E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Supreme Court term that begins Monday promises to be one of the most important for civil rights in decades, with the potential for blockbuster decisions on issues from race in classrooms and the voting booth to legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
Related: Conservatives warily ponder prospect of an 'Obama court'
Less than a decade after ruling that the nation's colleges and universities can consider the race of student applicants to achieve more racially diverse campuses, a practice now widely used by the nation's selective schools, the court has agreed to take a fresh look.
The new challenge comes from Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. The school admits the top 10 percent of academic performers from all Texas high schools, then considers the race of applicants as one factor in admitting the remainder of an incoming freshman class.
Evan Vucci / AP
People who waited in line overnight to hear the Supreme Court on a landmark case on health care hold their belongings as they make their way into the court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012.
Fisher did not finish in the top 10 percent at her high school and claims that the consideration of race in reviewing applications cost her a spot at the university.
"There were people in my class with lower grades, who weren't in all the activities I was in, who were accepted into UT. And the only difference between us was the color of our skin," she said.
The university, backed by civil rights groups, contends that while the top 10 percent plan achieves some campus diversity, many of its classes would have only a few, if any, black and Hispanic students without additional considerations of race.
Making it harder to achieve the diversity colleges need, argues Gregory Garre, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing the University of Texas, "would jeopardize the nation's paramount interest in educating its future leaders in an environment that best prepares them for the society and workforce they will encounter."
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin joins Morning Joe to discuss President Obama's relationship with the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and his ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the relationships the justices have with one another.
The Supreme Court that will hear the case Oct. 10 is different from the one that upheld a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Michigan law school in 2003.
"Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court then, and she's been replaced by Samuel Alito, who has much less tolerance for affirmative action," says Tom Goldstein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court cases.
O'Connor, who wrote the decision in the Michigan case, retired from the court in 2006.
As a result, says Pamela Harris, a former Obama administration official in the Justice Department, "I don't think anyone thinks affirmative action is long for this world."
Justice Elena Kagan, considered one of the court's liberals, will sit this one out. She was the Obama administration's solicitor general when the Justice Department became involved in the case in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court will take up another racially charged issue this term if, as seems likely, it agrees to consider efforts to scale back the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then, most recently in 2006, a key provision requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes to election procedures -- from redrawing congressional district boundaries to changing the locations of polling places.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court brushed off a challenge to that requirement but strongly suggested that several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms.
"Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."
Pending cases ask the court to strike down the pre-clearance requirement entirely or throw out the list of areas, consisting of nine entire states, and of 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere, that must get permission to modify their election procedures.
The current map, says Bert Rein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing Shelby County, Ala., includes some localities that have made substantial reforms while missing other parts of the country that have failed to root out discrimination at the polls.
As a result, Rein says, the system is unfair. "Florida has been forced into pre-clearance litigation to prove that reducing early voting from 14 days to 8 is not discriminatory, when states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania have no early voting at all."
But Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund says the current map is a close enough fit to cover the areas of greatest concern.
"Congress is not a surgeon with a scalpel when it acts to legislate across the 50 states. But it can reasonably attack discrimination where it finds it," he says.
The court is almost certain to take up a host of challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
It defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." As a result, same-sex couples who get married in the states where such marriages are legal are accorded state and local benefits but miss out on more than 1,100 federal ones.
After at first defending the law, the Obama administration notified federal courts early last year that it concluded the law was unconstitutional. House Republicans then took up the law's defense.
A Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA as discriminatory would not force states to permit same-sex marriage. But it would require the federal government to recognize those marriages where they are legal.
The court could address the issue of same-sex marriage more directly if it takes up the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Legal experts differ on whether the court is prepared to go that far, rather than deciding the DOMA issue now and coming back to the constitutionality of gay marriage in a later term.
"We're not at the point where the Supreme Court will require the state of Mississippi to allow same-sex marriage," says Louis Michael Seidman of the Georgetown University Law Center.
Among other questions the justices will confront:
- Must police get a search warrant before taking a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver?
- How far can police go in using drug-sniffing dogs outside someone's house?
- Can a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, be used to bring lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law that occur in other countries?
- And, in an issue of growing interest to U.S. businesses, should more limits be placed on the ability to bring class-action lawsuits?
Leave a Comment:
Obama understands that blacks can not be held to the same standards as whites and must be given special treatment. Dumb republicans believe that blacks are able to succeed on their own just like whites. How dumb is that.
racist much?
