Sonia Sotomayor Attacks John Roberts Over Affirmative Action, Ron Christie Begs to Differ

Sonia Sotomayor Attacks John Roberts Over Affirmative Action,  Ron Christie Begs to Differ

Sonia Sotomayor Attacks John Roberts Over Affirmative Action, Ron Christie Begs to Differ (Credit: Atlanta Black Star)

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivers scathing rebuke to the court striking down affirmative action, as being out of touch with reality:

In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.

Sotomayor didn’t mention Chief Justice John Roberts by name, be was alluding to his frequently quoted line from 2007 case: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Talking Points Memo reports.

But black Republican strategist Ron Christie begs to differ. He envisions “race-blind” education that can “focus on root problems.” Is that why we are seeing resegregation of schools in certain pockets of America?

Without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.  For that reason, our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do.  This case implicates one such limit: the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

I take strong exception to the notion that a voter ballot initiative in Michigan to eliminate the consideration of race—and view all applicants based on their academic and extracurricular achievement—is oppressive of minority groups while limiting the Equal Protection provisions in the Bill of Rights.  President Kennedy was prescient in his speech more than a half century ago when he touched on the very issues Justice Sotomayor addressed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

US Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban on Affirmative Action

US Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban on Affirmative Action

US Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban on Affirmative Action (Credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to an activist US Supreme Court affirmative action is in real jeopardy. SCOTUS upheld a Michigan voter initiative that bans racial preferences in admissions to state universities.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a controlling opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read an impassioned dissent from the bench. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other applicants to college.

“The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she wrote. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent…

The vote in the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, was 6-2. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, presumably because she had worked on the case as United States solicitor general.

The Michigan initiative, known as Proposal 2, was a response to Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions to ensure educational diversity.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Black Professionals Struggle as Racial Diversity Ebbs in Many Elite Careers

An analysis finds racial diversity in elite careers such as lawyers and Fortune 500 CEO, have ebbed as a result of the recession that rocked the U.S. There is less of a push for diversity among the upper echelons of many companies than before.  Affirmative Action will be on the chopping block with the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the matter sometime this week on whether the “University of Texas can continue to consider race as one of many factors in its admissions policy.”  The New York Times reports, that “even as racial barriers continue to fall, progress for African-Americans over all has remained slow — and in some cases appears to be stalling.”

Only a little more than 1 percent of the nation’s Fortune 500 companies have black chief executives, although there are some prominent exceptions, like Kenneth I. Chenault of American Express and Ursula M. Burns of Xerox. At the nation’s biggest companies, about 3.2 percent of senior executive positions are held by African-Americans, according to an estimate by the Executive Leadership Council, an organization of current and former black senior executives.

While about 12 percent of the nation’s working-age population is black, about 5 percent of physicians and dentists in the United States are black — a share that has not grown since 1990, according to an analysis of census data that was prepared for The New York Times by sociologists at Queens College of the City University of New York. The analysis found that 3 percent of American architects are black, another field where the share has not increased in more than two decades.

GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney Has a Long and Troubled History With the NAACP

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney Has a Long and Troubled History With the NAACP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Don’t expect Mitt Romney to come bearing gifts to the black community when he speaks to the NAACP at their 103rd convention on Wednesday. You see, he has had a long and troubled history with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAAC), though I will give him credit for giving a speech to the mostly pro-Obama crowd. Mother Jones has an interesting article about Romney’s troubled history with the NAACP during his tenure as Massachusetts governor. Of course, like his offshore accounts and failure to release more than one full tax return, Mitt Romney will feign ignorance about the problems he has had with the NAACP — “um, it wasn’t me.”

Mother Jones:  Former head of the Boston NAACP, Leonard Alkins as saying  “There was no relationship between the NAACP in Boston and Governor Mitt Romney and his administration. The only time that the NAACP had any interaction with the administration and the governor was to protest when he eliminated the affirmative action office.”

