Which Way Will Uncle Clarence Thomas Vote On This One?


Bro. Askia

New Member
Supreme Court ready for Mich. race case
03/30/2003 10:24 PM EDT

DETROIT (AP) - Barbara Grutter spent years as a health care consultant, had good grades and high test scores. So when she was rejected by the University of Michigan's law school, she wondered why her life experiences hadn't caught the eye of admissions officers.

"I thought my application was a very good example that when U of M used the word 'diversity,' they really meant race," says Grutter, 49.

She and two other white applicants, who wanted to get into the school's undergraduate program, sued the university. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the undergraduate college and law school should be allowed to use race as a factor in admissions.

The cases have sparked an affirmative action debate unlike any seen since the court ruled 5-4 in 1978 to outlaw racial quotas in university admissions but allowed race to be considered as a factor.

Applicants for Michigan's undergraduate classes are scored by points, with minorities, some underprivileged applicants and some athletes receiving a boost of 20 points on a scale of 150. The school also awards points based on alumni relationships, Michigan residency and residency in underrepresented Michigan counties. The law school uses a looser formula that aims for a "critical mass" in minority enrollment.

"The goal is to have enough students from certain groups so that they don't feel isolated and so that majority students have enough interaction to have a positive educational effect," said university attorney Marvin Krislov.

Nearly 14 percent of the school's students are minority group members.

But for Grutter, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, the cases aren't just about the numbers - they're about opportunities lost when they didn't get into the Ann Arbor school. All three plaintiffs were interviewed by phone; a lawyer for the Center for Individual Rights, which filed their lawsuits, listened in.

Shaken by the university's rejection, Gratz says she gave up a longtime ambition to study medicine. She instead earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the University of Michigan-Dearborn - where she believes she got fewer opportunities than at the Ann Arbor campus.

Gratz, now 25, married, living in Oceanside, Calif. and working for a technology company, said her decision to give up medicine was made as a naive 17-year-old.

"When I received that letter, I went through a whole series of emotions. I was upset, I was embarrassed ... I lost my confidence" she said.

Gratz says her thoughts turned immediately to race, especially because she had earned a 3.8 grade point average and a 25 out of a possible 36 on her ACT college entrance exam while cheerleading, tutoring and keeping score at high school baseball games.

The university maintains that race is just one of many factors in an admissions decision, and that academic performance - accounting for 110 points on the 150-point scale - is the overwhelming consideration.

"Admissions is a very complicated process, not a mechanical plugging-in of numbers," Krislov said.

But Gratz says the school's argument - that not being allowed to consider race would disproportionately affect the diversity of its student body - proves race is a "determining factor."

The University of Michigan receives more than 25,000 applications for about 5,200 spaces in its undergraduate freshman classes. More than 5,000 apply for about 350 spots in an incoming law school class. Total enrollment is about 38,000.

"I don't feel that I was entitled to a spot at U of M, but I do feel that I had a right to a fair opportunity to apply, and they didn't provide that," said Hamacher, 24.

Hamacher, a Flint city accountant, earned his bachelor's degree from Michigan State University and will get his master's from Central Michigan University in May. He won't speculate how life would be different had he been admitted to Michigan, but "there are a lot of doors that are made available to Michigan students that I wasn't able to use."

Hamacher suggests any race considerations "endorse discrimination."

"There is racism in this country and people do look at each other differently based on the color of their skin," he says. "But to say that our public policy should not only allow that but endorse it is just not right."

Copyright ? 2002 AP Online
Powered By Nando Media
 
You know how he will vote

Despite being a recipient of A/A, Clarence has shown himself to be a straight right-wing ideologue. Him, Scalia and Kennedy are now farther to the right than Renquist, who at one point in time was looked upon as an extreme right-winger (just to show you how far to the right things have gone.)

I'm really disappointed in Clarence as I figured he would be a "conservative", but would find a way to put his brand on conservatism (much the way Powell has figured out a way to adapt it to his lived experience.)
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
Could someone please define "right winged" and "left winged" once and for all??

Thanks,
 
Definitions are tough

however, the right wing, in general, promotes the notion of individualism and the continuing myth of "markets" both social and economic. There society is bound the principles of social Darwinism undergirded by the myth that everyone has a somewhat equal chance. It's classic liberalism in their rhetoric. Of course, in practice it's another thing. While promoting the notion of social darwinism (be it through their faux phraseology of "merit"), they insure that THEY do not have to compete under the same system. Also, while promoting the notion of capital markets to the people, they live in a society that is sustained by government subsidies and protected by their most powerful interest group.

Also, the right wing believes in something called strict constructionist approach to the constitution. Sort of like the way some people take the Bible as a literal document and not as a book that gives themes of good and beauty while giving rise to the notion of "right."

Give me a few to give you my definition of left wing.

