Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing.
“The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with idea of a critical mass, in that one would think the same size critical mass would be needed for all minority groups.”
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia said, concurring in part and dissenting in part, "Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system."
My Own Argument
Personally I think its ridiculous this case went before the Supreme Court… for one, couldn’t Barbara Grutter just settle on another college? And for two, why couldn’t the admissions department just accept her… its not like its that big of a deal, they probably wasted more money on this case than her entire tuition would have brought them… so… in my mind It doesn’t make sense… there are some VERY stubborn people out there in the world. Maybe they were trying to make a point, but I don’t agree with the admissions policy, honestly speaking here, I would rather have a successful student in my classroom than a dumber student of another race. We go to school at the art institute of Las Vegas, and they have admissions policies too! Based off skill, not gender or race, and trust me I’ve made some friends in admissions since I’ve been here… if there just so happens to be more Hispanic students who are better at practicing law than there are of white ethnic background, by all means go with the majority here… I think an admissions policy based off skill and talent is far better than one based off ethnic quota. It doesn’t make sense, not only that these people wasted money because neither wanted to back down, but also the admissions recipe is kind of lame… it may look like a cherry pie, but it has a sour lemon center!
Rule of Law
The decision of the court was based on the thought that diversity is required in Universities to provide a diverse education environment. The court holds that as long as the final decision is not based solely on race, then it is not unconstitutional. This upheld the position asserted in Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke.
reasoning of the court
The District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they were nearly indistinguishable from a quota system, which is illegal.
The Sixth-Circuit Court turned over the decision of the District Court, claiming that the use of race was to further the compelling interest of diversity.
“The Law School's racial preferences were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored. It held that the Law School's stated objective of enrolling a "critical mass" of "underrepresented" minority students was achieved through considering race as a "plus" factor in the manner approved by Justice Powell in Bakke and described in the "Harvard plan" referenced in Justice Powell's opinion. Finding that the Law School had no "fixed goal or target" for minority admissions, the court rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The Sixth-Circuit Court turned over the decision of the District Court, claiming that the use of race was to further the compelling interest of diversity.
“The Law School's racial preferences were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored. It held that the Law School's stated objective of enrolling a "critical mass" of "underrepresented" minority students was achieved through considering race as a "plus" factor in the manner approved by Justice Powell in Bakke and described in the "Harvard plan" referenced in Justice Powell's opinion. Finding that the Law School had no "fixed goal or target" for minority admissions, the court rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
decision of the court
“In a 5 to 4 decision involving the University of Michigan School of Law, the United States Supreme Court upheld the "flexible" consideration of race as one factor among many for admissions to public institutions of higher education.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced the decision; joining her in the majority ruling were Justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, And John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, And Clarence Thomas dissented.”
(http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/gravbol.html)
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling said that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” They believe that the interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority groups was a tailored use. They also held that in the future, racial affirmative action would no longer be required.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced the decision; joining her in the majority ruling were Justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, And John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, And Clarence Thomas dissented.”
(http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/gravbol.html)
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling said that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” They believe that the interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority groups was a tailored use. They also held that in the future, racial affirmative action would no longer be required.
Issue of the case
This case was brought before the Supreme Court after it was requested by Grutter, and the Center for Individual Rights. Two courts had made opposing decisions and so the Supreme Court agreed to look over the case and hear the arguments. Grutter had won in the District Court, however, in the Sixth Circuit court, she had lost.
“This case presents questions about what constitutes a compelling interest that may justify race-based preferences in student admissions at a state law school to applicants from certain racial or ethnic groups. The Sixth Circuit resolved this issue by concluding that the opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted binding precedent establishing "diversity" as such a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits have split on this issue of profound national importance. The First and Fourth Circuits, in cases involving racial preferences in admissions to public elementary and secondary schools, have issued opinions noting uncertainty about whether diversity is an interest sufficiently compelling to justify such preferences.
Even assuming "diversity" to be a compelling interest, this case presents additional questions concerning what constitutes appropriate "narrow tailoring" of an admissions policy designed to achieve diversity. The decision of the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the approach to narrow tailoring taken by this Court and by other lower courts. The Sixth Circuit's de novo review of the district court's factual findings concerning the racial preferences at issue was also an extraordinary departure from the rule that such findings should be reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. “
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The problem was that the University of Michigan Law School said that they wanted diversity on their campus. However, when actual numbers were looked at, African-American’s, Native Americans, and Hispanics were not equal in any sense of the word.
“In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. The Law School's ... current policy ... provides a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics'. But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."
