Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Politics
phlatsphil
Posts: 14,632 AG
Chief justice out to end affirmative action
phlatsphil
Posts: 14,632 AG
Chief justice out to end affirmative action
(CNN) -- Every chief justice of the United States picks a signature issue. After Wednesday's argument on the future of the Voting Rights Act, it's clearer than ever that John Roberts has made his choice: to declare victory in the nation's fight against racial discrimination and then to disable the weapons with which that struggle was won.
Roberts' predecessors staked their ground in many ways. In the '50s and '60s, Earl Warren wanted to integrate the South. In the next decade, Warren Burger decided to fight crime. In the '80s and '90s, William Rehnquist sought to revive states' rights. Roberts came of age as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, and there he discovered a cause that he has made his own: the color-blind Constitution.
In Roberts' first major decision as chief justice, he rejected the school integration plans of Seattle and Louisville. The authorities in those cities used several factors to determine where kids went to school: neighborhood, sibling attendance, but also racial diversity. Roberts' decision banned the schools from considering the race of the students in determining where they went to school. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," the chief justice wrote.
Last October, the court heard a challenge to the race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas. No decision has yet been made in that case, but during the oral argument, the chief justice peppered the lawyer defending the university's plan with a series of sarcastic questions:
"Should someone who is one-quarter Hispanic check the Hispanic box or some different box?"
"What is the critical mass of African-Americans and Hispanics at the university that you are working toward?"
"So you, what, you conduct a survey and ask students if they feel racially isolated?"
As Roberts wrote in a different case, summing up his views: "It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
All of that stands as background to the Voting Rights Act case, which was argued Wednesday. It is generally acknowledged that this law, passed in 1965, had a tremendous effect in finally making the right to vote real for African-Americans, especially in the South.
Under Section 5 of the act, nine Southern states (and a few other counties) must get the advance approval for all electoral changes from the Department of Justice in Washington. This process, known as pre-clearance, covers everything from drawing the lines of legislative districts to deciding the location of polling places.
Several counties have challenged the law, saying, in effect, that it's obsolete. According to this view, the South has changed and now Section 5 represents a demeaning and unconstitutional burden on the covered jurisdictions.
At oral argument, Roberts seemed very receptive to this claim. He asked Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who defended the law, "Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?"
Verrilli said no, but he said Congress still had the right to draw distinctions among states.
Throughout the argument, Roberts had nothing but tough words for the lawyers defending the law and little to say to the challengers. A justice's questions at oral argument do not always indicate how he is going to vote, but Roberts' record on these racial issues is already well-established.
What does this mean for the country? It depends on whether you believe, like Roberts, that the work of the civil rights movement is done.
Race-conscious policies have transformed our schools and workplaces. Diversity is a value cherished by many. Likewise, the Voting Rights Act has given the South new and very different politics. But affirmative action, in Roberts' view, has become discrimination against whites.
The country may be about to discover how America looks in the way that the chief justice wants to reshape it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/opinion/toobin-roberts-voting-rights-act/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
(CNN) -- Every chief justice of the United States picks a signature issue. After Wednesday's argument on the future of the Voting Rights Act, it's clearer than ever that John Roberts has made his choice: to declare victory in the nation's fight against racial discrimination and then to disable the weapons with which that struggle was won.
Roberts' predecessors staked their ground in many ways. In the '50s and '60s, Earl Warren wanted to integrate the South. In the next decade, Warren Burger decided to fight crime. In the '80s and '90s, William Rehnquist sought to revive states' rights. Roberts came of age as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, and there he discovered a cause that he has made his own: the color-blind Constitution.
In Roberts' first major decision as chief justice, he rejected the school integration plans of Seattle and Louisville. The authorities in those cities used several factors to determine where kids went to school: neighborhood, sibling attendance, but also racial diversity. Roberts' decision banned the schools from considering the race of the students in determining where they went to school. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," the chief justice wrote.
Last October, the court heard a challenge to the race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas. No decision has yet been made in that case, but during the oral argument, the chief justice peppered the lawyer defending the university's plan with a series of sarcastic questions:
"Should someone who is one-quarter Hispanic check the Hispanic box or some different box?"
"What is the critical mass of African-Americans and Hispanics at the university that you are working toward?"
"So you, what, you conduct a survey and ask students if they feel racially isolated?"
As Roberts wrote in a different case, summing up his views: "It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
All of that stands as background to the Voting Rights Act case, which was argued Wednesday. It is generally acknowledged that this law, passed in 1965, had a tremendous effect in finally making the right to vote real for African-Americans, especially in the South.
Under Section 5 of the act, nine Southern states (and a few other counties) must get the advance approval for all electoral changes from the Department of Justice in Washington. This process, known as pre-clearance, covers everything from drawing the lines of legislative districts to deciding the location of polling places.
Several counties have challenged the law, saying, in effect, that it's obsolete. According to this view, the South has changed and now Section 5 represents a demeaning and unconstitutional burden on the covered jurisdictions.
