I was just on CNN discussing the decision in Schuette v. BAMN, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and declaring that the citizens of Michigan have the constitutional authority to prohibit racial and other preferences in university admissions. We addressed this case this term in my Supreme Court class and the students voted not only in the same way as the majority today but predicted this result. What was surprising was the vote — 6-2. Only Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to upheld the Sixth Circuit.
This is clearly a breakthrough decision for those who have opposed racial and other preferences in admissions. In the past, these issues have inevitably ended up in the courts as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Now, the Supreme Court is saying overwhelmingly that citizens can make these decisions for themselves. It creates a clear avenue by which affirmative action could be curtailed by direct action of the voters — bringing clarity that many have sought for decades of conflicted judicial rulings. Seven states have similar rules but this decision is likely to encourage others to follow suit.
Justice Kennedy wrote the main decision, which limited the political-process line of cases represented by Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. Kennedy stressed that “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” In the view of the majority “[t]here is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. . . Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”
Justice Scalia wanted to go even further and get rid of much of that jurisprudence. However, this decision is potentially sweeping enough for most of the justices. Chief Justice Roberts and Alito joined Kennedy though Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Thomas joined with Scalia in his concurrence in arguing to go all the way in gutting the political-process line of cases. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. Justice Kagan probably would have joined in that dissent but recused herself. Even with Kagan however the vote would still have been lopsided at 6-3. Instead, it stands at 6-2. That is a sharp departure from the historically razor thin margins in cases like Grutter, Gratz, and others.
Sotomayor wrote a 58 page dissent (longer than all of the other opinions combined) and objected that the Court needed to limit voters because “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.”
At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.
In our vote, the Supreme Court seminar voted 11-4 in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit and 11-4 in predicting that that “other Supreme Court” would also reverse. The United States Supreme Court (while producing multiple opinions) proved less ideologically divided in the outcome than the Sixth Circuit. On the lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the action, the eight judges in the majority were nominees by Democratic presidents while the seven judges in dissent were appointed by Republican presidents.
Here is the opinion.
Feynman:
Not all ranchers want motorized vehicles. Some like the old-fashioned cowboy lifestyle. Motorized vehicles are only banned on BLM land deemed by Congress to be Wilderness. Not all BLM land has this designation. There are a lot of restrictions on land use, including being prohibited from putting in any infrastructure that would allow you to increase your herd. When you depend on federal land to run your business, you can’t operate like you could if you owned all the land you used yourself.
Some areas are too delicate for livestock, while others are better suited. Banning motorized vehicles go a long way towards protecting the landscape, but nothing alpine can be grazed or walked on. Ranching is best on land that is designated a natural resource for grazing. Like BLM has logging land and fisheries it is supposed to steward. There is a difference between a natural resource that is intended to be used, like grazing, and a wilderness that is intended to be preserved in its natural state. Congress decides what to deem a Wilderness, and then that comes with a completely different set of rules.
Where ranchers run into difficulty is if it is discovered that a native species has become endangered, and they want to curb all human activities in the area. Suddenly, land that was ranched for generations can no longer be so. The tortoise did not become an issue until about 20 years into the fight between Bundy and BLM.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – you got figures to back up those millions of deaths you are claiming?
================
I don’t back up I only move forward.
That is why you do not understand what you read of my writings.
Here is something that will make you run backwards into mini-me-denialism because it is looking forward:
(New Climate Catastrophe Criminality Policy). If you need help with the arithmetic or the math let me know.
Dredd:
On the one hand, a bad economy and financial distress tends to correlate with an increase in crime, including hate crimes.
On the other hand, there has been a huge debate about what constitutes a hate group. In some instances, any group that supports conventional marriage is considered a hate group. By the same token, if someone does not support polygamy he could be branded as part of a hate group. A group that discusses the oppression of women under Islamic Sha’ria Law is branded a hate group.
Sometimes the line is easy to determine for a hate group. But other times, it’s a brand that just shuts down discussion of different opinions.
Looks Offical, http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/23303-sources-obama-will-kill-keystone-xl-pipeline
swarthmoremom,
Thanks for that point if clarification.
Guys, I’m sorry. I keep getting on new topics that have nothing to do with this blog post! I’m interested in everything that gets even an oblique reference.
In 2009 it was written:
(Terrorism & Hate Crimes Merging? – 2).
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/media-matters-cliven-bundy-video The tape is out, and he definitely said it.
Here is a brief summary on Head Start, where studies have shown that literally all benefits disappear by Third Grade. I passionately want to improve education, but I want to make sure our efforts work. And if they don’t, I don’t want to get so attached to them that I’m not willing to keep trying new approaches. The money is wasted that could be spent on a new, better program. If Head Start is a failure, that does not mean that we should abandon education improvement . . . just try something else.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/15/head-start-and-the-problems-of-the-public-sector-risk.html
Annie:
I believe that we should be nimble in our reaction to our efforts. If something is not working, we need to immediately be able to try something new. I am greatly disappointed in the public school system, where great teachers are given no preference over mediocre. The gains by Head Start disappear within a year or two. If the public school system has problems, increasing the amount of time kids spend in it might not be the answer. I don’t know if I would unfound it, but it does need a major overhaul. I care most about end results and the flexibility to keep trying different approaches.
Karen, agree that early education is essential, yet who is for defunding Head Start?
Dredd – you keep linking to your own site. Not cool. Give me something else. And that is only by 2030 if and only all sorts of bad things happen.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – you keep linking to your own site. Not cool. Give me something else. And that is only by 2030 if and only all sorts of bad things happen.
================
The uncertain gene has abrogated your imagination.
You don’t have to go to my link, the comment you recoiled from (in amygdala induced denial and fear) in the comment I made which you requested, says “a report commissioned by 20 governments” (saying millions are killed now by your worship Oil-Qaeda).
Paul, in your person-corporate heart you know that governments are people.
You sanction mass murder because of an HTML link feature created for enlightenment and space saving.
It figures because it is shabby cognition.
Elaine – Head Start does not cure special ed. The claim that there are reduced special education needs is indefensible.
Annie – Talk radio found a niche because the vast majority of print, online, and TV media are Left. Many disregard this fact, and claim there is some kind of scandal that talk radio is a popular Conservative outlet that is still vastly outnumbered by other media venues.
It is fair for anyone who can compete for an audience to have the chance to. If Left media can out-compete, they should have their chance, and vice versa.
I dislike prejudice against the existence of any Conservative media, as if it’s unfair for them to take up any space at all.
I always say it’s essential for both sides to have an opportunity to speak. Most people who hate Fox don’t actually watch it. I found this site because I watched an interview between Megyn Kelly and Prof Turley. She recommended his blog as one she really enjoyed.
Annie,
He’s also used The New American–which is affiliated with the John Birch Society–as a source.
I do not believe that stopping Affirmative Action is either racist or segregates schools. The argument has been made that it is not fair for Veterans and Alumni to get preference if race cannot get preference. I think that admissions should always be based on merit.
I care very deeply about every kid having equal access to an excellent education. I do not think that the answer is lowering the bar on college entrance. I know that’s not the intent, it is only supposed to be a tie breaker, but that is what happens.
In my humble opinion, the answer is to intervene early in education. We have to address all of the reasons why minorities are dropping out or not continuing to college. And there are many reasons – lack of help with homework, gangs, poverty . . . it goes on. Here is a program in Harlem that seems to really make a difference academically: http://www.hcz.org/index.php/our-results.
The end result needs to be that all kids, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity, have the same chance at an excellent education if they apply themselves. And then admissions need to be completely blind. I say black out the names and race and assign each student a number.
I want to DE-emphasize race, not emphasize it.
I currently have 401 articles in my cue to scan. There will be at least 200 more during the day.
Paul, it’s World Net Daily and I could’ve sworn you used them before as a source on another thread.
Feynman:
Holy cats, if Cliven Bundy said that about black people he just became radioactive to most of his supporters, regardless of any legitimacy to his original problems with the BLM.
How much information can one glean from scanning 500 – 700 news and blogs a day? I do believe we have a bullsh*ter on board.
You have to learn to speed read. Took a speed reading course in college, best course I ever took. 🙂
Annie – I have used the same source on other threads, learned that from Charlton. Figured if he could do it (weekend blogger and all) I could do it. 🙂
Karen – look again at Germany and its solar paneling. Two solar companies have gone out of business. I looked at leasing solar for my house and decided the cost of the lease was more than I was spending on the electric (I also have gas) plus I didn’t own it so if I sold I couldn’t move it. I would have to convince the new owner to accept the lease arrangement or buy them out.
RTC:
I agree that we will find a way to improve clean renewables. I’m excited to see what we can do. I also think they pollute less than conventional oil. I mentioned the negatives because Dredd indicated they had none, and I thought he might not be aware of some difficulties they still need to overcome. It sounds like he meant they had comparatively none.
I say they are in the Beta Test stage, because I do not want them expanded until they’re fixed. I don’t want to keep expanding wind farms until they make them quieter and bird proof. (Why can’t Dyson design one???)
As for the solar panels, I am hoping to buy instead of lease. Leasing companies get the subsidies and sell the excess to the grid. I don’t like the idea of a large piece of equipment on my house that I don’t own. At least Dish can just come get it’s receiver, but an expensive solar panel that’s not mine is a larger scale. Leasing does make it more accessible, though. I love that Germany is building houses with solar panels. I anticipate that will be the standard on new homes here one day.
One thing that really troubled me was the fight over net metering.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131226-utilities-dispute-net-metering-for-solar/
The dispute is that electric utilities are losing customers in solar-rich areas like CA, but they still have to maintain the grid for everyone. They’re a large company that is losing money and fighting it. They argue that it’s unfair that the remaining customers pay for the grid, while solar customers benefits from the grid by selling their excess. Do other energy suppliers pay for the infrastructure that the utilities use to transfer their energy? Solar suppliers do buy energy during periods, like winter, when their panel does not generate enough, as there is no way currently to store excess energy on site.
The problem may be that one day utilities won’t exist, and all energy will be source generated through some combination of solar, wind, or other means. And some other way to pay for the grid will be created. But I have no idea how long that transition will take – 30 years? 100 years? The transitional period will be difficult. My dad was just talking to me about some innovations that are in the works that will make the batteries for electric cars last 100 years.