9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
The point of this case was to determine whether or not the University could select a person over another person based on race, to avoid discrimination. The University argued that this wasn’t the only thing they used to determine who was admitted. They used a point system to add up all attributes.
“This case presents questions about what constitutes a compelling interest that may justify race-based preferences in student admissions at a state law school to applicants from certain racial or ethnic groups. The Sixth Circuit resolved this issue by concluding that the opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted binding precedent establishing "diversity" as such a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits have split on this issue of profound national importance. The First and Fourth Circuits, in cases involving racial preferences in admissions to public elementary and secondary schools, have issued opinions noting uncertainty about whether diversity is an interest sufficiently compelling to justify such preferences.
Even assuming "diversity" to be a compelling interest, this case presents additional questions concerning what constitutes appropriate "narrow tailoring" of an admissions policy designed to achieve diversity. The decision of the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the approach to narrow tailoring taken by this Court and by other lower courts. The Sixth Circuit's de novo review of the district court's factual findings concerning the racial preferences at issue was also an extraordinary departure from the rule that such findings should be reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. “
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The problem was that the University of Michigan Law School said that they wanted diversity on their campus. However, when actual numbers were looked at, African-American’s, Native Americans, and Hispanics were not equal in any sense of the word.
“In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. The Law School's ... current policy ... provides a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics'. But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."
9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
The point of this case was to determine whether or not the University could select a person over another person based on race, to avoid discrimination. The University argued that this wasn’t the only thing they used to determine who was admitted. They used a point system to add up all attributes.
Facts of the case...
This case began in 1996 when the University of Michigan Law School rejected Barbara Grutter. She was a white Michigan resident who had a 3.8 grade point average and a score of 161 on her Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). She contacted the Center for Individual Rights. The Center for Individual Right filed a suit on her behalf in December of 1997. They sued, saying that the school’s action was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was said that the Law School rejected Barbara Grutter because it used race as a main factor, which gave applicants of a minority race with similar credentials a greater chance at admission. The defendant was Lee Bollinger, who was the President of the university. He worked toward the purpose of achieving racial diversity in the student body.
“Plaintiff Barbara Grutter is a white resident of the state of Michigan who applied at the age of 43 in December 1996 for admission into the fall 1997 first-year class of the University of Michigan Law School. She applied with a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and an LSAT score of 161, representing the 86th percentile nationally. The Law School first placed Ms. Grutter on the "waitlist," and subsequently denied her admission. Ms. Grutter has not enrolled in law school elsewhere. She still desires to attend the Law School. The Law School admits that Ms. Grutter probably would have been admitted had she been a member of one of the racial minority groups to which the Law School gives a preference. (Comments of Law School counsel during oral argument).”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The case first went to the U.S. District Court, to be heard in front of Judge Bernard A. Friedman. He ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional. The case was next taken to the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals in May 2002. This court reversed the decision. This led to the plaintiffs requesting that the Supreme Court review the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to. The Court had not heard a case on affirmative action in education for 25 years, during the Bakke decision.
“Plaintiff Barbara Grutter is a white resident of the state of Michigan who applied at the age of 43 in December 1996 for admission into the fall 1997 first-year class of the University of Michigan Law School. She applied with a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and an LSAT score of 161, representing the 86th percentile nationally. The Law School first placed Ms. Grutter on the "waitlist," and subsequently denied her admission. Ms. Grutter has not enrolled in law school elsewhere. She still desires to attend the Law School. The Law School admits that Ms. Grutter probably would have been admitted had she been a member of one of the racial minority groups to which the Law School gives a preference. (Comments of Law School counsel during oral argument).”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The case first went to the U.S. District Court, to be heard in front of Judge Bernard A. Friedman. He ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional. The case was next taken to the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals in May 2002. This court reversed the decision. This led to the plaintiffs requesting that the Supreme Court review the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to. The Court had not heard a case on affirmative action in education for 25 years, during the Bakke decision.
First Monday in October...Hmm
Today in class, we viewed part of “First Monday in October” (1981). During the snippet from the film, we see Chief Justice Loomis confront Chief Justice Snow on the issue of him not attending a screening of the film “The Naked Nymphomaniac”. Loomis is a “staunch conservative” who fights and argues with Snow throughout the movie, and although they never fully see eye to eye, they eventually learn to respect one another.