At oral argument, Roberts seemed very receptive to this claim. He asked Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who defended the law, "Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?"
Verrilli said no, but he said Congress still had the right to draw distinctions among states.
Throughout the argument, Roberts had nothing but tough words for the lawyers defending the law and little to say to the challengers. A justice's questions at oral argument do not always indicate how he is going to vote, but Roberts' record on these racial issues is already well-established.
What does this mean for the country? It depends on whether you believe, like Roberts, that the work of the civil rights movement is done.
Race-conscious policies have transformed our schools and workplaces. Diversity is a value cherished by many. Likewise, the Voting Rights Act has given the South new and very different politics. But affirmative action, in Roberts' view, has become discrimination against whites.
The country may be about to discover how America looks in the way that the chief justice wants to reshape it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/opinion/toobin-roberts-voting-rights-act/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
Replies
You are very entertaining.
The most effective law if youre in the group who the laws favor.
It's referred to as 'positive discrimination' in the UK.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
ok we all know you wish you were black and you hate white people we got it already
If you call remembering the 60s trapped.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
This
Don't tell me in one sentence that are all races have equal ability and intelligence....then in the next say that some races need extra help and preference to compete. You can't have it both ways.
Maybe not as much as you would like to believe (or refuse to see).
Our country isn't perfect, far from it. But it's a markedly different place than it used to be.
As a rule, what's holding minorities back isn't am oppressive, discriminating group of people...it's themselves.
If guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton spent as much time working to keep black Americans from making the same mistakes over and over again, there wouldn't be so many black Americans in jail or in poverty.
What pioneers like MLK fought for have been accomplished. MLK would likely be ashamed to see how things have turned out for many people today.
Bringing Jackson and Sharpton into the conversation is like bringing in the KKK. It adds little to the content, other than to confirm some can't see past what in in front front of your faces.
So do you think races other than white are inferior to whites and need special privileges and advantages?
No it's not.
This is something I just don't understand.
I understand if you receive govt funds that you must play by their rules - no matter what they are.
But if I own a business, restaurant. etc, why can't I choose to serve (or not serve), hire (or not hire), etx. whomever I like? It is a private business. Shouldn't I have that freedom of choice?
People can call me what they want, boycott me or whatever, but I should have that choice.
To me, it is akin to getting sued because I haven't had any minorities over to my house for dinner.
Affirmative action needs to end. There are plenty of laws to cover true discrimination.
If the left could find a way, they'd do it.
Lets see, a black president, 2 secretaries of state, chairman of the chiefs of staff, AG also a spanish AG.
Also Oprah Winfrey Net worth: $2.7 billion
Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson became the first African American billionaire in 2000 after he sold the network to Viacom ( VIA - news - people ) for $3 billion in stock and assumed debt
golf phenom Tiger Woods, worth an estimated $600 million.
The grandson of a hotel doorman, Don Peebles, worth $350 million, runs one of the country's largest minority-owned real estate development companies
Quintin Primo III is worth $300 million. The minister's son grew up in Chicago. He earned his MBA at Harvard in 1979 and took a job in Citicorp's real estate lending division. Primo founded Capri Capital in 1992 with childhood friend Daryl Carter and achieved initial success extending mezzanine loans to small borrowers that larger firms neglected to serve. Today Capri's portfolio is larded with apartment complexes; the firm's assets under management have swelled to $4.3 billion.
With a net worth of $125 million, Kenneth Chenault, chief executive of American Express
former Merrill Lynch chief Stanley O'Neal and Citigroup ( C - news - people ) chairman and former Time Warner ( TWX - news - people ) head Richard Parsons. Both O'Neal and Parsons were compensated primarily with stock and options while at the helms of their respective companies; the value of their stakes in those companies has languished since the onset of the recession, shoving their fortunes below the $100 million mark.
Things have come a long way since the 60's
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
Just try to fire anyone in a protected class, which is anyone but white males 20-50.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
You should have been the attorney for all those companies Jackson and Sharpton shook down over the years.
I fire people of all races with no troubles. I do agree that affirmative action has run it's course and I now believe it is more harmful than helpful as it is used to rile up the masses.
Those two guys are merely examples. There are plenty more that could be mentioned who stand by profiting from the misery of others.
The country has changed for the better since the 50's and 60's. The true need for affirmative action is slim to none in 2013.
The problems the black community as a whole, for example, cannot be solved by affirmative action laws. They need to be solved by themselves. Whether you're talking about black, white, hispanic, or asian groups, high crime rates, high incarceration rates, high rates of poverty, high rates of single parent households, and high rates of preventable health issues have to be solved from within.
Well said. The older I get the more I think parents are the most important factor, from a single child to a society's success.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
Affirmative action has always been an insult to capable and productive blacks -- its premise being that without a government fix, they are not capable of competing with the rest in our society.
Tis an embarrassment to most of the blacks with whom I have worked in the last few decades.
A southeast Florida laid back beach bum and volunteer bikini assessor who lives on island time.