Schuette vs. Bamn

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-682

In five separate opinions spanning more than 100 pages, the justices set out starkly conflicting views. The justices in the majority, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.

In five separate opinions spanning more than 100 pages, the justices set out starkly conflicting views. The justices in the majority, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the longest, most passionate and most significant dissent of her career, said the Constitution required special vigilance in light of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and �recent examples of discriminatory changes to state voting laws.�

Her opinion, longer than the four other opinions combined, appeared to reflect her own experiences with affirmative action at Princeton and Yale Law School. �I had been admitted to the Ivy League through a special door,� she wrote in her best-selling memoir, �My Beloved World.� For years, she wrote, �I lived the day-to-day reality of affirmative action.�

In contrast to Justice Sotomayor�s outraged dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy�s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one.

�This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,� he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. �It is about who may resolve it. There 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.�

His announcement of the decision from the bench was businesslike. Signaling deep displeasure, Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench, an unusual move that happens perhaps three times a term. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other college applicants. Athletes, children of alumni and students from underrepresented parts of the state, she said, remained free to try to persuade university officials to give their applications special weight. �The one and only policy a Michigan citizen may not seek through this long-established process,� she wrote, �is a race-sensitive admissions policy.� That difference, she said, violates the Constitution�s equal protection clause.

�The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,� she wrote. �But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.� Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent.

Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts�s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race to achieve integration in public school systems, he wrote, �The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.�

Justice Sotomayor recast the line. �The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,� she wrote, �is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.�

Chief Justice Roberts responded in a brief concurrence, saying that affirmative action, and the stigma that he said could accompany it, may do more harm than good. �People can disagree in good faith on this issue,� he added, �but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.�

In earlier cases, including one from last June challenging the admissions policies of the University of Texas, the court has said that race-conscious selection can be constitutionally permissible in states that wish to use them. In a concurrence, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said those decisions were wrong, and he suggested that they were in peril. He added that the question in Tuesday�s case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, was laughably easy.

Photo

�Even taking this court�s sorry line of race-based admissions cases as a given,� he wrote, �I find the question presented only slightly less strange: Does the equal protection clause forbid a state from banning a practice that the clause barely � and only provisionally � permits?�

He added that courts should resist involving judges �in the dirty business of dividing the nation into racial blocs.�

�That task is as difficult as it is unappealing,� Justice Scalia said, giving an example: �Does a half-Latin, half-American Indian have Latino interests, American-Indian interests, both, half of both?�

The most surprising opinion came from Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who abandoned his usual liberal allies to vote with the majority, although he did not adopt the majority�s reasoning. The Constitution, he said, permits but does not require states to use race-conscious admissions for educational diversity.

In general, he said, �the Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs.�

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, presumably because she had worked on the case as United States solicitor general.

The Michigan initiative, known as Proposal 2, was a response to Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions to ensure educational diversity.

Proposal 2, approved in 2006 by 58 percent of Michigan�s voters, amended the State Constitution to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment in public education, government contracting and public employment. Groups favoring affirmative action sued to block the part of the law concerning higher education.

In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled by a vote of 8 to 7 that the initiative violated the federal Constitution�s equal protection clause. The appeals court majority said the problem with the law was that it restructured the state�s political process by making it harder for disfavored minorities to press for change.

Justice Sotomayor agreed, saying citizens seeking to have the state�s public universities adopt race-conscious admissions plans had to �undertake the daunting task of amending the State Constitution.�

Justice Kennedy said that was as it should be.

