Supreme Court allows Popular Vote Disapproval of Affirmative Action

[Jimmy Higgins]

Court Ruling

This seems like an odd ruling. I feel like I'm siding with Breyer who ruled to allow the referendum. But the majority of the justices voting to allow this seem to do so with either outdated or inaccurate reasons.

Scalia and Thomas run the pre-50's argument that if it wasn't intended to be discrimination, it is legal, even if it leads to discrimination. This argument seems to be ridiculous. This shit was what led to Crow. Separate but equal?!

Alito, Roberts, Kennedy are saying the appeals court simply didn't have standing to reverse a popular vote and don't speak to the issue at hand. Is that even legit? This US Supreme Court overruled a 1912 referendum passed in Montana restricting campaign financing to reduce corruption in elections. So clearly the Supreme Court can reverse a popular vote, so there is no mythical popular vote litmus test that must be passed first.

What seems to be the argument from Breyer is that this is legal because the amendment isn't restricting rights, but rather restricting special assessments, so a popular vote is legitimate.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg say that the policy is still needed so it should be over-ruled, which I'm not comfortable in agreeing with.

Please correct any assessment I may be mistaken with.

 

[Trausti]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

 

[James Madison]

Court Ruling

This seems like an odd ruling. I feel like I'm siding with Breyer who ruled to allow the referendum. But the majority of the justices voting to allow this seem to do so with either outdated or inaccurate reasons.

Scalia and Thomas run the pre-50's argument that if it wasn't intended to be discrimination, it is legal, even if it leads to discrimination. This argument seems to be ridiculous. This shit was what led to Crow. Separate but equal?!

Alito, Roberts, Kennedy are saying the appeals court simply didn't have standing to reverse a popular vote and don't speak to the issue at hand. Is that even legit? This US Supreme Court overruled a 1912 referendum passed in Montana restricting campaign financing to reduce corruption in elections. So clearly the Supreme Court can reverse a popular vote, so there is no mythical popular vote litmus test that must be passed first.

What seems to be the argument from Breyer is that this is legal because the amendment isn't restricting rights, but rather restricting special assessments, so a popular vote is legitimate.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg say that the policy is still needed so it should be over-ruled, which I'm not comfortable in agreeing with.

Please correct any assessment I may be mistaken with.

Summarizing the decision, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts decided neither the U.S. Constitution or any prior decisions by the Court, authorized the judiciary to set aside a state approved referendum prohibiting the use of racial preferences in governmental decisions, particularly in school admissions.

J. Scalia and J. Thomas opined, once again summarizing, the Court's prior precedent of "political process doctrine" should be overruled because those decisions are not compatible with the text of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent with the Court's prior precedent regarding the EPC. The question for them was whether, when neutral state action is involved but alleged to deny equal protection on account of race, the challenged law or state action has a racially discrimnatory purpose. For them, the state action in this case did not.

 

[Trausti]

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

The difference is whether the issued voted on by the people is unconstitutional. Irrespective of your opinion on campaign finance, it is not unconstitutional for the people of the state to affirm that all should be treated equally.

 

[Sarpedon]

A color blind system is like an honor system. Perfectly good if people are honorable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The difference is whether the issued voted on by the people is unconstitutional.

That isn't what they said. They said that their ruling on this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue, but the Constitutionality of the Appeal's Court being able to rule against the case.

Irrespective of your opinion on campaign finance, it is not unconstitutional for the people of the state to affirm that all should be treated equally.

To the best of my knowledge, they didn't even remotely go that far. I believe that is what Breyer stated, however.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Summarizing the decision, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts decided neither the U.S. Constitution or any prior decisions by the Court, authorized the judiciary to set aside a state approved referendum prohibiting the use of racial preferences in governmental decisions, particularly in school admissions.

And in doing so, actually decided to ignore the case itself. They say the Appeals Court didn't have precedence to rule as such... and then ignore the question at hand. It is almost like they are trying to reverse Marbury v Madison.

J. Scalia and J. Thomas opined, once again summarizing, the Court's prior precedent of "political process doctrine" should be overruled because those decisions are not compatible with the text of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent with the Court's prior precedent regarding the EPC. The question for them was whether, when neutral state action is involved but alleged to deny equal protection on account of race, the challenged law or state action has a racially discrimnatory purpose. For them, the state action in this case did not.

I thought B v BoE killed the purpose crap.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That isn't what they said. They said that their ruling on this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue, but that the Constitution doesn't allow them to reverse a referendum.

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That isn't what they said. They said that their ruling on this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue, but that the Constitution doesn't allow them to reverse a referendum.

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

The State Supreme Court overturned a law based on their State Constitution.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That isn't what they said. They said that their ruling on this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue, but that the Constitution doesn't allow them to reverse a referendum.

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

The State Supreme Court overturned a law based on their State Constitution.

I don't see much of a difference. The federal Supreme Court should be able to rule on federal constitutional matters, no matter how they come about, just as state courts should be able to rule on state laws.

If I understand their reasoning properly, if Texas passes a referendum fining people $500 for saying something nice about Obama then the Supreme Court can't reverse it, even though it's a direct violation of the first amendment. If 30 states pass a referendum allowing Bill Clinton to run for President again and he wins the electoral votes in those states, the Supreme Court can't rule on his eligibility for President, even though he's already served his two terms and is barred from holding the office again. That sounds to me like what they're saying here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That isn't what they said. They said that their ruling on this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue, but that the Constitution doesn't allow them to reverse a referendum.

