Federal Court Overturns Voter enacted Ban on Affirmative Action

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
DETROIT — Michigan's ban on affirmative action in college admissions was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a deeply divided federal appeals court, six years after state voters said race could not be an issue in choosing students.

In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.

That burden "undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," said Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The court said having supporters and opponents debate affirmative action through the governing boards of each public university would be much fairer than cementing a ban in the constitution, which it referred to as home of "the highest level" of public policy.

The court did not comment on a portion of the amendment that deals with government hiring.

The decision is limited to states in the 6th Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. But it also raises the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court may get involved. A very similar law in California was upheld by a San Francisco-based appeals court, and the Supreme Court could choose to resolve the conflicting decisions of the 9th Circuit and the 6th Circuit on voter-approved bans.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a supporter of the ban, said he will ask the nation's highest court to take the case.

"Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit," he said.

George Washington, a Detroit attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said the ruling is a "tremendous victory." He predicted the case will move to the Supreme Court.

"What this really means is thousands of blacks and Latinos who would not have had a chance to go to our most selective universities will have the chance to become lawyers, doctors and leaders of all fields," Washington said.

(snip)

This is the second time that the appeals court has examined Michigan's affirmative action issue. A three-judge panel last year also found the ban unconstitutional for similar reasons. But after a plea from Schuette, the entire court decided to take a fresh look at the matter, with new filings and arguments leading to the new ruling Thursday.

In a 32-page opinion, the court's majority explained the difficulties that it sees for students under the constitutional amendment. For example, there's nothing barring someone from citing family alumni connections when applying to a college. But the court said a student seeking to use race to influence the admissions process now is shut out unless the constitution is changed again.

"Michigan cannot force those advocating for consideration of racial factors to traverse a more arduous road without violating the Fourteenth Amendment," the court said. "We thus conclude that Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests."

In dissent, Judge Danny Boggs said the majority relied on an "extreme extension" of two Supreme Court cases to justify its decision, one in 1969 involving the repeal of a fair housing law in Akron, Ohio, and the other in 1982 involving an effort to stop racial integration in Seattle schools.

"We have the citizens of the entire state establishing a principle that would in general have seemed laudable," Boggs said of Michigan.

Another dissenter, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, said the will of 58 percent of voters in 2006 has been shredded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/university-of-michigan-affirmative-action_n_2139484.html

I guess I really don't understand this. 58% of Michiganders said they wanted no race based considerations allowed in the admissions process but its unconstitutional because someone wanting to change the ban would have to follow the exact same procedure that were followed to put it in place? :confused: It seems to me that if both sides can change the law in the exact same way that would qualify as 'equal access to the tools of political change'
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Since the Obamacare ruling, I was under the impression that judges weren't supposed to reverse democratically arrived-at laws. Oh well.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/university-of-michigan-affirmative-action_n_2139484.html

I guess I really don't understand this. 58% of Michiganders said they wanted no race based considerations allowed in the admissions process but its unconstitutional because someone wanting to change the ban would have to follow the exact same procedure that were followed to put it in place? :confused: It seems to me that if both sides can change the law in the exact same way that would qualify as 'equal access to the tools of political change'

i agree. this makes no sense to me.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Wow, I'm wary of people who complain about "activist judges" but this ruling is insane. I hope the Supreme Court smacks them down.
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.

That is the key reason they used. Apparently expensive counter ballot measures are good enough reason to strike a law down, which of course is a bunch of BS.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The logic (or rather, lack thereof) used for the ruling is absolutely astounding. Basically, they're saying that regardless of how the people voted, that it would be expensive for those who feel differently to mount the opposite campaign and thus the amendment can't be left to stand. Essentially, the court is saying "we didn't like the outcome, we disagree with the public on this one so the amendment can't be allowed to stand". They didn't even bother with the pretense of constitutionality on this one.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.

That is the key reason they used. Apparently expensive counter ballot measures are good enough reason to strike a law down, which of course is a bunch of BS.

The logic (or rather, lack thereof) used for the ruling is absolutely astounding. Basically, they're saying that regardless of how the people voted, that it would be expensive for those who feel differently to mount the opposite campaign and thus the amendment can't be left to stand. Essentially, the court is saying "we didn't like the outcome, we disagree with the public on this one so the amendment can't be allowed to stand". They didn't even bother with the pretense of constitutionality on this one.

I have been thinking about this some more. If it is too expensive to get something in the Michigan constitution shouldn't all amendments be removed? After all they were majority opinions by necessity which would mean a minority group would face an expensive campaign to reverse the amendment.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,683
6,736
126
It's going to be amusing to watch, in a few more generations, as white people clamor for racial anti-discrimination laws when today's minority but tomorrows majority owned businesses won't hire them simply out of revenge.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I have been thinking about this some more. If it is too expensive to get something in the Michigan constitution shouldn't all amendments be removed? After all they were majority opinions by necessity which would mean a minority group would face an expensive campaign to reverse the amendment.

Exactly, that's why I said, the "logic" is absolutely astounding. One of the mental midgets behind this ruling will probably get added to the SCOTUS by obummer soon.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
It's going to be amusing to watch, in a few more generations, as white people clamor for racial anti-discrimination laws when today's minority but tomorrows majority owned businesses won't hire them simply out of revenge.