No, just hate white republicans.
there is nothing racist about that statement. He is saying that we believe blacks are every bit as capable and intelligent as whites. Where is the racism in that statement? Obama is the racist is what he is saying
ask: ...I agree with your statement. Obama is basically telling blacks that they are inferior and deserve a bonus for it.
"Guidance issued jointly Friday afternoon by the Departments of Education and Justice states that diversity is an important educational goal, and that colleges should be able to use a variety of methods (including the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions) to achieve diversity.
Race can be outcome determinative for some participants in some circumstances. But race cannot be given so much weight that applicants are defined primarily by their race and are largely accepted or rejected on that basis."
The overall tone of the document is one that is supportive of a range of institutional efforts to promote diversity, and that is trying to help colleges assure the legality of their efforts. The guidance suggests that colleges develop formal plans, monitor those plans, and link the plans to educational goals of the institutions."
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/05/obama-administration-issues-affirmative-action-guidance-colleges#ixzz27hUrRM8A
Inside Higher Ed
If Obummer, Holder/ Rice & other Blacks have made it as far as they have, i see no reason for affirmative action.
The rest of these freeloaders need to get up off their ass's and put an effort to contributing to this country, instead of take- take- take.
They are following their parents example of free loading...
...I hope they do away with Affirmative Action ASAP! ...It is nothing more or less than reverse discrimination!
It's just discrimination. Aren't we all supposed to be treated equally under the law? Affirmative action has ALWAYS been discrimination. It was as though people thought that they could correct one wrong with another. Ludicrous.
@Go: I agree. ...I was just trying to use the politically correct term. But, you are just plain correct. ...I was denied a landscaping/street maintenence job with a city crew after going through a lengthy testing marathon back in the late 70's. I had the highest score on the testing of all applicants. They wound up hiring this cute lady who couldn't even lift the jackhammer they used in the testing, just to meet quota. ...A month later, I saw the newly-hired cute lady with the crew on the street. She was leaning against the truck while the men in the crew did all the work.
Zero allowances for race!
...and gender!
America wake up Obama is a person set out to cause the downfall of the USA- he will dived the USA north and south---- we will have to slplit from the union in order to have our religious rights-marriage God said is man and woman as he created --- not man and man or woman and woman- it is a sin- Obama isn't a christian if he stands up saying it is OK for same sex- and marriage- no no no not in Gods eyes- he took the religious verses off the rifles been on them since Jefferson put it on them- he allow bibles to be taken off air force bases-crosses to be removed- he allows the USA to be nothing in the eyes of the same people we fight to help have freedom yet they have more then we do--what he is --well I see stanin in work through him--- do you???- May God forgive---but help us keep God-Gods word as truth----
How about 1 man married to multiple women? The Bible is full of those. Oh yeah and concubines too.
Not what the Bible says, permitted will, but not the perfect will of God. "A man shall leave his mother and his father and cleave unto his wife (not plural) and they shall become one flesh." What God has joined, let no Man separate".
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.
Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.
Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....
Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....
Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....
1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.
1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Mt.25:1
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Again, permited, but not His perfect plan and you've taken His word out of context.....
Permitted? But not sinful even though it goes against the Bible's teachings? Even among God's own chosen people?
What about non-western monogamous marriages that are arranged at birth as business/political transactions? Do they count? Are they moral?
No wonder the US rates so low in education and voters elect idiots. Mitt and his fake Republican/Tea Party are taking us backward. Just think Brown vs Board of Education 1954 and Civil Rights Act 1964 decided Equality and US Rights for all. Now with lunatic/drug addicts in office and those running for office/President we see the US is asked to go backward. Most baby boomers are seeing the same fight they saw as youth and now the idiots are so student they even think Rape is Legitimate. Mitt hopes their are 51% dumb voters if not he loses.
@JACKIE REALLY PROGRESS lets since inception of liberal DOE in 1979 education decline ever since. So decline is what you call progress? That is where I am confused I always thought progress included improvement but decline is the answer ok now that I understand I can see your point better
Discriminating on the basis of race is racial discrimination. It needs to stop. If you say it is ok in one case then you best be accepting when it goes the other way.