LaMont

Remember, the notion of left wing and right wing came about as a result of the France constitutional convention (I believe in 1891) in which different members of the citizenry gathered to discuss the social arrangement. The people that sat on the left despised the oligarch because they were the most poor and the system had left them out and had distributed goods in a very inequitable fashion. Clearlly, they had a lot of skeptism towards the prior social arrangement. The people that sat on the right were supporters of the monarchy and hence they were rich. They liked the old arrangement. After all, under the old system, they had it pretty good. Maybe once in a while, they thought the king was a jerk, but overall, it's better than that crazy idea called democracy. They were in suppurt of the status quo and hence they became known as conservatives. They wanted to "conserve" the social order as it was.
 
Thanks for the definitions....but could you break it on down a little more.

At this rate...note to self (1) Look up Darwinism (2) Find out what classic liberalism is ....LOL

Break it down for the political simpletons such as myself
 
"Where Did The Terms 'Right Wing' and 'Left Wing' Come From?"

I was reading Ecclesiastes 10:2 ("The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left) and what struck me right away was this fits our right and left wings.

My question is, how did the political parties get their status of being considered left and right?

It turns out that the historical explanation for the political terms left wing and right wing are based upon the seating arrangement of the first French General Assembly.

The proponents of the political ideas inspired by the Enlightenment were seated on the left. Those who supported the old regime was seated at the right hand of the president of the Assembly.

So early on, ideas that were something new and novel were associated with the left, and conservative ideas were associated with the right. Actually, the story is a bit more complicated than that, but to answer your question, the origin of left and right in found in modern politics rather than Ecclesiastes.

Thanks for writing. God bless you.

Kerby Anderson
Probe Ministries
 
Information Regarding Clarence Thomas
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/thomas.bio.html

UNCLE TOM

When Supreme Court Justice Scalia speaks, Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas echos.

Despite all the glowing comments made about Thomas during the nomination process, it is very clear that Thomas was chosen for only one reason: Thomas was the only black judge the Republican leadership could depend on to stab both blacks and non-blacks in the back. Thomas is the worst sort of "oreo": black on the outside, white fascist on the inside. Like the Republican leadership, Thomas is also a seedy little collectivist, and an enemy of individual rights. Being black made Uncle Tom the perfect choice.

You may recall that Thomas was selected to "fill the s***s" of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was one of America's truly great Supreme Court Justices. In addition to being a champion of individual rights, he was a scholar, an intellectual and a statesman.

Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall. He never was, is not now, and never will be, a Thurgood Marshall. The fact is, Thomas isn't even good enough to shine Marshall's s***s, let alone fill them.

If one examines Thomas's voting record as a Supreme Court justice, one finds the voting record of Justice Scalia. The Supreme Court is supposed to be made up of nine independent minds. However, this is clearly not the case. What America has is eight independent minds and one echo. Uncle Tom better pray that nothing happens to Justice Scalia. Should something happen to Justice Scalia, then what is Thomas going to do without his "little white master" directing his vote?

Victor Laszlo

Information Regarding Thurgood Marshall
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761556389
 
If Dr. King would have thought like Uncle TOM-ASS (Clarence), the SUPREME COURT would still be LILLY WHITE.
 
NCCU students to join march
http://www.nccu.edu/Events

By Angela D. Forest, The Herald-Sun
March 31, 2003 10:17 pm
http://www.herald-sun.com/sports/nccentral

DURHAM -- As they sat in a dorm room waiting to make signs they will carry outside the U.S. Supreme Court building today, several N.C. Central University students Monday talked about why America needs affirmative action.

"A lot of the schools now, they are only letting [minority] students in because of affirmative action," said Lynice Hannah, a 19-year-old sophomore from Asheboro. "If affirmative action ever ends ... I think it will affect me personally, especially since I want to go to law school."

Host and march organizer Andrea Underwood, a 21-year-old junior from Raleigh, said while many think affirmative action only helps blacks and Latinos, the greatest beneficiaries are white females. All 13 students gathered in Underwood?s room were black females, the majority of whom plan to attend graduate school most likely at predominantly white universities.

"I feel like we deserve [affirmative action], because we?ve gone through so much," said Tolulope Omokaiye, a 20-year-old junior from Raleigh. "We didn?t get slave reparations."

These young women were among nearly 150 students from campuses through the Triangle traveling to Washington, D.C., to support affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan and its law school. Those policies -- now being challenged by one lawsuit each filed against the university?s undergraduate program and law school -- could be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it begins hearing the cases today.

Three bus loads of students from NCCU, UNC, Saint Augustine?s College and Shaw University were scheduled to depart from NCCU?s student union parking lot at 2 a.m. Carrying signs reading "Integration Now Segregation Never" and "Separate But Equal is a Lie Affirmative Action Must Not Die," the students plan to march with thousands of others from historically black and predominantly white colleges to try and preserve practices that consider race when admitting students.

