Posted on 10/15/2013 11:41:16 PM PDT by Lmo56
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed prepared Tuesday to uphold a voter-approved ban on taking account of race in college admissions.
The court heard arguments over a 2006 change to the state constitution to prohibit the University of Michigan and other state schools from any consideration of race when they decide whom to admit.
The justices' focus was more on whether they could craft a narrow ruling to uphold Michigan Proposal 2 or would have to overrule earlier cases that protect minorities' rights to participate in the political process.
Affirmative action supporters say the amendment itself is a form of discrimination because of the burden they face to repeal the constitutional provision.
That argument did not appear to make much headway with the conservative justices, who have been hostile to considerations of race in education and politics in a series of cases in recent years.
Among the skeptics, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered how there could be a problem with voters saying: "We want to take race off the table and achieve diversity without racial preferences."
Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued to strike down the Michigan amendment, said that other groups seeking preferential treatment in admissions could lobby policymakers at the schools — only race may not be discussed.
"I want the same rule book. I want the same playing field. The problem with Proposal 2 is that it creates two playing fields," he said.
Shanta Driver, a Detroit-based lawyer also arguing in support of affirmative action, called on the court to bring the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment "back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case."
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
An anti-discrimination amemndment is, in itself, discriminatory according to the plaintiff ...
The plaintiff's attorney has some BIG Kahonies to say that the Equal Protection Clause is to protect minority rights against white majority rights - when it REALLY means to protect EVERYONE ...
This will then be overruled by the department of just us.
Would anyone be surprised if John Roberts voted with the liberal majority to find the Michigan law unconstitutional?
This is definitely a good day be apply a textualist approach.
“back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority”
Affirmative action didn’t level the playing field; it required compensating some groups for not playing at all.
Good. Now we should end the “Impeachment Exemption” based on affirmative action and peach that damn bastard I’m the White House.
roberts will just declare it legal an make it a tax.
Liberals are squealing about this all over t.v.
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.