The argument that racial discrimination by colleges is perparing students for the real world carries some truth as the real world also gives preference to undeserving, inept, uneducated people when it is not logical or reasonable. Just look at Detroit, which is the benefactor of 50 or 60 years of Democratic leadership. Only about 14% of those responsible for real estate taxes pay them. And, yes, the city is broke and cannot continue to provide services. A model that the Dems seem to embrace. Unfortunately, it does not work.
It is interesting that the NBP can intimidate voters and offer bounty to kill someone and nothing is done about it. An admiinistration that seletively enforces civil rights cannot be a voice for civil rights leadership.
As a country, we should be past all of this, but many special interest groups hold onto preferential treatment. As time goes on, the newer generations catch on to this and see it for what it is. They learn they are the targets of racism. And on it goes.
I worked in the tax assessors office in the county courthouse of a large Texas city in the late 1960's. There were three restrooms on the main floor....Men, Women, and Colored. I'm proud that our government made an attempt to make up for their lost time and dignity.
Land of the free...Home of the brave.
Try to remember that being an American is not supposed to be easy.
All they had to do was do away with the third toilet. They didn't have to set up quotas and give preferential treatment that still persists today. I truly believe that affirmative action has had a detrimental effect on minority populations as it set members of those groups up as victims.
Really tell that to those that self induce poverty and then expect me to bail them out. personal responsibility is a part of america and it is not easy but it still is their responsibility not my 10 year olds
Don't worry getting a benefit because of color is not racist, only when someone says something negative is it racist
GoUSA says " They didn't have to set up quotas and give preferential treatment that still persists today."
Maybe that because the need "still persists today".
I'm not surprised that you missed the point. How does one's dignity become restored?....by changing the sign? That's not enough.
I must also mention this city has always had a large Hispanic population that was not(officially) discriminated against in this building.
I hope the GOP and Tea Party will be happy with eliminating any kind of blending (call it what you want) for college admissions. None of them will ever get into Harvard, MIT or any of the big top schools as they will all be filled with Asian Americans and Indians. I'm not racist but look at the top achievers in high school classes.
At my daughter's high school, the top achievers come in every shade. I think someone forgot to tell these kids that their race or ethnicity plays into their abilities to achieve - IT'S WONDERFUL.
Whites are among those top achievers as well as some blacks. We must require performance as the entrance standard for college or we will continue to have 30% of those that receive aid dropping out with a debt that they can never pay off.
GO USA I graduated in 1981 and many of my friends that graduated were black and smart. It is the education system of the liberals that has created this mess by dumbing down the studies because they said it was unfair to blacks. So what did the liberals say with that black are not as smart now there is some racism. Funny most of us conservatives know better and want to help them
in my argument against same sex marriages being called or identified as marriage in all terms and definitions this is a union, a joining together, the product of the union is to create a child, and the child furthers the life of the family, but in same sex unions, their is no creation there is however a life style that has never been sanctified by any respectable religion or spiritual group until it came to be a political issue, I say "No" there should not be a label of marriage used on same sex unions, though they should get the same and equal protection of the law, and the benefits, I have never seen such anti-social behavior being label as socially acceptable, there is only death till they part, and we know that is a joke,
The ability or intent to procreate isn't a requirement for marriage, and never has been.
Nor is your favorite cult relevant to legal marriage. It sounds like you've confused marriage with "holy matrimony".
Looks like you bigots will lose in court again, since DOMA will be history by June.
Marriage is a government contract.
Religious ceremonies aren't recognized unless you buy a permit from the State otherwise known as a marriage license.
Please explain what marriage really is and its purpose and please provide your basis? If its just your opinion, well, I guess that makes you Lord of the Marriage World. Please, get a clue, just because something is made legal, doesn't make it right, nor moral. Like slavery was legal, but not right!
Marriage is a government contract which serves to create a basic family economic unit which is more stable and more productive than an individual active alone.
Families prosper or fail in large part based on whether the family, as a unit, has earned money or successfully held onto money that is inherited or received as a gift. Parents support their children; grown children sometimes support their aging and disabled parents. Lifetime transfers between adult partners or spouses and between parents and children can be the key to opportunity and success; the lack thereof can squelch opportunity. Transfers at death generally go to family members, especially spouses. The government props up families through programs like Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare; it provides economic support as well through various provisions of the tax code. Thus, although it is fashionable to treat family law and the laws of inheritance and tax as completely unrelated subjects, Gallanis’s piece is a reminder of how interconnected they are. For the “flexible family” to thrive, it must be recognized in these diverse legal frameworks, as well as from state to state and by the federal government.
http://trustest.jotwell.com/the-family-as-an-economic-unit/
The States and Federal Government do not endorse, or condemn any religious marriages. You can do whatever you want withing your religious morals, but it won't be legal and you will get no legal benefits if you don't get a State marriage license
Every time? I think you've purposefully forgotten about Arizona in 2006, where you bigots lost on Prop 107.