Since mid-February, Underwood has worked, with help from professors and the Student Government Association, to get students at her school and in the region to march in the nation?s capital. She learned about the event while attending a seminar on student activism in Washington through her sorority, Delta Sigma Theta.

Jocelyn Saunders, 19, from New Bern, expressed one dilemma some feel over race-factored admissions when she described how she gained admittance to another state university while her white friend did not.

"I feel like the only reason I got in was because I was black," Saunders said, adding it can make a person think his or her qualifications and achievements are irrelevant.

Affirmative action does not hurt white students? access to top universities; it just gives blacks and other minorities more opportunity, Underwood said. At the same time it doesn?t remove inequalities outside of higher education, she said.

"As a minority a lot of times I would be overlooked for a position that I could be equal to or even better at than someone, just because of my skin color or my gender," she said.

Omokaiye doesn?t see a difference between affirmative action policies and universities setting aside admission slots for students because their parents or grandparents are alumni. If affirmative action ends, legacy admissions should go too, she said.

But it?s the minority students who often don?t have the academic qualifications, yet easily gain admittance to certain colleges that no one wants to talk about because of the money they generate for schools, said Percy Murray, an NCCU history professor and interim dean of graduate studies, referring to athletes.

"Although it was race that kept us from many of these schools in the first place," he said, "They now want to use that as a factor not to admit us because they think we have an advantage."

URL for this article:
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-337084.html
 
O'Connor, Kennedy key to Mich. case
03/31/2003 11:19 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) - What the Supreme Court says this year in its most significant ruling about race in a generation probably depends on just one or two of the court's nine members.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the court's perennial swing voters, could write the demise of affirmative action as the nation knows it, or rewrite the rules for when race can be part of government decisions.

The historic affirmative action cases the court takes up Tuesday ask how and whether race can be a factor when public colleges and universities choose their students. More broadly, the cases ask wrenching legal and constitutional questions about equality, fairness, opportunity and history.

"It is very likely that it will be 5-4," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said of the court's eventual vote. "The question is, 5-4 which way?"

The University of Michigan and its law school give extra credit to minority applicants, making it more likely that a black, Hispanic or Native American will edge out a white applicant who has similar test scores, grades or other attributes.

Three white students who challenged the Michigan policies frame their argument in simple terms: It is not fair for a minority to win a coveted place on campus just because he or she is a minority.

"I was treated unfairly because of my skin color," said Jennifer Gratz, a white student rejected by the university. "Court records show that if I had been black, Hispanic or Native American, I would have had a nearly 100 percent chance of admission with my grades and record."

The university and dozens of supporters counter that a diverse student body is a worthy goal that benefits all students. Government, in this case a public-funded university, has what the Supreme Court has called a compelling interest in furthering that goal, the school argues.

The cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions, but the court's rationale is expected to have a wide ripple through private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world.

In a measure of the issue's importance, people began lining up a day early for scarce seats in the courtroom for Tuesday's oral arguments, and hundreds of pro-affirmative action demonstrators were expected to gather outside the court Tuesday morning.

The Detroit NAACP and an affiliated group said busloads of protesters were heading to Washington on Monday night.

O'Connor, even more than her fellow swing voter Kennedy, is likely to listen closely to arguments about the practical effect of the university admissions plans, lawyers said.

"Who are they talking to? The answer is Justice O'Connor," said Nathaniel Persily, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Justice O'Connor has proved herself to be the swing vote on previous affirmative action cases and in other cases dealing with race-consciousness in government programs," such as government contracting and legislative redistricting in the South, he said.

Both O'Connor and Kennedy are moderate conservatives named to the court in the 1980s by former President Ronald Reagan. They joined the court's three-member conservative wing to form the majority in Bush v. Gore, the case that effectively settled the 2000 presidential election, and that same 5-4 lineup often prevails in some of the court's most ideologically polarizing rulings.

The four more liberal justices typically score victories when O'Connor and Kennedy peel off, together or singly, and give their side a majority.

On affirmative action, the views of most of the justices are fairly clear.

Based on the justices' writings and votes in past cases, many lawyers expect Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to vote to strike down the Michigan programs as unconstitutional.

Likewise, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are expected to approve the program.

The justices have waded through more than 100 briefs filed in the case, most of them friend of the court filings supporting the notion of affirmative action if not its precise use at Michigan.

They will hear from lawyers for both sides, as well as from the Bush administration, which opposes the Michigan plans but did not call for an outright end to affirmative action.

The cases are Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241 and Gratz v. Bollinger 02-516.

Copyright ? 2002 AP Online
Powered By Nando Media
 
Why is a Bush Lawyer at these preceedings???:


Olson, the Bush administration?s top courtroom lawyer, also argued the university program should be struck down because it was a ?thinly disguised quota? and employed ?stereotypes.?

I see which way the President is leaning.
 
Back
Top