�Here Michigan voters acted in concert and statewide to seek consensus and adopt a policy on a difficult subject against a historical background of race in America that has been a source of tragedy and persisting injustice,� he wrote. �That history demands that we continue to learn, to listen and to remain open to new approaches if we are to aspire always to a constitutional order in which all persons are treated with fairness and equal dignity.�

"We the People" Reject the National Social Policy Which Betrayed Fatherhood

Take five minutes to complete the Poll on Exiling Blacks

"Moores's first report contained data showing that 3,218 students with SAT I scores of 1,400 or higher were denied entry into UC Berkeley in 2002. The SAT I, a basic aptitude test, has a top score of 1,600. It's true that many straight-A students with high test scores don't get into UC Berkeley — there just aren't enough spaces. However, Moores discovered that Berkeley admitted 374 students with SAT I scores of only 600 to 1,000. The average score for admission into Berkeley is 1,337"

Proposition 209 to end affirmative action in California was an overwhelming legitimate public mandate to moral minors in Congress, public servants, feminists, and social engineers that their reign of terror is over.  But they haven't listened--yet. 

PUBLIC ENEMIES:

1. Federal "Judge" Thelton Henderson held up implementation for a year, claiming that we the people didn't know what we were voting for.  He will go down in infamy. 
2. Patrick J. Duggan of Federal District Court in Detroit, said Michigan's current policy, in which black and Hispanic applicants are given a 20-point boost on a 150-point scale, was perfectly legal  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/national/14MICH.html?pagewanted=all
3. Governor Gray Davis promised that if he was elected governor of California he would overthrow this public mandate.  He could not and will never deliver on that promise. 
4. PMS--N.O.W. promised blood in the streets if Proposition 209 passed.  They never looked more foolish. 
5. Jesse Jackson promised one million outraged minorities would march across the Golden Gate Bridge in protest.    Less than a thousand stomped across the bridge looking like dejected six year olds throwing sand in a sand box. 
6. Governor Bush of Florida promised that a similar initiative in Florida would not pass.  85% of Floridians disagreed with him.   
7. George W. Bush refused to endorse similar propositions in other states, making Pat Buchanan the only political figure besides ex-Governor Wilson of California to oppose aa, becoming a national hero and exposing yet another pandering retread. 
8. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown promised to ignore Proposition 209.  The FBI shut down the offending agencies.  
9. The jewish controlled mainstream media pretends that affirmative action is alive, propped up in a corner, casually smoking cigars.  It will forever remain a cold dead corpse. 
10. The US Supreme Court for 3 decades now has refused to do its job of declaring aa unconstitutional.   History will look down on them as traitors to the US Constitution.  Not a court in the land upheld the Constitutional rights of America's , with or without this prohibition against sexual discrimination.

The blood of millions of our children are on their hands.

At every twist and turn, our public servants raised their hands in the air, swore before God to uphold the US Constitution, accepted the trust we placed in them to honor their oaths, collected big salaries and benefits and retirement pay, and then LIED.  These moral minors forfeited their right to rule, their right to their salaries, their right to collect benefits at the great expense of the families they destroyed in the process.

Affirmative action has always been unconstitutional and immoral, in every state across the nation, on every inch of federal property--and it still is. It is flat out illegal in California and Washington, and when the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges against making it illegal, it became illegal in every state by default.  Every affirmative-action-based court decision in the land is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void, and will be struck down.

Family law court orders which placed a statistical 100% of the children of divorce into the "custody" of their mothers, which removed them from the safest and most secure environment known to mankind--their --are based solely on sex, and never on the best interests of children, and will be struck down.  When children placed into the custody of their mothers, compared to children with present, are more likely to go to prison by 20 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to become murderers by 8 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 14 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and [per Lenore Weitzman] to have a 72% lower standard of living, it is clear that unconstitutional and illegal sexual discrimination was the sole justification for this rampant, institutional child abuse.

Family law courts are required by the California Constitution to remove gender [read: sex] from all family law court orders!    We hereby demand that all unconstitutional court orders based solely on anti-male discrimination be struck down forthwith, and that all future "child custody awards" from courts take into account the following criteria:

Removing sex from family law courts elevates to the surface the REAL criteria regarding the best interests of children, which shows that "custody" of the children of divorce must be 86% to and 14% to mothers.