Funny too that you think that the civil rights of a minority should be put to a vote.
The supreme court said:
Three years ago, the Supreme Court brushed off a challenge to that requirement but strongly suggested that several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms.
"Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."
I agree, however now blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are far more subtle, and those individuals seeking to undermine the rights of some will go to great lengths to create a solution in search of a problem. Take for example the proposed voter ID laws.
So willie, you're saying that minorities cheat with respect to voting with respect to whites?
So MSNBC is in quite mode - Obama has been stepping in it all week and not a peep.
You stupid ignorant sheep - being led to slaughter.
When it hits the fan don't expect one of those "Tea Baggers" or others you have name called to help you. And don't think they will share the "Wealth". That being food and safety.
Morons -
quite what?
It's easy to fine - YOU find it. Hint: UN Speechs. Also the Admin KNEW at attack on 9/11 was coming. If it were Bush this would be front page. Obama could be caught on tape with two staffers in a 3-way in the Oval Office and the U-Tube video would be REMOVED.
There was a U-Tube of his UN speech. Try to find it.
Some of us watched it and watched it get GONE! WTFU!
Delusional paranoia. Look it up.
The republican supreme court is well on its way to eliminating civil rights in exchange for money. The US justice system is all about money, not justice. The republican supreme courts is also attempting to eliminate the parts of the US constitution that doesn't effect the 1%ers. This supreme court will be the catalyst for the next civil war an which an attempt will be made to eliminate as many of the elderly, sick and poor as possible to provide tax cuts to the 1%. How much justice can you afford today.
The notion of same-sex marriage is absurd; certainly not a civil rights issue.
Looks like the courts disagree with you, as do a number of states and many countries.
The reason you bigots keep losing in court is because you don't understand what the civil right of equal protection is.
the politicians are only the products of the educational institution they have attended. No one cares to be accountable for the education system in this country. Is it any wonder that students continue to slip in educational standards around the world. Teachers you are just as guilty with your excuses to produce and have been so a very long time. one phenom is ESL. oh the students do so much better if taught in their native language, instead of assimilating them into the culture of this country. So what is going to be next BSL, blacks as a second language and all black children are taught in eubonics? Those of you who cite the fact whites are smarter than blacks. Take a look Asian children are smarter than whites. Look it is time ALL these educational stigmas are dropped and education starts aspiring to raise our scholastic standards worldwide. Reverse affirmative action has been done to death. Do your jobs and stop making excuses. If you can't quit and find other employment.
No more race based results. All races can compete equally and isn't that the point? A qualified person is qualified...period. Let's get that into our heads....The Most qualified is the most qualified...period..I don't car what race that person or people are in....accept them.....why is this discussion even happening?....
People can't compete equally unless they have had exactly identical equal backgrounds, training and preparation. Obviously this is impossible.
"Guidance issued jointly Friday afternoon by the Departments of Education and Justice states that diversity is an important educational goal, and that colleges should be able to use a variety of methods (including the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions) to achieve diversity.
Race can be outcome determinative for some participants in some circumstances. But race cannot be given so much weight that applicants are defined primarily by their race and are largely accepted or rejected on that basis."
The overall tone of the document is one that is supportive of a range of institutional efforts to promote diversity, and that is trying to help colleges assure the legality of their efforts. The guidance suggests that colleges develop formal plans, monitor those plans, and link the plans to educational goals of the institutions."
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/05/obama-administration-issues-affirmative-action-guidance-colleges#ixzz27hUrRM8A
Inside Higher Ed
why do i need to get ALL MY NEWS from the 'daily mail" in the UK..... THEY REPORT ALL THE NEWS. good and bad about both candidates.....If you took a couple of days to check them out, you would see what the American media suppresses about Obama. According to them it's only blue skies above and I'm ready for love.