The group most harmed by affirmative action isn't whites by southeast Asians.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
It's going to be amusing to watch, in a few more generations, as white people clamor for racial anti-discrimination laws when today's minority but tomorrows majority owned businesses won't hire them simply out of revenge.

Won't hire them out of revenge? How else do you think the then majority business owners will get work done??? Hahaha...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,683
6,736
126
Won't hire them out of revenge? How else do you think the then majority business owners will get work done??? Hahaha...

By hiring the most qualified people, of course, just like now. It will have transpired by some strange magic of numbers, that they will mostly all be people of color.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,656
9,955
136
Judges have become political activists themselves. It's just the way society works, they cannot escape the partisan echo chamber anymore than the rest of us. The concept behind their branch of government is imperiled.

Folks may have been removed and more impartial when the world was larger, but that's just not possible today.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
Oh no, amusing is something quite different than funny and as an idiot, you WOULD think it was THE RACISM I will find amusing.

a·mus·ing /əˈmyo oziNG/Adjective: Causing laughter or providing entertainment.

Synonyms: funny - entertaining - humorous - droll - comical - comic

Fun fact, changing word definitions (such as 'secret' vs 'mystery') is a key tactic in Jehovah's Witness publishing's. Turns out, you can change a statement to almost anything you like that way. Did you meet your pioneering quota yet this month?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Righties engage in deception & denial, as usual. Why, if they can successfully claim that Racism has been vanquished, they'll be free to practice it as always- discreetly, of course. If it doesn't officially exist, they can't possibly practice it, can they? Yep, 50 years of affirmative action has overcome 200 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and the cultural mindset of those who imposed such things! Don't need it any more!

It's not as if they've been sponsoring Jimmy Crow's comeback tour, is it? Fearmongering about a black guy in a leather coat & beret standing outside of an overwhelmingly black polling place? Race baiting over welfare & Obamaphones? Raving about fraud when Mitt the twit received no votes in some black Democratic strongholds?

Yeh, racism is dead- killed by gerrymandered redistricting, huh? By disproportionate sentencing, right? By Romney blaming defeat on Obama "gifting" minorities, huh? By blaming near economic collapse on predominantly black poor people instead of the powerful people who actually caused it?

Do you you guys actually believe your own bullshit?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Righties engage in deception & denial, as usual. Why, if they can successfully claim that Racism has been vanquished, they'll be free to practice it as always- discreetly, of course. If it doesn't officially exist, they can't possibly practice it, can they? Yep, 50 years of affirmative action has overcome 200 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and the cultural mindset of those who imposed such things! Don't need it any more!

It's not as if they've been sponsoring Jimmy Crow's comeback tour, is it? Fearmongering about a black guy in a leather coat & beret standing outside of an overwhelmingly black polling place? Race baiting over welfare & Obamaphones? Raving about fraud when Mitt the twit received no votes in some black Democratic strongholds?

Yeh, racism is dead- killed by gerrymandered redistricting, huh? By disproportionate sentencing, right? By Romney blaming defeat on Obama "gifting" minorities, huh? By blaming near economic collapse on predominantly black poor people instead of the powerful people who actually caused it?

Do you you guys actually believe your own bullshit?

racism is always going to be around when you promote it. saying one class of the US is so stupid they need AA to even be considered "equal" to another is not helping.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
racism is always going to be around when you promote it. saying one class of the US is so stupid they need AA to even be considered "equal" to another is not helping.

Indeed- all this resentment about AA, about remedial action to bring black people up to economic parity after hundreds of years of exploitation & repression definitely explains & sustains racism, no doubt.

So, uhh, would you say the same thing about rich people & legacy admissions to prominent universities, basically saying that their kids are too stupid to gain admission on their own? Or is it different when we're talking about the privileged Rich?
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
434
117
116
I also don't see why this law was overturned. Unless a state law is unconstitutional or directly contradicts a federal law, what business is it of the court to uphold or deny the law? Courts are not a legislative body, and this ruling seems to directly defy their role as those who uphold the law.
Jhhnn, there is obviously a lot of racism, and other problems that exist in this nation, but your argument doesn't even attempt to address the ruling or offer a reason why you think it should be upheld.
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Indeed- all this resentment about AA, about remedial action to bring black people up to economic parity after hundreds of years of exploitation & repression definitely explains & sustains racism, no doubt.

So, uhh, would you say the same thing about rich people & legacy admissions to prominent universities, basically saying that their kids are too stupid to gain admission on their own? Or is it different when we're talking about the privileged Rich?

nope fuck them too. legacy admissions should be ended. IF you don't get the GPA, Test scores, etc to get in you go to a lower level school.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Asians in the US are living breathing proof that Affirmative Action is not nor ever was needed, not work place or college diversity/quotas, none of it!

Asians have the highest college graduation rates and success rates of any race in the US including Whites and they did not need any special treatment, handouts or privileges to achieve this.

Asian success in the US is overwhelming proof that if you are a failure in this country it is not because of your skin pigmentation it is because you are just a g-damn failure period!
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Asians in the US are living breathing proof that Affirmative Action is not nor ever was needed, not work place or college diversity/quotas, none of it!

Asians have the highest college graduation rates and success rates of any race in the US including Whites and they did not need any special treatment, handouts or privileges to achieve this.

Asian success in the US is overwhelming proof that if you are a failure in this country it is not because of your skin pigmentation it is because you are just a g-damn failure period!

agreed. It's more a culture situation then it is a color situation.