The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 22, 2014, 04:45:32 pm
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/22/Supreme-Court-Upholds-Michigan-Constitution-s-Ban-on-Racial-Preferences (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/22/Supreme-Court-Upholds-Michigan-Constitution-s-Ban-on-Racial-Preferences)
by Ken Klukowski 22 Apr 2014, 7:44 AM PDT
In a 6-to-2 decision in Shuette v. BAMN, the Supreme Court upheld a new provision in the Michigan Constitution that bars state agencies from using racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action) when making state decisions, including colleges admissions at schools such as the University of Michigan.
The justices split between several opinions, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the lead opinion for three justices. In doing so, a majority of the Court narrowed the reach of two racial preference cases from 1969 and 1982 that have long been criticized by conservative legal scholars.
-
Probably a topic for another thread, but I wonder what this means for the SSM bans in the various states which have been overturned by federal courts. From another article:
In a 6-2 ruling on Tuesday, the justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to bar public colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, suggested that right extends even beyond college policies.
"There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions," he wrote.
Could the bolded text above just as easily say "There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether sexual preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to marriage"?
-
Probably a topic for another thread, but I wonder what this means for the SSM bans in the various states which have been overturned by federal courts. From another article:
Could the bolded text above just as easily say "There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether sexual preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to marriage"?
maybe, maybe not.