Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Fed judge had earlier upheld Michigan's Proposal 2, which passed in 2006 58-42%. In 2011 6th Circuit Ct had struck it down 8-7. SCOTUS upheld it 6-2. Cliff notes version of a longer read:

"US Supreme Court: Michigan ban on affirmative action OK

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Proposal 2 in Michigan did not violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause as charged by groups favoring the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a constitutional amendment in Michigan banning the use of race-based preferences in the admissions decisions of public universities.

Voting 6 to 2, the high court said Michigan’s Proposal 2 did not violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause as charged by various groups favoring the use of affirmative action in college admissions.......

......The case stems from the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding the limited use of race in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School.

Three years after that 5-to-4 decision, opponents of affirmative action placed a statewide initiative on the Michigan ballot. The measure, Proposal 2, sought to amend the state constitution to prohibit public universities, colleges, and school districts from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Proposal 2 was adopted 58 to 42 percent......

......Joining Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas in the majority were Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, presumably because she worked on the issue while serving as solicitor general prior to joining the high court.".....
http://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court- ... ZJUDMxOV8x" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting to see that Breyer joined the majority in this one.

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting to see that Breyer joined the majority in this one.

Breyer wrote that because the referendum overturned an administrative policy, not a legislative one, then it's not unconstitutional.

I suppose Breyer's view is that if the Michigan legislature forbade UMich from implementing race-based admissions, then the prohibition against race-based admissions would be unconstitutional.

It seems like an odd place to draw the line. Strange logic.

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud and it was longer than the decision and all the other opinions combined

I take it she wasnt happy

CID1990 wrote:Sotomayor read her dissent aloud and it was longer than the decision and all the other opinions combined

I take it she wasnt happy

Well, she is wiser than all of the other justices combined. Of course her opinions are longer than all other opinions combined.

Take it for what it is worth as I haven't read the opinions but it seems that Sotomayer's concern was with continued discrimination against minorities which is fine except that ( maybe not in Michigan) Asian Americans seem to believe that affirmative actions discriminates against them so it seems in the Sotomayer's opinion it matters which minority you are discriminating against.

Of course this isn't really about discriminating against minorities at all since all the laws against discrimination are still on the books.

OL FU wrote:Take it for what it is worth as I haven't read the opinions but it seems that Sotomayer's concern was with continued discrimination against minorities which is fine except that ( maybe not in Michigan) Asian Americans seem to believe that affirmative actions discriminates against them so it seems in the Sotomayer's opinion it matters which minority you are discriminating against.

Of course this isn't really about discriminating against minorities at all since all the laws against discrimination are still on the books.

AA has always troubled me.

I never quite understood how providing a preference solves the problem of discrimination. It treats a symptom and not the cause.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:Take it for what it is worth as I haven't read the opinions but it seems that Sotomayer's concern was with continued discrimination against minorities which is fine except that ( maybe not in Michigan) Asian Americans seem to believe that affirmative actions discriminates against them so it seems in the Sotomayer's opinion it matters which minority you are discriminating against.

Of course this isn't really about discriminating against minorities at all since all the laws against discrimination are still on the books.

AA has always troubled me.

I never quite understood how providing a preference solves the problem of discrimination. It treats a symptom and not the cause.

In its early days, though seemingly unconstitutional, I was a supporter of AA. Mainly because ofthe realization that blacks in this country had not had the same educational and work opportunities and AA could positively impact that inequality. Quite honestly, in the late 80s early 90s I ran a department of 50 which ultimately grew to 150 people. My managers complained about the inability to hire qualified candidates and I told them I didn't want to hear that complaint until I saw some african americans sitting at our desks. Which happened and amazingly I didn't hear that complaint any more. so I guess you could say I implemented an AA program at work But the problem is these things never go away and while I am not sure the time is now, the time is close enough to start putting an end to it.

Chalk one up for a race blind society!

From Wikipedia:

" In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". In 1967, sex was added to the anti-discrimination list." This expanded JFK's earlier EO 10925.

This is the premise upon which AA started and where it needs to return, i.e. a society where race or gender plays no role in decisions about hiring, contracting, admitting, etc. we need to get away from quotas and preferences and the reverse discrimination inherent in them.

This is a good step forward in giving control back to the voters and take it away from unelected administrators; strikes a blow against reverse discrimination; and gets us back to the original goal of a color/sex blind society.

Are people going to complain about the majority opinion in McCutcheon versus FEC and not complain that Sotomayor thinks banning racial discrimination is basically racial discrimination?