Supreme Court overrules racial selection in schools

[NorthSideSox72]

The Supreme Court today ruled against 2 school districts in their attempt to diversify their student bodies by racial selection criteria. The ruling was 5-4, with Roberts leading the majority. The vote was basically along partisan lines. There were some signs among the majority, though, that race may still be used under certain limited circumstances.

 

I like Roberts' quote early in this article. That pretty much describes my feelings on the matter. You can't get rid of racism by way of racism. I am glad to see the court chose the route of true fairness here.

[StrangeSox]

I liked this decision as well. Racial quotas are raced-based discrimination, any way you cut it.

[jackie hayes]

This is a scary term.

 

From the NYT:

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Justice Breyer said.

Whatever you think of the substance of the opinions, I think you have to agree with this quote. The last couple days have been a carnival of precedent-crapping. Roberts really does appear to be the wolf in sheep's clothing that some Dems expected.

 

As for this case, Kennedy's separate opinion is crucial. And imo it's much more insightful than that glib quote from Roberts. I hope it carries the day.

[Gregory Pratt]

There is no such thing as "judicial activism." There's only "judges whose opinions you disagree with." Rehnquist and Roberts are big scrappers and overturners and precedent-setters. Is it a bad thing? Debateable. But they're just as "activisticcccc" as anyone they've replacedddddd

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a scary term.

 

From the NYT:

 

Whatever you think of the substance of the opinions, I think you have to agree with this quote. The last couple days have been a carnival of precedent-crapping. Roberts really does appear to be the wolf in sheep's clothing that some Dems expected.

 

As for this case, Kennedy's separate opinion is crucial. And imo it's much more insightful than that glib quote from Roberts. I hope it carries the day.

 

I think you are right that the seperate opinions in the majority are important here. But, glib or not, I think Roberts' opinion nails the issue cold, both legally and morally.

 

I said on nomination that, even though he is more conservative than I'd like, I was OK with the Roberts nomination. He has been consistent during his career, and he seems very effective at reducing things to their essence. That all said, you make a very good point about the big changes occurring, and its entirely possible the changes may start to get scary at some point.

 

There is no such thing as "judicial activism." There's only "judges whose opinions you disagree with." Rehnquist and Roberts are big scrappers and overturners and precedent-setters. Is it a bad thing? Debateable. But they're just as "activisticcccc" as anyone they've replacedddddd

 

I agree with this, and have said it myself before. The whole "activist judges" thing, which was banged on over and over again early in Bush's administration, is a complete and utter fallacy.

[Jenksismyhero]

There is no such thing as "judicial activism." There's only "judges whose opinions you disagree with." Rehnquist and Roberts are big scrappers and overturners and precedent-setters. Is it a bad thing? Debateable. But they're just as "activisticcccc" as anyone they've replacedddddd

 

I couldn't disagree more. Supreme Court Justices maybe not (though some will debate you, see Lockner and it's history) but District Courts and State Courts suffer immensely from it. There are judges in every circuit that try to 'make a point' and steer the law the way they want it to be steered.

 

And heck, any affirmative action decision has zero basis in the law. That's all judicial activism. That's the battle cry 'let's use racism to fix racism.'

Edited June 29, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[jackie hayes]

I think you are right that the seperate opinions in the majority are important here. But, glib or not, I think Roberts' opinion nails the issue cold, both legally and morally.

 

I said on nomination that, even though he is more conservative than I'd like, I was OK with the Roberts nomination. He has been consistent during his career, and he seems very effective at reducing things to their essence. That all said, you make a very good point about the big changes occurring, and its entirely possible the changes may start to get scary at some point.

That one sentence, it's just a sound bite. It's far too simplistic to summarize this fairly.

 

When Roberts was before Congress, he emphasized repeatedly his respect for precedent. It's hard to imagine a less cautious SC than this. To me, that's inconsistent.

[NorthSideSox72]

That one sentence, it's just a sound bite. It's far too simplistic to summarize this fairly.

 

When Roberts was before Congress, he emphasized repeatedly his respect for precedent. It's hard to imagine a less cautious SC than this. To me, that's inconsistent.

In the case of race based selection in schools, there are precedents all over the board. Some of the most recent decisions happen to be in favor of allowing, but by no means has it been all of them. Those newer decisions, in some cases, overrode other existing precedent. So then, what IS precedent?

 

I am much more concerned about Alito's inexperienced and politically motivated decisions than I am about Roberts.

 

You are correct that its just a sound bite, and the issue has all sorts of complexity heaped onto it. But I think the overall issue could be very, very simple, if people let it be. That is what he was driving at, and I agree with him.

[Yossarian]

I agree with this, and have said it myself before. The whole "activist judges" thing, which was banged on over and over again early in Bush's administration, is a complete and utter fallacy.

Hell no, it's not. It's as real as the sun and the moon. There are many examples of judges at all levels, and of various political views, making law from the bench. It's disgusting, and has to stop. This ruling is one small step in that direction.

