Supreme Court hands down affirmative action decision

TownHall.com ^ | Tuesday, June 24, 2003 | Armstrong Williams

[JohnHuang2]

The University of Michigan employed an undergraduate admissions policy that was openly and unapologetically racist. So said the U.S. Supreme Court today, when it announced that the university's undergraduate admissions process, which gave significant weight to applicant's skin color, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is a good thing.

When I was a senior in high school, I received several scholarship offers. My father flatly refused each one. His reasoning was straightforward - scholarship money should be left to the economically deprived. And since he could pay for my schooling, he did.

What I think my father meant, but was perhaps too stern to say, was that one should always rely on hard work and personal striving to carry the day - every day.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Quote of the Day by Lizavetta

[chachacha]

One of the most powerful examples why this court needs an overhaul.

The reasoning for this ridiculous, cowardous decision is incredible and these Supremes are supposed to be fair and wisdom filled.

[JohnHuang2]

My sentiments exactly. This could have been the perfect opportunity to overturn Bakke.

[Ciexyz]

At least the decision is a step in the right direction.

[JohnHuang2]

True -- another way of looking at it: Bakke is hanging on by a thread (one Justice), as one commentator put it tonight.

[Ciexyz]

This is what we get by making deals with the Demopukes concerning candidates for the Supreme Court. It goes without saying that we need solid conservatives approved for future Court vacancies.

[america-rules]

Who's Justice was the swing vote?

Ronald Reagan !

[JohnHuang2]

Definitely.

[Barney Gumble]

Papa Bush nominated David Souter don't forget, whose always counted as a liberal judge.

Clearly the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1964 don't give exceptions for diversity. I don't see how Justices see a compelling interest in diversity. Their job is to 'cross check' the law against the constitution, not decide what is best for the nation. Something like Roe v. Wade is much more blurry. The 14th amendment and civil rights act are pretty clear cut. If America wants to add an affirmative action clause, they should do it legislatively, not judicially.