The Supreme Court delivered ruling, 6-2, to Affirmative Action this week by siding with Michigan. FNC’s Chris Wallace hosts this spirited debate between Jennifer Gratz (XIV Foundation CEO) and Shanta Driver (Civil Rights Attorney) as they weigh in with their take on the Supreme Court decision.
Good Segment
While the Obama administration did not file a brief in the case, Attorney General Eric Holder today praised Justice Sotomayor’s “courageous and personal dissent” in Schuette v. BAMN, yesterday’s decision upholding the right of Michigan voters to ban racial preferences in public university admissions. Holder’s remarks were, naturally, given at the Justice Department’s “Diversity and Inclusion Speaker Series.” (read more)
The ruling was 6-2 with only a Sotomayor splodey’….
Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, a key decision in an unfolding legal and political battle nationally over affirmative action.
The justices found 6-2 that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters.
It bars publicly funded colleges from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision. (more…)
(Via Heritage) President Obama’s health care law made its way back to the Supreme Court of the United States today. In addition to being unsound health care policy by limiting patient choice and increasing costs, it also requires businesses to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two challenges to the Obamacare mandate.
Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts chain owned by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians, with over 13,000 employees. Hobby Lobby would face potential fines of almost $475 million a year if they fail to comply with this mandate.
Conestoga Wood Specialties is a kitchen cabinet manufacturer run by the Hahns, a Mennonite family, with almost 1,000 employees. It would face financial penalties of about $35 million per year. Along with more than 300 plaintiffs in over 90 lawsuits, the Green and Hahn families believe that complying with the Obamacare mandate would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
We’ve noticed several independent minded blogs beginning to pose the ultimate question around full-scale legislated gun confiscations in Connecticut. (Links follow Summary Article)
(The Courant) Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.
But few thought the figures would be this bad.
By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.
That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.
NO, actually having a Supreme Court Justice who cannot apply the term “illegal” to unlawful criminal behavior is what I would consider insulting.
Remember, this is one of the Supreme Court Justices.
As in – a co-equal branch of government whose very charter is “interpreting” laws, and legal definitions therein. Legal definitions are then used to frame judicial opinion toward the constitutional authority of the law to stand.
In a very specific sense all the Supremes do is interpret law 24/7/365 and apply opinion toward definitions contained within the words.
CBS – […] On the Supreme Court since 2009, Sotomayor said it was tough at first as justices made references that went over her head. She said joining the high court amounted to joining an ongoing conversation among justices who had served for years.
“I figure I may not be the smartest judge on the court but I’m going to be a competent justice,” she said. “I’m going to try to be the best I can and each year I think my opinions have been getting better. And I’m working at finding my voice a little bit.”
Sotomayor was asked at a talk at Yale Law School later in the day about her use of the term “undocumented immigrants” rather than the traditional illegal alien. Sotomayor characterized the issue as a regulatory problem and said labeling immigrants criminals seemed insulting to her. (more…)