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

The State Supreme Court overturned a law based on their State Constitution.

I don't see much of a difference. The federal Supreme Court should be able to rule on federal constitutional matters, no matter how they come about, just as state courts should be able to rule on state laws.

If I understand their reasoning properly, if Texas passes a referendum fining people $500 for saying something nice about Obama then the Supreme Court can't reverse it, even though it's a direct violation of the first amendment. If 30 states pass a referendum allowing Bill Clinton to run for President again and he wins the electoral votes in those states, the Supreme Court can't rule on his eligibility for President, even though he's already served his two terms and is barred from holding the office again. That sounds to me like what they're saying here.

A bit more reading on the case seems to indicate a mistake on my part. Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts are saying this isn't Unconstitutional because the referendum was about restricting additional privilege, not about restricting rights. What I don't understand though is whether the Seattle case had it shown that people against the bussing were against desegregation, ie the harm involved. In the Michigan case, segregation in colleges is certainly not a threat, however, other schools, say in the South, may want to segregate again. However, the scope of this case, I think is limited, because if it can be established that the point of the legislation is racist, then it is level with Seattle and does die. Fuck! Am I agreeing with them then?

Reading Breyer's consenting opinion, he notes that in Seattle and Hunter, the method of developing law via the elected body were changed in order to bypass those changes and go for mob rule. He says it doesn't apply here because the decision making went from unelected BoTs at the University to the public. I understand what he is saying, but I don't get the legitimacy of it. Shall the people get to rule on anything for the University system? Shall they vote on creationism in the college classrooms?

I still think this isn't an issue because this isn't about restricting rights, but limiting bonus privileges based on previous discrimination. The SCOTUS ruling otherwise would have implied compulsory affirmative action.

 

[Derec]

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

What part of US constitution does a state ban on so-called "affirmative action" violate exactly?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

What part of US constitution does a state ban on so-called "affirmative action" violate exactly?

I think it's the part where the Founding Fathers demanded that people read entire posts before responding to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait. What about the gay marriage law in California? The State Supreme Court overturned that refererendum on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Why would the federal court have less ability to rule on constitutional matters than a state court?

What part of US constitution does a state ban on so-called "affirmative action" violate exactly?

This is talked about in the ruling. My initial comments were incorrect and SCOTUS does address these, ie Seattle and Hunter, both propositions against affirmative action that were rejected by SCOTUS.

 

[James Madison]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

This was not what they said or decided.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

This was not what they said or decided.

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

Well, I appreciate you going the extra mile to help correct my misunderstanding. That eight word reply was really convincing!

Of course, if you continued on the thread (which really isn't that long), you'd see I came around (admitted error) and feel like the Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer decisions are correct, within a certain scope limited to a case by case situation.

 

[James Madison]

And in doing so, actually decided to ignore the case itself. They say the Appeals Court didn't have precedence to rule as such... and then ignore the question at hand. It is almost like they are trying to reverse Marbury v Madison.

J. Scalia and J. Thomas opined, once again summarizing, the Court's prior precedent of "political process doctrine" should be overruled because those decisions are not compatible with the text of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent with the Court's prior precedent regarding the EPC. The question for them was whether, when neutral state action is involved but alleged to deny equal protection on account of race, the challenged law or state action has a racially discrimnatory purpose. For them, the state action in this case did not.

I thought B v BoE killed the purpose crap.

This is not quite an accurate statement of the opinion.

 

[James Madison]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

This was not what they said or decided.

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

Well, I appreciate you going the extra mile to help correct my misunderstanding. That eight word reply was really convincing!

Of course, if you continued on the thread (which really isn't that long), you'd see I came around (admitted error) and feel like the Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer decisions are correct, within a certain scope limited to a case by case situation.

Or you could've, as you eventually did, go the extra mile and reread the case. I'm not quite sure how or why you developed a misunderstanding of the case after you apparently read it the first time. I was wondering how you were arriving to these interpretations of the case when the majority quite clearly tells you what they are doing and why.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a good decision and not unexpected. 6 to 2. The ruling does not overrule previous decisions on AA. It simply says that while it is permissible for a university to consider race it is not required to considered race. The voters of Michigan felt that race should not be a factor; thus, the state exercising its discretion to not consider race.

This was not what they said or decided.

My problem is that the majority of the majority ruled on BS premises. Kennedy/Alito/Roberts said they can't reverse a popularly decided issue, when they did exactly that with the Montana campaign finance ruling.

Well, I appreciate you going the extra mile to help correct my misunderstanding. That eight word reply was really convincing!

Of course, if you continued on the thread (which really isn't that long), you'd see I came around (admitted error) and feel like the Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer decisions are correct, within a certain scope limited to a case by case situation.

Or you could've, as you eventually did, go the extra mile and reread the case. I'm not quite sure how or why you developed a misunderstanding of the case after you apparently read it the first time. I was wondering how you were arriving to these interpretations of the case when the majority quite clearly tells you what they are doing and why.

Well someone may have tried to parse the opinion based on news articles. And then went to the source for a better understanding. But thanks for telling me what I should do after I clearly did it. It is nice to get in the last word, isn't it.