Academia, Constitutional Law, Politics, Society

Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions

Supreme CourtI 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.

689 thoughts on “Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions”

  1. Hi Fenyman:

    I agree – Bundy appears to have some major problems. I was sympathetic with a rancher who felt the BLM was working against his interests, but it was foolish to just stop paying his grazing fees. And now this.

    From my experience, there are many things that need to improve between the BLM, ranchers, and conservationists, but this guy is not an appropriate messenger, in light of what’s come out.

    I am still upset about the photos and allegations that the BLM killed some of the cattle they confiscated and buried the bodies in the desert. It still needs to be substantiated, but if it was true, what a waste. I have a relative working on a conference topic that will cover property rights and BLM relationships, which should be interesting.

  3. Annie,

    I’m wonder if you would be able to clear something up for me? In a far upstream comment you said that it was bad form to inquire? harass?…(something like that ) about a commenter’s profession.

    Do you mean you feel it is inappropriate for one commenter to inquire of another commenter how, or if, they are employed? Just so I don’t make anyone mad for NOT letting sleeping dogs lie, it doesn’t bother me if I am asked. It is my choice as to how I want to respond. But I wondered if their was some sort of accepted protocol on this.

    Anyway, if you have a chance and are so inclined…

  4. Oh, and are you still in support of Mr. Bundy? Some arch supporters are backing away, some are now calling him a thief. What is your position today?

  5. Maybe a definition will help you with the Koch minions.
    n
    1. a house or other place where men pay to have sexual intercourse with prostitutes
    2. Austral any untidy or messy place

  6. I am almost certain that’s where you got your information. Thanks for clarifying your source.

  7. Feynman,

    I think Mr. Spinelli is the blog moderator or something. He’s pretty good at making the focus of what it is that he wants to discuss, not what’s on topic. That’s why he gets away with using racial terms.

  8. Paul,

    Do you have any facts to back up your statement about the USPO? Nice paragraph. We operate on facts here, like the SCOTUS being a brothel for the Koch Brothers. Facts speak for themselves, thine evidence be true.

    1. keelber, my favorite elf – you have not backed up your claim about SCOTUS being a brothel for the Koch Bros. In fact, you are behind on several things you need to back up. However, I am not going to hold my breath.

      If you are concerned about the post office, look up their history. They offer a booklet for elementary children.

  9. The history of postal service of the United States evolved from stampless letters, whose cost was borne by the receiving person, to letters carried by private mail carriers and provisional post offices, and then on to letters bearing adhesive postage stamps. Ship captains arriving in port with stampless mail would advertise in the local newspaper names of those having mail and for them to come collect and pay for it, if not already paid for by the sender.

  11. Schulte: Your understanding of the Postal Services role in settling the continent is faulty, at best.

    However, I’ll leave you to it.

  12. I just came across an article out of CA by some said to be investigative reporters that questions Mr. Bundy’s account of his NV family history. They say they researched the Clark county records and his farm was purchased in 1946. I don’t doubt that there is a longer family history somewhere in NV- but perhaps not on this particular site. Also, I have no idea if the source is reliable.

    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny

    I’d almost agree with anyone who would say it’s not a big deal, but I think it indicates another flaw in his character. Rather important when you are hoping for a rebellion and have attracted 700 men with large guns.

    I apologize for posting on this thread but Bundy was a part of the conversation and closely related to the original post, I thought none of the other posts were at all germane, and nobody is around who would be bothered.

  13. I guess I’m pretty tired, but is this the post in which the word “nig*er” with complete spelling was used?

  14. Mr. Spinelli,

    I’m sorry for bothering you, but you have upset me. An hour ago you rather suddenly dropped in and pretty firmly told us it was time to end the conversation. There must be a reason. Did Prof Turley contact you and ask you to tell us to end the conversation? A conversation about the Transcontinental Railroad for goodness sake?

  15. Damn.

    I have just reviewed up past 7:00 and I cannot find anything uncivil. I’m serious. What the heck would face deletion? I certainly don’t want to bother Prof. Turley but I do not find anything that would not be said in a high school classroom or a diverse Bible study group (maybe they would have to be Unitarians). I welcome his review, and if something of mine is found offensive I would consider it most helpful to re-post my offending comment and explaining just what is uncivil.

    Cause I just don’t get it.

  16. Mr. Spinelli

    Help me out as much effort was expended in maintaining civility. As you have noted, many hundreds of comments have been posted. Can you point the uncivil ones out?

    I am sorry you find the last 100 comments or so uninteresting. I found them very interesting. The settling of the West is a great story. Karen shared some great stuff about the policies of the BLM,. We learned about the building of the transcontinental telegraph, the transcontinental railroad, the Iceland financial collapse, the purported failure of Head Start. I’d say that had lots of interesting reads.

    What’s the problem?

  17. Hi Feynman:

    Haha, no I’m not proselytizing. I don’t expect anyone to switch parties. But usually people who loathe Fox News don’t actually watch it. It sounds like you have a really open mind. I used to love NPR, but I didn’t like how politically biased it got when it was supposed to be for everyone.

    1. I stopped listening to NPR when Click and Click started shilling for the Democratic Party.

  20. Gents, Jonathan lost a good friend today. A good way to show respect would be to go over to that post and say a few kind words. Then, give this thread a rest. It was played a few hundred comments ago. Show thanks for all Jonathan does but not forcing him to have to deal w/ incivility here. It’s the right thing to do.

    1. There’s been no incivility visited upon this thread until now. But you are here and there is a good chance you have other motives so the end result will be determined by you. Best to let sleep dogs lay!

      1. Nick – that sounds a lot like a threat to me. BTW, do sleep dogs lay or lie?

Comments are closed.