Skip to comments.Supreme Court punts on affirmative action case
Posted on 06/24/2013 7:27:34 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court has sent a case involving the University of Texas' use of race in undergraduate admissions back to a lower court for a re-hearing, SCOTUSblog reports. The justices dodged issuing a broader ruling that would have decided whether affirmative action policies at public colleges around the country were unconstitutional or not. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote, wrote the opinion, which was decided 7-1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's liberal leader, dissented. Kennedy said the federal Fifth Circuit must re-hear the case to decide whether UT "offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
From my reading of the decision, they essentially punted it back to the fifth circuit. I think they want affirmative action struck down, but don’t want the “blood on their hands” so they are trying to get the fifth to strike it down, then they will uphold that decision.
Took a long time for them to punt this one. Will be interesting to see what happens in the lower court now. One would have to think it is just going to work its way back to SCOTUS in a year or two.
"Wuss, traitor, worthless POS" words that are synonymous with Roberts and the Roberts Court.
Somewhat surprised Roberts didn’t correct their homework so they could pass.
Might one not speculate that that would have been an element in the Fifth Circuit's original conclusion?
Was an attorney/prosecutor for about 25 years and argued before SCOTUS. I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.
However, by the time it gets back to SCOTUS, I really don’t expect Conservatives to be in the Court majority an therein lies the problem.
The U.S. Supreme Court is yet another formerly-great American institution bogged in the quicksand of decadence and incompetence.
” the educational benefits of diversity”
And just what are those tangible, measurable benefits?
No one, to my knowledge, has been able to sufficiently answer that. We're supposed to believe that it's because they told us so.
And those would be... what, exactly?
That question would be answered with
“because you’re a racist, that’s why.”
I adhere to the view I expressed in Grutter v. Bollinger : The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception. 539 U. S. 306, 349 (2003) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). The petitioner in this case did not ask us to overrule Grutters holding that a compelling interest in the educational benefits of diversity can justify racial preferences in university admissions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 89. I therefore join the Courts opinion in full.
Sounds like Scalia is specifically asking for a later appeal to specifically ask that it be overturned.
This precursor to the week in the SCOTUS isn’t very encouraging.
Are they going to punt everything?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
So if my son has a 3.9 GPA and his Bi-race friend next door has a 3.9 GPA and they both apply to the same college the friend next door gets in and my son doesn’t get in because his skin is lighter??? Why that’s racist!!
7-1? The Wise Latina went along with that??
We have a new form of government: PUNT and PASS
They expect us to just sit down and enjoy the game.
As a lawyer I don’t particularly like the way they did this.
However, being clear that STRICT SCRUTINY shall apply in affirmative action (AA) cases is nearly tantamount to striking down AA.
Courts ever since Bollinger have been simply rubber stamping AA programs rather than applying the Constitutional standard for restricting fundamental rights.
That is about to change.
The bottom line though is that it will still end up right in the laps of the same justices who will promptly be asked to determine whether these racially discriminatory policies survive strict scrutiny.
Then we will see the 5-4 decision (depending on the court’s composition when that time comes.
In that regard this is a punt.
On another note, I wish they would make clear that gun control laws are subject to STRICT SCRUTINY!
Lower courts (with some exceptions) are getting away with murder as it pertains to applying (more like failing to apply) Heller and McDonald.