In one of his early acts as governor, Romney dumped the state’s office of affirmative action and replaced it with the office of diversity and equal opportunity. In doing so, he invalidated half a dozen executive orders establishing affirmative action policies for women, minorities, veterans, and people with disabilities; diversity training programs; and equal opportunity standards for state contractors. Romney’s executive orderreplaced all of this with what was essentially a broad—and, Alkins says, “toothless”—commitment to “diversity.”

Romney didn’t inform civil rights groups about his plans before scrapping the affirmative action office, and the reaction from activists was harsh. The Massachusetts Black Caucus accused Romney of attempting to “virtually dismantle affirmative action in Massachusetts state government.”

It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romney can get some of the black vote, considering the unemployment rate in the black community inched up to 14.4% in June. Don’t hold your breath though, he still seems ill-at-ease around us. I can’t wait to hear his speech because his campaign employee’s train-wreck interview with Roland Martin this morning could be a hint of the possible fiasco his speech will be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Daily Beast’s Adam Winkler Thinks Clarence Thomas a Viable Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination

Official portrait of Supreme Court Justice Cla...

Daily Beast Adam Winkler Thinks Clarence Thomas a Viable Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination (Wikipedia)

CLARENCE THOMAS FOR PRESIDENT. LMAO! Adam Winkler, a columnist with the Daily Beast, seems to think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would be a viable presidential candidate. Um, really? That’s just too funny. If you think Rick Santorum is every Democrats dream of an ideal candidate to meet Obama in November, they would be foaming at the mouth to sink their teeth into Clarence Thomas and on so many fronts.

Daily Beast:  While Chris Christie and Jeb Bush might be fine candidates, perhaps the Republicans should consider a more inspired and game-changing pick: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Far-fetched?  Maybe. But a Thomas candidacy would energize Republicans in a way that few other Republicans can and would steal tremendous media attention from President Barack Obama.

Unlike the flip-flopping Mitt Romney, Thomas is a true conservative who could appeal to all of the segments of the Republican coalition. Tea Partiers would see Thomas as one of their own. Not only has he been a consistent voice to curtail the power of the federal government but his wife Ginni, a Tea Party activist herself, has been a leader in the fight to repeal Obama’s healthcare reform law. Wall Street Republicans would be buoyed by Thomas’s opposition to environmental regulation and his free market philosophy.  Blue-collar workers could embrace Thomas’s up-by-his-bootstraps story of rising from incredible poverty–until he was 7, his home had no indoor plumbing–and his votes to end affirmative action and preserve the Second Amendment. Evangelicals will like that he’s against abortion, gay rights, and limits on prayer in school.

Wow, not only would blacks run from Clarence Thomas in droves, I suspect women and Hispanics would too. Remember the whole Anita Hill scandal? Women won’t look too kindly on Clarence Thomas and his sidekick, Ginny. Hah. This is so far-fetched, it’s hilarious.  Either Adam Winkler has been drinking the wrong type of Kool-Aid, or the Daily Beast has now become The Onion. Wow, all that Clarence Thomas for President talk has gotten me worked up. I need a can of Coca Cola.

Enhanced by Zemanta

SCOTUS to Hear Affirmative Action Lawsuit Brought by White Student Abigail Fisher Against UT

English: University of Texas at Austin wordmark.

SCOTUS to Hear Affirmative Action Lawsuit Brought by White Student Abigail Fisher Against UT (Wikipedia)

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an affirmative action lawsuit brought against the University of Texas. It promises to be very interesting. We already know how Clarence Thomas will rule — against affirmative action.

New York Times:  “The new case, Fisher v. Texas, No. 11-345, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who said she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race. The case has idiosyncrasies that may limit its reach, but it also has the potential to eliminate diversity as a rationale sufficient to justify any use of race in admissions decisions.

Students in the top 10 percent of Texas high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system. Ms. Fisher just missed that cutoff at her high school in Sugar Land, Tex. She sued in 2008, challenging the way the state allocated the remaining spots using a complicated system in which race plays an unquantified but significant role.”