Green Room

Interesting: Supreme Court agrees to hear Michigan affirmative action case

posted at 12:59 pm on March 25, 2013 by

This is definitely one that I’ll be watching — last fall, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati struck down Michigan’s 2006 state constitutional amendment banning public colleges from considering race as a factor in their admissions processing, and the Supreme Court is going to take up the case.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider a Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public college admissions. …

The Michigan law bans preferential treatment toward any candidates in public university admissions.

The high court is simultaneously considering a case on whether colleges and universities can continue to give special preference to minority candidates in admissions policies, in a case involving the University of Texas. A ruling in that case, Fisher v. University of Texas, is expected imminently and will come no later than the end of June.

That the court agreed to hear the Michigan case before deciding the Texas case is unusual. The court’s normal practice is to wait until it has issued a ruling before agreeing to hear another case on a related issue. This may mean that the court is struggling to decide the Texas case, or that the ruling could be coming as soon as this week.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bet they uphold the admission policy.

changer1701 on March 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM

ScotusBlog draws some potential distinctions between the two cases:

The Fisher case, while it does have fairly broad potential, focuses directly only on the specifics of an affirmative action plan at Texas’s flagship university in Austin, and so the ruling in that case might not go much beyond that plan. The Michigan case, however, involves a move by a state to deny its public colleges and universities any right to use race as a factor in choosing the incoming class of students. It thus has the potential to produce a far more sweeping decision.

msmveritas on March 25, 2013 at 1:34 PM

The ban must be banned. A future plantation president will need it. Look how well this one is working out.
/s

RedInMD on March 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Bet they uphold the admission policy.

Jon Souter Roberts declares it a tax FTW.

18-1 on March 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM

With their public schools ‘graduating’ ‘students’ who are literally unable to read anything more complex than the lyrics to their rap CD, little short of a ham-handed law can get them admitted.

MelonCollie on March 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM

That the court agreed to hear the Michigan case before deciding the Texas case is unusual. The court’s normal practice is to wait until it has issued a ruling before agreeing to hear another case on a related issue. This may mean that the court is struggling to decide the Texas case, or that the ruling could be coming as soon as this week.

Or it could mean that they are setting up a series of rulings as precedents for a sweeping change coming down the pike as was done with Roe vs Wade.

Rocks on March 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM

It’s all for show anyway. The Universities decided long ago to simply ignore Prop 2. As a faculty member, I know that admissions and hiring are nowhere near gender- and race-neutral.

Clark1 on March 25, 2013 at 4:01 PM

They’ll uphold the discriminatory racial preferences, Sandra Day O’Connor made it clear in her opinion back in 2003 that these discriminatory policies would continue for another quarter century at least, bringing the total time we’ve allowed the absurd practice of discriminating to prevent discrimination to 75 years, almost a century, think how many lives have already been ruined and will be ruined over that time because of this nonsense.

clearbluesky on March 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM

The practice of race and politically correctness based affirmative action discrimination will be upheld.

1) The Constitution demands equal rights, therefore the courts will uphold the system that makes some people more equal than others. To do anything else would weaken the power of the Nomenklatura.

2) The 2006 Michigan Constitutional amendment had to have been approved by the voters. That means that the courts will strike it down to avoid a precedent of citizen control of government being established and maybe even believed.

3) There is no longer anything resembling a Conservative majority on the Court by any reasonable reading. They will do as they are told by the Left, and make up an excuse. The excuse does not have to be either credible or believable, because who is going to do anything about it.

Subotai Bahadur on March 25, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Roberts will never be able to rehabilitate his reputation. The left will write history but given the fact the Republic will not survive if the left gets it way it really won’t matter.

Voluble on March 25, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Way past time to put the race industry 6 feet under.

SouthernGent on March 25, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Surely the Post-Racial President will submit an amicus brief alerting the Supreme Court to the fact that since the First Gay Black Muslim Socialist has been elected twice, and he was able to get into Haaavahd by being the Smartest Person Ever, that racism has been eradicated and affirmative-action set-asides are no longer necessary?

Right? RIGHT???

Maddie on March 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM

They are probably just taking up the Michigan case because it is so similar to the Texas case. Once they decide the Texas case they can remand the Michigan case back to the court of appeals with directions to reconsider in light of the recent ruling in the Texas case.

On the issues of the case — explain to me why certain black girls would get preferential treatment over my boys. The black girls are the descendants of American slave owners, not slaves, and their father is the most powerful man on the planet. Meanwhile, during the slave era, my boys’ descendants were either farming olives in Sicily or potatoes in Ireland. My boys have no stain of this alleged original sin of slavery, but those girls do.

Thus, is the logic of punishing C and benefiting D for what A did to B.

tommylotto on March 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM