Ask Me Help Desk - Big week for SCOTUS

Big week for SCOTUS

This week SCOTUS will make rulings on 4 cases that could be historic.

Fisher v. University of Texas
The petitioners argued that racial preferences in admissions to the University of Texas violate the 14 Amendment of the Constitution .The court could make a narrow ruling ,or it could overturn all similar cases in favor of racial preferences.

Shelby County v. Holder
Deals with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). We have discussed this one at length . Does Section 5 violate the 15th Amendement ? The court will decide.

Then there are the 2 cases about homosexual "marriage" .

U.S. v. Windsor
Challenges the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .Specifically ;does Sec 3 of DOMA violate the 5th amendment ?

Hollingsworth v. Perry
Will ask if restrictions on homosexual marriages in the states violates the 14th amendment .

Looks like they just ruled against racial preference. Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

Looks like they just ruled against racial preference. Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

Looks like SCOTUS punted on this one.. Next term they will consider 'Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action'. Perhaps then they will make a major ruling .
They sent the Fisher case back to the Fifth Circuit Court with instructions that the appeals court ruled in error .That court ruled that UT Austin had wide latitude in intepreting the decision of SCOTUS in the 'Grutter v. Bollinger' case ,where the court rejected the use of racial quotas; but said that schools could consider race as part of a "holistic" review of a student's application.

Thanks, I missed all that with just one ear tuned to the TV blurb news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

The 14th amendment Sec 1 was intended to end racial preferences . Whether affirmative action was 'necessary' or not does not change the reality that it violates the very principle of the 14th .

I always felt uneasy about affirmative action.
I liked it better than handing out reparations. SOMETHING was due.
The Constitution and the Amendments were written sparsely so that they could and would be constantly open to interpretation, as they always have been.
More fundamental rights had been violated for 100 years before the 14th. Some give and take was needed. You can stand by the Constitution without bowing before it.

There is a mechanism for changing the constitution and it isn't via a reinterpretation of the same words. "Equal protection of the laws" is pretty clear.

Quote:

I liked it better than handing out reparations. SOMETHING was due.

General Sherman had the right idea 'special field orders #15' aka '40 acres and a mule '.
He had settled 10,000 former slaves on productive lands that they would own ;but Andrew Johnson reversed the order ,and returned the land to the plantation owners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

General Sherman had the right idea 'special field orders #15' aka '40 acres and a mule '.
He had settled 10,000 former slaves on productive lands that they would own ;but Andrew Johnson reversed the order ,and returned the land to the plantation owners.

There you have it. Sometimes we do have to make up for lost time.

My first ancestor here was a German in 1709, who harvested pitch for Queen Anne's Navy, in exchange for land below Albany that he never got. It was to come out of hundreds of square miles given earlier to a man named Livingston, but Livingston wasn't having any of it, and even tried to get the natives to help, but they helped the starving settlers instead. His descendants are James and Livingston Taylor. I suppose I could claim reparations and then give them to the tribes who helped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

There you have it. Sometimes we do have to make up for lost time.

My first ancestor here was a German in 1709, who harvested pitch for Queen Anne's Navy, in exchange for land below Albany that he never got. It was to come out of hundreds of square miles given earlier to a man named Livingston, but Livingston wasn't having any of it, and even tried to get the natives to help, but they helped the starving settlers instead. His descendants are James and Livingston Taylor. I suppose I could claim reparations and then give them to the tribes who helped.

And meanwhile, my dad who served in the navy faces losing everything - including the farm that's been in the family for decades - to pay for VA nursing home care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And meanwhile, my dad who served in the navy faces losing everything - including the farm that's been in the family for decades - to pay for VA nursing home care.

Are VA benefits like Medicare?
I'm sorry he didn't sell/give it to his children 5+ years before.

Reparations may very well have had their place in 1865 . Special order 15 attempted to penalize the southern landowners who were largely responsible for both the slave trade ,and the rebellion .Sherman wasn't suggesting that Northern farmers surrender any land . Attempts at reparations usually lead to the corruption that was the 'Pigford v. Glickman' settlement .
What would've helped blacks post-Civil War was the so called 'radical reconstruction ' if only it could've lasted . What would've helped blacks would've been SCOTUS not blowing the Plessy v Ferguson decision ,which codified segregation in opposition to the 14th amendment . For that matter , SCOTUS blew the Dred Scott decision too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

Are VA benefits like Medicare?
I'm sorry he didn't sell/give it to his children 5+ years before.

He did what he could, and if anyone deserves the government taking care of them in their time of need it is our vets. But I digress from the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The 14th amendment Sec 1 was intended to end racial preferences . Whether affirmative action was 'necessary' or not does not change the reality that it violates the very principle of the 14th .

Tom, in your haste you forgot to include in you assessment of Section 1 the last bit

";nor deny and persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

From the examples you have given, the interpretation seems to be that people who are situated equally should be treated equally. However, " equal protection of the laws" means that if you decide to treat people differently then you need to provide a justification for doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, in your haste you forgot to include in you assessment of Section 1 the last bit

";nor deny and persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

From the examples you have given, the interpretation seems to be that people who are situated equally should be treated equally. However, " equal protection of the laws" means that if you decide to treat people differently then you need to provide a justification for doing so.

Not quite sure what you mean." Equal protection under the law "means what it means . It doesn't mean "except when you decide not to " . Segregation laws were violations of the 14th ;and racial preferences are also ,despite the good intent. Governments do a lot of harm with good intentions .

Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion on this case . Here are the highlights :

Quote:

I write separately to explain that I would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), and hold that a State's use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.

Quote:

Attaining diversity for its own sake is a nonstarter. As even Grutter recognized, the pursuit of diversity as an end is nothing more than impermissible "racial balancing."... Rather, diversity can only be the means by which the University obtains educational benefits; it cannot be an end pursued for its own sake. Therefore, the educational benefits allegedly produced by diversity must rise to the level of a compelling state interest in order for the program to survive strict scrutiny.

Quote:

It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society... The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...1-345_l5gm.pdf

Expect at least another decision today. The court has 6 more cases to complete before the term is up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

not quite sure what you mean." Equal protection under the law "means what it means . It doesn't mean "except when you decide not to " . Segregation laws were violations of the 14th ;and racial preferences are also ,despite the good intent. Governments do alot of harm with good intentions .

"Means what it means" is a tautology. This seems to be something like the line Thomas is pushing when he talks about ends being pursued for their own sake. However, I would like to address Thomas' quotes in detail a bit later.

Equal protection "under the law" must be different to equal protection "of the laws". If it were the same thing then there would be no need to add. "nor deny any persons....equal protection of the laws".

If you make a law that everyone will be treated equally it will always be the case that some will be treated more equally than others. This situation usually comes about by circumstances.

Protection of the laws means that there exists a provision for protecting people from inequalities that come about when you try enforce equality. Another way of saying this could be that processes of law protect people from the unfairness of government legislation. This working in two ways is one point that Thomas seems to miss.

Well then what you are saying is that there was no constitutional basis for the reversal of Plessy in 'Brown v Board of Education '. However ,there is case load going back to the 1891Caldwell v. Texas case where equal protection ,or equal justice have been used in the decision interpreting what is now commonly called the 'Equal Protection Clause ' of the 14th .

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote in the Caldwell v Texas case the following, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

well then what you are saying is that there was no constitutional basis for the reversal of Plessy in 'Brown v Board of Education '. However ,there is case load going back to the 1891Caldwell v. Texas case where equal protection ,or equal justice have been used in the decision interpreting what is now commonly called the 'Equal Protection Clause ' of the 14th .

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote in the Caldwell v Texas case the following, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."

I am not saying that at all.

Where am I arguing for separate educational institutions?

Where am I arguing against equal justice under the law?

Then what exactly are you saying ? Frankly it sounds like an academic debating exercise .
Seems like we are counting the angels on a pin trying to determine the nuiances between equal protection of the law and equal protection under the law. The phrases have been interchangeable since John Bingham drafted the Equal Protection Clause and mean the same thing.

SCOTUS has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, namely Sec. 4 - the preclearance section.

Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating the key enforcement provision that applies to all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.
Voices from the voting war

Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool in protecting minority voters from local governments that would set unfair, shifting barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warn, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.

But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations instead of perpetuating the problem. Go ahead lefties, whine away.

Quote:

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations.

Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

I'll give you their reasoning, but for me it takes away a tool your side uses to perpetuate the problem.

Quote:

(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4's coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.

What, you want to keep us in the stone(d) age?

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

You say that as if Dems don't gerrymander and discriminate.

Then we both have to stop the practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Then we both have to stop the practice.

At least you acknowledge it isn't just us.

1 Attachment(s)

The left isn't taking this well as expected. I thought they loved progress.

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

I support the decision . I'll comment in more detail when I read the opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

I believe that works both ways as well. And the thing is, blacks have more to fear from your side than ours... unless they just like being used as tools and selling their souls to the devil.

Initial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for Congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with Sec 5 . Of the Voting Rights Act. However ,the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way I read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the Voting Rights Act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the Roberts decision is this :

Quote:

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest andmost delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J. concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf
As I recall ;2009 both houses of Congress was majority Dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of SCOTUS about Sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving Obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if Congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the Voting Rights Act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

LOL, and you really think blacks are not smart enough to see where their own interest lies? Or any other minority group for that matter?

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

intial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with sec 5 . Of the voting rights act. However ,the court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way i read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the voting rights act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the roberts decision is this :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf
as i recall ;2009 both houses of congress was majority dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of scotus about sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the voting rights act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

Exactly!! Personally the law could be expanded as well as updated.

Quote:

You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them.

Funny ;that is exactly the problem our nanny state has .it presumes to know what's best for us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on...

Quote:

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on...

What's the right doing?

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, there are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

Quote:

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

you must be speaking to someone else. You know my view of how the markets should work has nothing to do with the corporations that have grown in size and scope specifically because they are the cronies of the "ruling class" . What you fail to realize is that is the inevidible outcome of policies you support.

As for the rest ;can you tell me when there is sufficient "safety net " ? Or will the need continue to grow until everyone's pocket is picked empty . One in Seven Americans are on that food stamp program you want to expand. When is enough enough ? Rome did not survive 'bread and circuses '.Why do you think we will ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, their are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

Here's the thing Tal, I don't ignore your corporate complaints - I'm just not obsessed by them and know your side is just as deep in the corporate muck as anyone.

As for the kids, you guys will either kill 'em or if they survive the womb, take control from their parents anyway because they don't belong to them so good luck with that, the government is so adept at running things.

Anyway, as tom said SCOTUS left the door open for changes, but it is time to stop living in the past on race relations... something a good liberal SHOULD say.