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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court punts on affirmative action case
Yahoo News ^ | June 24, 2013

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: affitmativeaction; scotus

1 posted on 06/24/2013 7:27:34 AM PDT by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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.


2 posted on 06/24/2013 7:29:13 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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.


3 posted on 06/24/2013 7:30:20 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
I think they want affirmative action struck down, but don’t want the “blood on their hands”

"Wuss, traitor, worthless POS" words that are synonymous with Roberts and the Roberts Court.

4 posted on 06/24/2013 7:33:35 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Jesus, Please Save America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Somewhat surprised Roberts didn’t correct their homework so they could pass.


5 posted on 06/24/2013 7:36:49 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan
...decide whether UT "offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity."

Might one not speculate that that would have been an element in the Fifth Circuit's original conclusion?

6 posted on 06/24/2013 7:38:09 AM PDT by jim macomber ("Bargained for Exchange" "Art & Part" "A Grave Breach" "Sovereign Order " - www.jamesmacomber.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

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.


7 posted on 06/24/2013 7:39:00 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

The U.S. Supreme Court is yet another formerly-great American institution bogged in the quicksand of decadence and incompetence.


8 posted on 06/24/2013 7:39:42 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The forces of decadence are the forces of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

” the educational benefits of diversity”

And just what are those tangible, measurable benefits?


9 posted on 06/24/2013 7:40:46 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Cowards!


10 posted on 06/24/2013 7:41:19 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
And just what are those tangible, measurable benefits?[of "diversity"]

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.

11 posted on 06/24/2013 7:43:06 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan
"[...] the educational benefits of diversity."

And those would be... what, exactly?

12 posted on 06/24/2013 7:43:45 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

That question would be answered with

“because you’re a racist, that’s why.”


13 posted on 06/24/2013 7:46:50 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Exactly. The SCOTUS has become more concerned with their popularity than they are with upholding the Constitution.
14 posted on 06/24/2013 7:46:55 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Scalia wrote:

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 Grutter’s holding that a “compelling interest” in the educational benefits of diversity can justify racial preferences in university admissions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8–9. I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full.

Sounds like Scalia is specifically asking for a later appeal to specifically ask that it be overturned.

15 posted on 06/24/2013 7:49:13 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

This precursor to the week in the SCOTUS isn’t very encouraging.

Are they going to punt everything?


16 posted on 06/24/2013 7:51:23 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

17 posted on 06/24/2013 8:20:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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!!


18 posted on 06/24/2013 8:21:38 AM PDT by BobinIL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

7-1? The Wise Latina went along with that??


19 posted on 06/24/2013 8:37:17 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Since there are some strong reasons that the Obama A ministration may be blackmailing judges, the small and weak actions by the Supreme Court may be a sign that they have kept a shred of integrity.
One of the amusing sayings of the I Ching is that ‘A bound pig can still move his trotters.’. That aphorism may apply here.
TWB
20 posted on 06/24/2013 9:52:30 AM PDT by TWhiteBear (Sarah Palin...The Flame of the North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

We have a new form of government: PUNT and PASS

They expect us to just sit down and enjoy the game.


21 posted on 06/24/2013 11:13:11 AM PDT by A'elian' nation ("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: apillar

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.


22 posted on 06/24/2013 12:11:05 PM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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