My opinion… well I would have to see the whole movie in order to make a clear and thorough assessment, but I can tell you this from what I’ve seen, that woman is a menace! (Just kidding)… On a serious note though, she is very liberal, and I understand & agree with many of her points she brings up. It’s good to see someone protecting virtue and morality but at the same time, people need to have a right to express themselves, and though I’m not a fan of pornography, SOME of it I’m sure can be artistic… the human body is artistic, that’s why we have life drawing classes, and the people are naked! Though I’m almost sure “The Naked Nymphomaniac” lacks passion and creativity, some people somewhere would probably call it beautiful… I understand both chief justice Snow and Loomis’ points of view… my suggestion to the case or to the filmmaker would be to “clean it up” I’m not really sure on the laws of the time, but I would make him put plenty of “warnings” and “caution” and “notice” 18+ etc. splash pages on the beginning of the film…
People have a right to be conservative and not view material such as this, AND people have a right to be liberal and walk around their house naked, but I think that there is a difference between “unchecked” liberalism and “psychotic” conservatism. A nice warm middle ground is where I think America should set its sights. But wait, look at the liberalistic, perverse, insane, absurd, disgusting, pathetic, dangerous, hypocritical, violent, turmoil that our country/world has become today… you fight a good fight CJ Loomis, but it looks like it’s all just gone to hell now… like Snow said, “So its crap. What if it is crap? That's not the point. Crap's got the right to be crap.”
My opinion… well I would have to see the whole movie in order to make a clear and thorough assessment, but I can tell you this from what I’ve seen, that woman is a menace! (Just kidding)… On a serious note though, she is very liberal, and I understand & agree with many of her points she brings up. It’s good to see someone protecting virtue and morality but at the same time, people need to have a right to express themselves, and though I’m not a fan of pornography, SOME of it I’m sure can be artistic… the human body is artistic, that’s why we have life drawing classes, and the people are naked! Though I’m almost sure “The Naked Nymphomaniac” lacks passion and creativity, some people somewhere would probably call it beautiful… I understand both chief justice Snow and Loomis’ points of view… my suggestion to the case or to the filmmaker would be to “clean it up” I’m not really sure on the laws of the time, but I would make him put plenty of “warnings” and “caution” and “notice” 18+ etc. splash pages on the beginning of the film…
People have a right to be conservative and not view material such as this, AND people have a right to be liberal and walk around their house naked, but I think that there is a difference between “unchecked” liberalism and “psychotic” conservatism. A nice warm middle ground is where I think America should set its sights. But wait, look at the liberalistic, perverse, insane, absurd, disgusting, pathetic, dangerous, hypocritical, violent, turmoil that our country/world has become today… you fight a good fight CJ Loomis, but it looks like it’s all just gone to hell now… like Snow said, “So its crap. What if it is crap? That's not the point. Crap's got the right to be crap.”
ILLICIT: The Dark Trade
Honestly I’ve never purchased a “fake” bag or watch or anything of the sort… I have expensive taste and a knock off won’t do it for me. Walking into Louis Vuitton and paying $1350.00 for a signature tote like I did last year for my mother’s Christmas present is more my style. There is something about paying that much money for a bag that is ridiculous and thrilling all at the same time. Downloading music off Limewire on the other hand is something in the past I’ve been known to excessively abuse. That is until I discovered iTunes. When I bought my Mac it came with iTunes and I had an account with them… purchasing songs for a buck doesn’t seem that big of a deal, especially if I like the artist I will buy the whole album… because I’m lazy and I don’t feel like scouring P2P (peer to peer) sites or clients to find what I want. Knowing now about illegal trade and how it affects people’s lives I consider it a bad thing, and I would never purchase a fake because that would be supporting the industry. I know these are intelligent people trying to make a living and perhaps illegal trade does give people jobs, but at the same time, they are capable of finding other sources of income… to hear someone say that it’s the only way for them to make money, or support their family. That’s a “cop out” I firmly believe that people are right where they want to be in life, if they aren’t, they need to change it, or ask for help if they don’t know how… things like buying and selling illegally are dangerous no matter the product. And if you think you’re getting a good deal, you probably are, at the time… but what if your purchase goes to fund the creation of a bomb that blows up your city? In other countries it’s how they do business or, at least some of the time… I think governments need to come together to make an international organization that can have free reign over territories and borders to combat this illegal trade, that would make it faster for governments to catch and stop this activity… that and arresting key members to bring down crime organizations. The world needs to unite to stop this evil and make life a better and safer place for all.
thanks for reading,
-A
thanks for reading,
-A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Latest:.
I have to say that 2017 has been epic interesting... Thinking about the past several years and wrapping that up in a blog post, a blog t...
