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.
http://www.parentsasteachers.org/resources/alignment-with-early-head-start
http://www.parentsasteachers.org/images/stories/PAT_Alignment.pdf
Head Start strongly encourages parental involvement in education early on. Most reasonable people should agree that parental involvement is essential in a student’s success.
Annie – I would agree, however, the kids you want to have parental involvement don’t always have it.
Mr. Spinelli,
I find your derogatory comments offensive. If you cannot used proper language I am sure there are other site that would relish in your flavor of words.
I have two dead CFLs that I am ready to trash but they are going with the regular stuff. I will pretend ignorance. 🙂
By grade three the effects of Head Start are gone. All studies show that. Head Start is just money down the drain, sadly.
Paul – solar has had real problems, it is true. So many solar manufacturers have gone out of business. Domestic-made cannot compete with foreign made. I’m looking into it now, but if it’s too expensive will have to keep waiting.
I also don’t want something cheaply made that will break, or that consists of so much toxic cadmium and lead that parts will have to be disposed of as hazardous waste. I love the idea of solar, and have wanted it for years, but we’ll see when I’m actually able to get it!
That’s the problem that I have with Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs). They contain mercury. The EPA has a page devoted to how to safely clean up if one breaks (don’t vacuum or it will aerosolize mercury particles throughout your house.) You need to dispose of it as household hazardous waste. You can buy a vapor lock box from Waste Management for about $100 to fill with used bulbs and mail back for recycling, pay to drop it off at a collection site, or wait for a free collection day. How many people do they think will go to all the trouble, instead of tossing it into the trash where it will break? We’ve polluted the entire ocean with mercury, but here we go promoting a huge source of mercury contamination.
Fox has more reporters of different political stripes than any other network. I know you all think that Fox is all conservative/all time but they are not. And personally, I do not watch any tv national news, except some local news.
I’ve read that Bundy’s herd has increased. Outta my league here, but I’d think the BLM would want some agreement about the size, or growth, of the herd even lacking the Wilderness designation. Cattle do a lot of damage to land and water resources. More cattle – more damage. Do you know who is responsible for maintenance?
(Haven’t been able to keep up with comments. Sorry if you have already covered.)
Feynman, I can agree with you regarding Karen. I’m glad she’s here and her reasonable approach will more likely than other’s, ensure that her links are actually read and considered.
ALL STUDIES show Head Start to have no upturn in school performance. Look it up. It feels good. It is free childcare. So, maybe it should be funded as that, free childcare. But, don’t fund it w/ education tax dollars because it is like flushing it down the toilet. But, it’s the government, that’s what they do.
Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Goes Off About The Negro.
I don’t know that I agree with Karen @ 12:53, but I think it is a very temperate comment. Sorry, Dredd.
I do think there is plenty (maybe everything) about which we disagree, but damn, her opposition is actually reasonable. And she is not a bullsh*ter. She READS links. She posts links. She doesn’t position herself as the Absolute End Authority. Nice change.
I think Spam might have eaten one of my comments. Bad Spam!
You can build fences and maintain them, but you need the project to be approved, and you’re not allowed increase your herd if the land is deemed Wilderness. The BLM can curtail or decrease grazing once land gets that designation.
Personally, I would not like to run a business on land I don’t own, if I don’t like how the rules can change. But I don’t have an emotional attachment or a multi-generational investment.
Feynman – Fox does not typically state “I don’t know why’s”. It was an interview. I know how distasteful this would come across, but consider watching Fox exclusively for 2 weeks. I like Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, and Hannity. By the end of that time you probably will not change your party affiliation, but you will have a better opinion of Fox than can be afforded by sound bites. It is so healthy to really listen to the other side. It might not change your opinions, but they will be more informed about the pros and cons. No one ever takes me up on this though! 🙂
As I’ve said before, we have ecologists in the family, some distant cousins are ranchers, and I have friends that are organic dairy farmers, among other farmers. I’ve heard about these issues for years. It is true that the BLM can acquire land from private landowners against their will, although it is rare, and that they often have an adversarial relationship. My focus is that there is a better way to air grievances, and a better way to form a cooperative partnership towards conservation with ranchers.
Karen: note at 1:00 is very informative. Thanks. I think Bundy & Friends made a complaint about vehicles being prohibited. Know anything specific about building fences on what I presume is grassland? I’m wondering if that isn’t a strawman. Turley did a blog about the tortoises.
Dredd:
You statements seem deeply prejudiced against millions of conservatives. It saddens me to see such divisiveness, so common today.
You posted “Otherwise we would not be murdering millions every year with pollution from fossil fuels like dirty oil, dirty coal, and dirty nuclear.”
I’m just wondering what you think would happen if all oil and coal shut down today. People would chop down trees to heat their homes, electric companies that still use oil and coal would lost most of their output, and every single good and service that uses a car or truck on gas or diesel at any point in its transportation would sit on the road. Until everyone can live off grid and walk everywhere, we cannot just say “I hate oil and coal” and think that “something will just turn out” if we shut it down today. What I keep trying to explain is that we need to improve clean renewables, produce them at an affordable rate, and increase infrastructure before they can completely replace coal and oil. Everyone agrees that petroleum and coal are finite natural resources, and that they pollute. We’re trying to work on replacements, but we’re not there yet. We are increasing clean renewables all the time. What do you want?
Vast woodlands were deforested because humanity used to depend on wood for heat. Whale oil for light. Peat. Cow chips. Travel by walking, donkey, oxen, or horse. We literally do not have the infrastructure yet to meet demand. Which means there would be a gap, a big one, if oil ended today. And people would fill that gap. And you would not like how they did it.
Be an agent of positive change, think logistics, and try to think kindly of your neighbor.
Elaine, yes I do recall that now. Yet he continues to disparage sources like the NYT, WaPo, etc. Go figure.
Karen, I read the Fox links. I was struck by the farmer’s org. man repeatedly stating that he “didn’t know” why it had been taken. I bet the docs from the court case could tell a lot. Wouldn’t that have been easy for Greta to explore? However, I’m sure these types of legal issues are complicated and once you throw in an eroding, moving river (who is responsible for keeping the river viable and flood damage/insurance?) you’ve got trouble.
I also thought we could make a pretty good guess about the BLM plans for the land. Recreation. Picnics, hiking, fishing, canoeing. Wonderful pastimes for all citizens to enjoy.
I’ve done a lot of hiking on fed lands. I remember my annoyance when a favorite hike suddenly had fences blocking the path. Some private homeowner decided he liked it better that way. And yes, many trades are made between the BLM and developers. My view of it is that the BLM and citizens that enjoy recreating lose out.
The trouble with the Fox links are the only “reporters” are on one side and they suffer from I don’t know-itis. “They just came one day (or after twenty years) and took my land away”. And most people have a really hard time saying “well there was this one little thing”. They could have been screwed, or there could be some complicated legal issues/caveats that they took a chance on and sure enough, it rose up one day and bit them in the a$$.
Not enough info from Fox to make any judgement. Although…..I bet Paul S is satisfied.
Karen S
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.
===============
Is that all you have to rationalize racism?
You will be on the Supreme Court if you keep that up.
I responded to Paul’s request for the numbers to back it up but WordMess at it.
If there is an admin around please recover my comment in reply to Paul’s request for numbers.
It is the only one that WordMess ate that I made.