HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Court: Michigan's Ban on ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:51 PM

Court: Michigan's Ban on Affirmative Action is Unconstitutional

Source: Detroit Free Press

Court: Michigan's ban on affirmative action is unconstitutional

2:40 PM, November 15, 2012
By Paul Egan
Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

LANSING — The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared unconstitutional Michigan’s ban on affirmative action, which was approved by voters in a 2006 ballot initiative, Proposal 2.

The majority opinion in a divided court said the state ban on affirmative action violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by making it more difficult for a minority student to get a university to adopt a race-conscious admissions policy than it is for a white student to get a university to adopt an admissions policy that considers family alumni connections.

“This is a tremendous victory for students,” said Detroit attorney George Washington, who represented the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action in the case.

“It means that thousands of black students and Latino students will have the chance to go to college they never would have had.”

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20121115/NEWS06/121115041/The-U-S-6th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals

13 replies, 2613 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court: Michigan's Ban on Affirmative Action is Unconstitutional (Original post)
Hissyspit Nov 2012 OP
PatentlyDemocratic Nov 2012 #1
noiretextatique Nov 2012 #2
davidpdx Nov 2012 #3
JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2012 #5
davidpdx Nov 2012 #13
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #4
Mz Pip Nov 2012 #6
Socal31 Nov 2012 #7
alp227 Nov 2012 #8
Hugabear Nov 2012 #10
calico1 Nov 2012 #11
Socal31 Nov 2012 #12
Myrina Nov 2012 #9

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:18 PM

1. Meanwhile non-rich whites get neither benefit - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatentlyDemocratic (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:53 PM

2. not according to the court

their opinion did not mention income...just race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:14 PM

3. I would bet anything this is headed to the US Supreme Court

Roberts is chomping at the bit to try to overturn the prior rulings.

Also this bit of bad news:

U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS OVERRULED THE 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON LAST 15 APPEALS STRAIGHT
Feb. 20, 2011
Supreme Court has reversed every decision since 2008, including five death penalty cases
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is one of the most powerful courts in the nation, but these days it’s suffering through a major slump.
The court owns the longest losing streak in the country over the past two years at the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviews decisions and corrects mistakes made by the nation’s top appeals courts.
The Supreme Court has examined 15 rulings from the 6th Circuit since 2008 and has thrown out every one of them.


http://news.lawreader.com/2011/02/20/u-s-supreme-court-has-overruled-the-6th-circuit-court-of-appeals-on-last-15-appeals-straight/

This could be far from over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:19 AM

5. According to the OP article, it's already at the Supreme Court

... something about an identical case originating in Texas. If it's identical, then the TX ruling should apply to this MI case.

According to some talk on NPR this morning, the 6th Circuit split along party lines: 8 judges appointed by Democrats voted to overturn the MI amendment, 7 appointed by Republicans voted to uphold the amendment. 2 judges (Republican appointees) recused, because of connections to MI universities, if I heard right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:26 PM

13. Ok, that makes sense

A lot of times I don't click through and read the full article. I do remember the Michigan case not too long ago with a 5-4 decision and O'Conner stating that 25 years more of affirmative action would be enough as a way to limit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 06:15 AM

4. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:26 AM

6. Prop 209 in CA

It banned affirmative action for any State entities. It went into affect in the late 90s and IIRC was upheld by SCOTUS.

It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:33 AM

7. Race-based ANYTHING needs to go.

Being born white isn't an automatic pass to glory. Unless you think little Timmy in a trailer park in Tennesee who has meth addicted parents is somehow special.

Economics is what it should be based on. Consequently that will help out a larger portion of minorities, but having race involved just does not seem right.

In such a "melting-pot" of a country, racial lines are going to get more and more blurred. Income is a hard number that can easily be determined by 1040s and some bank statments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:26 PM

8. EXACTLY!

Problem is, too often race and class correlate in this nation. There should be a reasonable compromise between diversity and meritocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:49 PM

10. Thanks for missing the entire point of affirmative action

It's not that being born white gives you an automatic "pass to glory".

It's that being born non-white gives you an automatic harder "pass to glory".

If you don't think that racism and discrimination still takes place, you're delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:23 PM

11. And we saw from this past election cycle and from

Obama's first term that racism and sexism are alive and well in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:51 PM

12. You are generalizing based off of skin color and you don't even realize it.

I'm sorry but your way of thinking is going the way of the Dodo. "Race" is going to become a BS label. It pretty much already is due to the mix of people in this country. What "Race" would you have President Obama or Tiger Woods put on an application? Who gets to have the deciding vote of what "race" they really are, and what are the determining factors?

Will you deny a poor second-generation pale-skinned Serbian child a shot because of his skin?

When you say "race", what I think you mean are African Americans and Latin-Americans. Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans seem to have no problem shaming "white" Americans in scholastic achievement.

I am 100% for giving high school kids who were not born into the correct family a full ride to a degree and chance at a better life. But when I donate for scholarships, there is no "race" involved, they are based off achievement and economics. They don't check a box or send in a photo. That is terrible.

There is racism in every country on this planet. We can be bigger than that. What we need to do is help people who are disadvantaged by the only color that seems to matter: Green.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:33 PM

9. "Attorney George Washington" ...

Sorry, that caught my eye & I 'd for a minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread