it down very well.

31 posted on 07/01/2011 10:18:49 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“equal treatment is illegal because equal protection under the law requires unequal treatment.”
///
ouch. that hurts my head, just to read!


32 posted on 07/01/2011 10:22:37 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Insanity. We successfully defended such a law in CA.


33 posted on 07/01/2011 10:23:43 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

So Obama cannot be removed from office unless the opponent is black, since the election of a white to replace a black would “work a reallocation of political power or reordering of the decisionmaking process that places “special burdens” on a minority group’s ability to achieve its goals through that process.”

Guess Cain is our only hope to defeat Obama, since it would be illegal to frustrate black voters by allowing a white man or woman to replace him....

Representative Allen West would be even better.


34 posted on 07/01/2011 10:24:02 AM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now (From 1963 Congressional Record http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kjo

The Bizarro District Court of Appeals. Up is down.The only cure for discrimination is discrimination.


35 posted on 07/01/2011 10:25:24 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

That’s a good question because the implications of the court’s statement are very racist. “It burdens minorities..... because they can’t compete in a fair admissions process.”


36 posted on 07/01/2011 10:26:44 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Main Street
A friends wife is a doctor ( and a screaming liberal ) who trains any number of residents each year. We had a discussion recently in which she flat out stated she is deeply worried about the level of competence of the black residents. Not all but most of them. She stated they must have been pushed along due to affirmative action and certainly not merit. They are nowhere near qualified to be residents let along doctors.

The students she trains who she believes are the best educated and talented are from Asia and India. Their level of knowledge is far above all the other students.

37 posted on 07/01/2011 10:28:19 AM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

“I think Kafka wrote an outline for this story.”

Or maybe the Monty Python crew...


38 posted on 07/01/2011 10:39:25 AM PDT by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

anyone know how much the voters passed this by?


39 posted on 07/01/2011 10:40:26 AM PDT by MNDude (so that's what they meant by Carter's second term)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

In Leftyland, “Unequal” is the new “equal”.


40 posted on 07/01/2011 10:46:25 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

Unbelievable.

This demonstrates how deeply the truly radical leftist ideology has penetrated the law.

In other words, this panel of the 6th Circuit has twisted the law to say, “It is now constitutionally required to take into account the student’s race — and the legislature and people cannot stop it.”

Breathtaking. On to En Banc consideration!


41 posted on 07/01/2011 10:46:35 AM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

They have the burden of actually having to work just as hard to get into college as white people.


42 posted on 07/01/2011 10:47:04 AM PDT by RockinRight (If we're "teabaggers" then they're "d-baggers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

How dare they admit people based solely on their character and merit .... and not the color of their skin


43 posted on 07/01/2011 10:52:05 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street
Who were the judges?
44 posted on 07/01/2011 10:52:26 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

[So...it’s unconstitutional to NOT discriminate in favor of certain groups???]

Exactly, the ruling is so idiotic that it can’t be allowed to stand (in a logical world). If it does stand, the Supreme Court would be required to distinguish who the favored minorities are, that would be a pip to read. And could whites be a favored minority (ever?) if they were numerically underrepresented in a given location?


45 posted on 07/01/2011 11:02:34 AM PDT by DaxtonBrown (HARRY: Money Mob & Influence (See my Expose on Reid on amazon.com written by me!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

“Clinton Appointed Judges change law voted in by a majority of voters.”

The Federal Government of the united States is imposing racial discrimination.


46 posted on 07/01/2011 11:19:33 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

What a f’ing joke. I read that law quite clearly and there’s nothing racial about it. No preferential treatment.


47 posted on 07/01/2011 11:22:20 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (I am not lead by any politician. I am my own leader.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
The Judicial branch is being beefed up by the RATS so they have a backstop when the electorate rises up and throws them all out of office on Nov 6, 2012.

Followed shortly by a freakish set of coincidences of fatal single-car wrecks, falling down stairs, unexplained food poisonings, and "muggings that turned tragic" among the legal community

48 posted on 07/01/2011 11:22:38 AM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

“In a 2-1 decision Friday, the court said Michigan’s Proposal 2 is unconstitutional because it burdens minorities.”

Define and accurately quantify this “burden”.

Can’t be done - impossible to accurately measure.

So it can never be determined if or when this “burden” no longer exists.

In effect this ruling arbitrarily grants special status to one group over another.

It’s state-enforced racism.


49 posted on 07/01/2011 11:23:22 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Main Street
And they wonder why AA grad rates are crapola.

50 posted on 07/01/2011 11:31:10 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 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