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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Courtís Affirmative Action Ruling: An Explainer
WSJ ^ | April 22, 2014 | Ashby Jones

Posted on 04/22/2014 11:58:20 AM PDT by yldstrk

Tuesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of race as a criteria in colleges’ and universities’ admissions policies is the latest blow to affirmative action programs.

What happened?

In a 6-2 ruling – Justice Elena Kagan did not participate – the court essentially found that the U.S. Constitution does not bar voters in a state from banning the use of race as a factor in considering whether someone should be admitted to a state college or university.

Is the ruling at odds with recent Supreme Court rulings upholding the use of race in admissions?

It’s true that in recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that public colleges and universities can use race in its admissions policy under certain, narrow circumstances. The court ruled that way in a case involving the University of Michigan Law School in 2003 and reiterated its position in a 2013 case involving the University of Texas.

Today’s ruling does nothing to upend that position.

Rather, the ruling Tuesday just says state voters can prevent public college and universities from using affirmative action. So while state colleges and universities can use affirmative action programs, voters have the power to take that option away.

What is the potential impact?

Eight states have outlawed affirmative action at public schools. Among them are some big states, like Florida, California and Arizona.

Tuesday’s ruling likely means that those laws, some of which have been on the books for more than a decade, will stay on the books. It also gives the green light to voters in other states who might be considering changing their laws to ban the use of affirmative action in public higher education.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Hope for the meritocracy
1 posted on 04/22/2014 11:58:20 AM PDT by yldstrk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
...he ruling Tuesday just says state voters can prevent public college and universities from using affirmative action.

Which is at odds with the thinking that voters can determine whether or not sodomy MUST be celebrated in violation of 5,000+ years of civilized society and the Creator.

2 posted on 04/22/2014 11:59:47 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Free at last!


3 posted on 04/22/2014 11:59:52 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Can a state make a law giving whites preference?

The Leftist argument comes down to, “Racism is good, when we do it.”


4 posted on 04/22/2014 12:02:31 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Eight states have outlawed affirmative action at public schools. Among them are some big states, like Florida, California and Arizona.

When did AZ become a "big state?"

5 posted on 04/22/2014 12:03:05 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Ginsberg and Sotomayor were the 2 no votes.


6 posted on 04/22/2014 12:04:50 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

and hope for those who want affirmative action. Can’t these judges ever uphold the constitution. How can you allow states to have affirmative action when it discriminates against so many of their citizens?


7 posted on 04/22/2014 12:07:46 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

“Ginsberg and Sotomayor were the 2 no votes.”

And basically, their opinion was “Affirmative action is not only OK, it’s mandated by the Constitution.”

I guess they found that somewhere in the penumbra of Sotomayor’s giant lesbian ass.


8 posted on 04/22/2014 12:08:04 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

My daughter recently asked if it was legal for a potential employer to ask your race. I told her I thought it was illegal. Also I made my son an appointment with a specialists and one of the questions they asked over the phone was ethnicity or race, which they prefaced with this is a legal question and you have the right to not answer it. Which I did not answer, as I do not know the purpose the info is being sort.


9 posted on 04/22/2014 12:09:21 PM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

The official response from Mi attorney general Bill Schuette.

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MIAG/2014/04/22/file_attachments/287542/04.22.14%2BU.S.%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BUpholds%2BMichigan%2BConstitutional%2BRequirement%2Bfor%2BEqual%2BTreatment%2Bin%2BCollege%2BAdmissions.pdf


10 posted on 04/22/2014 12:11:54 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

Well, it’s the Constitutional mandate for diversity.


11 posted on 04/22/2014 12:16:52 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

I never answer the racial question over the phone or when filling out forms. For one thing, it isn’t anyone’s business. For another, I don’t have any way of knowing what they are doing with the information. For instance, why does my cell phone company want to know my race? My guess is if I lie they’ll know that I’m lying and I won’t be getting anything for free (and don’t want anything), but why do I have a feeling if I tell the truth there’s some hidden charge where I end up paying for other peoples’ free stuff? I’m sure there’s no getting around it, but then why do they even ask?


12 posted on 04/22/2014 12:19:40 PM PDT by RightInJersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Somewhere in Arizona is an old woman shrieking “No! No! I said they need 25 more years!”

But her bitter screams were happily ignored....


13 posted on 04/22/2014 12:21:08 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
mandate for diversity

Yes, it's the Compelling State Interest that Madison and Jefferson wrote into their noble compact...

The one you have to intuit by searching for Umbras and Penumbras that also remain um, unseen...

14 posted on 04/22/2014 12:23:32 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

Everything not forbidden is mandatory.


15 posted on 04/22/2014 12:25:25 PM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“affirmative action” is illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong. Makes no difference if there’s a law, or what the supreme court says.


16 posted on 04/22/2014 12:27:09 PM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Tuesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of race as a criteria criterion...

Sigh...even the once vaunted WSJ.

17 posted on 04/22/2014 12:27:58 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes EVERYTHING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightInJersey

“I never answer the racial question over the phone or when filling out forms.”

I always say I am black.

In fact, I think everyone should say they are black.


18 posted on 04/22/2014 12:48:13 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“...In a lengthy dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, finding that Michigan’s voter-approved law illegally discriminates against minorities,...”
*********************************************************************

So, the two voting Über-Progressives think the law discriminates AGAINST minorities because it doesn’t allow discrimination FOR them.

You can’t make such strange thinking up!


19 posted on 04/22/2014 12:54:33 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

A medical specialist might need to know race to know what to look for. There are medical differences between the races, sickle cell being an example.


20 posted on 04/22/2014 1:17:02 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 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