Split Decision, Clear Result (the Michigan SC cases)

United Press International ^ | 23 June 2003 | John Armor

[deport]

They may not but I"m posting this to other threads..... lol

[justshe]

Me too!

[Howlin]

Bumparooski!

[justshe]

Every time you type "Bumparooski".....I SWEAR you are either Laverne..or Shirley!

Excellent analysis. Thanks for the ping!

[Ken H]

There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional.

I don't think Justice O'Connor's opinion says that race preferences will necessarily be unconstitutional 25 years from now. She was just voicing an expectation.

O'Connor wrote:

The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Pp. 21—31

IOW, if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

[bayourod]

"students learn not only from their professors but from one another, and diversity is essential to that purpose"

Exactly what is a white person suposed to learn from a black person?

What if that black person doesn't speak eubonics, eat collard greens, play basketball or steal hubcaps?

Can white law school students learn to break dance only from blacks who are in law school? Aren't there other black persons in Detroit who can teach them break dancing?

[firewalk]

I'm here reading
thanks for the ping (-:

[Sandy]

the bottom line conclusion of these two cases is clear – affirmative action is dead in American universities in no more than 25 years.

I think you're stretching it quite a bit here. The Court's expectation of what will or will not be necessary in 25 years doesn't exactly amount to a time limit.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Please don't make light of this. Just now cops burst into my house without a warrant, cited this UM ruling, took away my guns, and performed an abortion on my dog. They said that when they return they will ban me from the internet and church...

[Unknown Freeper]

If it will be unconstitutional in twenty-five years, why isn't it unconstitutional now?

[Fraulein]

the bottom line conclusion of these two cases is clear – affirmative action is dead in American universities in no more than 25 years.

Does that mean that the SC considers all such cases closed until then?

[TankerKC]

...the rare student who achieved a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test received only 5 points for that.

I thought is was 12 points for a perfect SAT.....

[justshe]

You obviously are starting to see the humor in the ridiculous hysteria. Congrats!

[Miss Marple]

The bottom line for all these complainers is that they apparently expect President Bush to DO something. What they expect him to do, I haven't figured out yet.

Ignore the Supreme Court? Get on TV and rant? Ask for the justices to be impeached?

This is just another excuse for the usual group to get on a rant about how much they dislike Presidient Bush.

[justshe]

"This is just another excuse for the usual group to get on a rant about how much they dislike Presidient Bush."

And the excuses are getting pretty transparent to many....finally.

Logic and THINKING are not required by this usual group. They just REACT for the sake of REACTING! Sad.

[sinkspur]

Exactly what is a white person suposed to learn from a black person?

That stereotypes are for the ignorant.

[mhking]

Good article, John; I'll admit that I see your point, but I'm still not there yet. This looks completely schizophrenic entirely. Not only that, it looks like it'll be back before the justices in a few years in another form...

[Gritty]

I can't wait to see how the Usual Suspects rule on "Campaign Finance".

Do you think they'll put a 25 year time limit on letting that Law ride before upholding the clear intent and purpose of the 1st Amendment? This ruling certainly suggests such a precedent!

[Howlin]

They even react before they KNOW what the decision says!

[Licensed-To-Carry]

Can I take a 25 year break from paying Income Taxes?

Why Not..