[jackie hayes]

In the case of race based selection in schools, there are precedents all over the board. Some of the most recent decisions happen to be in favor of allowing, but by no means has it been all of them. Those newer decisions, in some cases, overrode other existing precedent. So then, what IS precedent?

 

I am much more concerned about Alito's inexperienced and politically motivated decisions than I am about Roberts.

 

You are correct that its just a sound bite, and the issue has all sorts of complexity heaped onto it. But I think the overall issue could be very, very simple, if people let it be. That is what he was driving at, and I agree with him.

I think Kennedy's opinion is a good example of why this issue is not so simple. The other majority opinion is just remarkably sweeping, seemingly implying that even noticing race, any act of categorizing except in redressing previous local institutionalized discrimination, is unconstitutional. That seems pretty extreme. Compare it to the Michigan law school decision a couple years ago. This really is a fast change.

 

In the opinion, they bracket off the Michigan decision, saying that its program looked at factors other than race. I can't see, logically, how that's different in any meaningful way. But it does leave a loophole to be tested, which could be interesting.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think Kennedy's opinion is a good example of why this issue is not so simple. The other majority opinion is just remarkably sweeping, seemingly implying that even noticing race, any act of categorizing except in redressing previous local institutionalized discrimination, is unconstitutional. That seems pretty extreme. Compare it to the Michigan law school decision a couple years ago. This really is a fast change.

 

In the opinion, they bracket off the Michigan decision, saying that its program looked at factors other than race. I can't see, logically, how that's different in any meaningful way. But it does leave a loophole to be tested, which could be interesting.

 

I don't either, which is why they should have just overruled the Gratz decision.Talk about judicial activisim. Gratz essentially said: when you're dealing with membership in a historically exclusive group, it's ok if race is one factor to be looked at because diversity is good. Still cracks me up that O'Conner had to write in her conclusion something close to 'hopefully in 25 years we won't need affirmative action.'

[jackie hayes]

I don't either, which is why they should have just overruled the Gratz decision.Talk about judicial activisim. Gratz essentially said: when you're dealing with membership in a historically exclusive group, it's ok if race is one factor to be looked at because diversity is good. Still cracks me up that O'Conner had to write in her conclusion something close to 'hopefully in 25 years we won't need affirmative action.'

Grutter, not Gratz.

[Jenksismyhero]

Grutter, not Gratz.

 

 

Oops, you're right. Gratz was the Michigan undergrad case.

[Chet Lemon]

It is true that Rehnquist was not a judicial activist. He upheld Miranda in Dickerson when he wrote the opinion. I am sure he personally despised the Miranda decision, but knew personal displeasure was not adequate to amend Constitutional Law.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Chet Lemon

[Gregory Pratt]

It is true that Rehnquist was not a judicial activist. He upheld Miranda in Dickerson when he wrote the opinion. I am sure he personally despised the Miranda decision, but knew personal displeasure was not adequate to amend Constitutional Law.

 

Uh, you're citing one case as proof that his court didn't overturn precedents all the time?

[Texsox]

making law from the bench.

Then Bush shouldn't sign them when they cross his desk. When did we change our constitution to allow judges to make laws?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Diversity at any cost is wrong. All the time I was going to grade school I could never understand why the bussed black kids in from 12 miles away ( passing several schools on the way ) just to bring them to my school and to this day I still don't.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hell no, it's not. It's as real as the sun and the moon. There are many examples of judges at all levels, and of various political views, making law from the bench. It's disgusting, and has to stop. This ruling is one small step in that direction.

Um... making law from the bench via case judgements and setting precedent is what judges do, some of the time. Its part of their role in the system. That doesn't make them "activists". It makes them judges.

 

If you want to argue that some judges do it too often and are trying to bend the law instead of interperet it, then I understand that. But when a judge has to interperet existing law via a specific case, sometimes, new precedent has to be set. Your post seems to indicate you feel that any of that is somehow "disgusting". I think that you are dismissing one of the key roles of the judicial system - filling in the holes in the law.

 

 

I think Kennedy's opinion is a good example of why this issue is not so simple. The other majority opinion is just remarkably sweeping, seemingly implying that even noticing race, any act of categorizing except in redressing previous local institutionalized discrimination, is unconstitutional. That seems pretty extreme. Compare it to the Michigan law school decision a couple years ago. This really is a fast change.

 

In the opinion, they bracket off the Michigan decision, saying that its program looked at factors other than race. I can't see, logically, how that's different in any meaningful way. But it does leave a loophole to be tested, which could be interesting.

I must confess I have not read the alt-majority opinions in-depth, and so I did not see the indications of notice/acknowledgement of race being unconstititional. And I'd agree that would be extreme. I'll read further on that.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You can't get rid of racism by way of racism.

 

Racial quotas are raced-based discrimination, any way you cut it.

 

 

I think it's much more complicated than that...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think it's much more complicated than that...

 

 

What then, do you call selecting someone solely because they're black.....or hispanic.......or asian?

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it's much more complicated than that...

Only because people have chosen to make it so. It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be.

[StrangeSox]

I think it's much more complicated than that...

 

How is using race as a measure of someone's worth (for admissions, hiring, promotions, etc.) not racial discrimination?