If the federal government is to recognize same sex marriages as being legal, then all I've got to say is that it's about time. This country is not ruled by gods and goddess, but my men and women. We are all the same and we are all different at the same time. if the government fails to recognize same sex maggiages, then they should ban and deem childless heterosexual marriages as being illegal too. It's only fair but if you don't agree - just count yourself as just another small minded bigot, and the 21 century is no place for such small thinkers.
...@Willie: ...That's why everybody calls 'em gay.
I agree Willie! Just because I oppose mixed-race marriage and think it shouldn't be legal, everybody calls me a bigot! It's just not fair!
Liberals to Black and Latino People, 40 years after the Civil Rights Movement:
"You're Too Stupid to Qualify for College On Your Own."
End the racist affirmative action policy now. Make all college acceptance based on academic record alone...if you want to tack on some frivolous, extra-curricular crap to the acceptance policy too, fine.
In the New World, post-affirmative action, everyone will know that any black person who got into a top college is a very smart guy.
It's easy to fine - YOU find it. Hint: UN Speechs. Also the Admin KNEW at attack on 9/11 was coming. If it were Bush this would be front page. Obama could be caught on tape with two staffers in a 3-way in the Oval Office and the U-Tube video would be REMOVED.
There was a U-Tube of his UN speech. Try to find it.
Some of us watched it and watched it get GONE! WTFU!
The republican supreme court justices will be beating down the door of the CEO of the republican party Rush Limbaugh to be instructed on how to vote on these decisions that will come before the supreme court. I understand that Donald Trump may assist Rush Limbaugh in making these decisions. Corruption is no stranger to the Republican supreme court, I can guess each decision going before the court and with no law experience get 99% of them right, so much for a law degree, a need for money out weights a law degree.
Mitt Romney defines civil rights as polite TeaBaggers.
In his heart, he doesn't support THEM either.
...Right on! ...I'm gonna vote for Mitt, just like you, @MSNBC!
Uh, grippie, THAT post made sense....
In case anyone might be wondering, Post #74.2 was a failed attempt at sarcasm on my part.
On gay marriage, I'm hoping the Supreme Court, now that Chief Justice Roberts covered his non-partisan bases by allowing unconstitutional Obamacare,
will put an end to liberals bizarre obsession with turning gay sex fetishes into a civil rights movement and changing marital standards, school curriculum, and business hiring practices to accomodate it.
C'mon Johnny Boy, you threw the deranged Left a bone, now, let's get some REAL JUSTICE from the court.
Chesty,
So now you're attributing John Roberts' decision regarding Obamacare as a polite and somewhat deferential nod to nonpartisanship?
Face it, Chesty. Roberts took the blinders off for a moment and saw God.
It wan't a political manipulation for the Chief Justice, it was a spiritual revelation.
Judges are *supposed* to be conservative -- by job description. An activist judge is not a judge -- it's an impostor. Two of Obama's appointments match that description.
Porter,
You couldn't be more wrong. Judges aren't SUPPOSED to be anything at all.
That is why there are ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHATSOEVER to be eligible to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
Whereas a President must be born in the United States and have reached the age of 35, a nominee to the Court can be a six-limbed Cambodian infant who has no prospects for living beyond the age of five.
The Founding Fathers wanted it that way, in fact, as they were sending the clearest possible message that when it came to justice, no one person came into the game holding a better hand.
So no more talk of justices having to be conservative by design. They were intended to exercise their own judgment in deciding cases, wherever that might lead and whatever that might be.
Wrong. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge a case on it's merits while interpreting the application of the law.
If they were supposed to be conservative you would be putting your thumb on the scales of justice.
Lame Kennedy says Obamacare is a tax. Obamao is a tax on the American people. Reid, Biden, and Pelosi, are tax penalties. This ol' she-bang needs to come down.
Get ready for some disappointment, Urban.
Obama & Michelle spent 1.2 BILLION tax payer dollars on Vacations, Parties Perks and even a little campaigning (which is illegal)
last year alone!
DOG BO has a personal assistant that gets paid $125,000 a year! Is this one of Obama so called Jobs he created.
Please defend that Obama democrats & tell me about the evil "rich" Romney
source is posted on page one of comments
Love to troops--- How many trips to the texas whitehouse did GW make? How many wars did he get US into without paying for them? The gnop is more spendaholic than ANYONE! How much for a Whitehouse car lift will American pay if rommie gets in?? You have had too much coolaid.
This supreme court isn't qualified to make any decisions. Sound familiar?