Tag: affirmative action

Of course said nuttiness joined by what we might have expected to see; a particular "wise Latina woman" making a mockery of equal protection under the law. A fascinating read of the first day's hearing on the case reveals even liberal biases will not paint the 2006 referendum result as an unconstitutional achievement.

"Arguing that a referendum that bans racial discrimination and preferences is itself a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause was always a stretch. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration told USA Today that the lower court ruling striking down the referendum was  "an indefensible decision."  The liberal Slate writer Emily Bazelon called Schuette "the affirmative action case liberals deserve to lose."  And the Obama administration, which intervened in last term's affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas, did not participate in the Schuette case."

Also revealed; the percentage changes mentioned in yesterday's post appearing to be more of a 'census guidelines' effect, and cannot be completely attributed to actual numbers of minorities attending the school. (given the President of the university promised to break the law anyhow, should we be surprised?) The numbers as noted by Michigan solicitor general John Bursch, revealed the changes as expected from a 30 school study are not different than what the actual percentages showed.

And I did mention the self designation of Sonya Sotomayer.  Her commentary should not really be of any great surprise, yet reveals that elections do indeed have consequence.

"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems the game posts keep changing every few years for minorities."

Sadly, its being sold from the equivalent of sniper on a clock tower using a scope that reaches the entire country.  We are all targets if a "wise Latina Woman" wishes it.

You can read the reports about the debate all over the internet or you can watch it for yourself at wkar.org.  It turned out to be one of the wilder debates you'll ever see and actually proved to be quite informative.

Most voters don't know much about David Leyton other than the fact that he's the local prosecutor in Flint, the 4th most violent city in the United States and a city where local community leaders have demanded Governor Granholm deploy the National Guard to protect the streets because of Leyton's ineffectiveness.

After Friday's debate, we now know a bit more.  Granted, we still don't know how Leyton voted on Michigan's medical marijuana law.  He was asked directly five times and each time would only answer that "the people have spoken."  But he did have a few answers liberal enough that he felt comfortable providing.  According to David Leyton himself-

*Leyton supports affirmative action.

*Leyton supports unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.

*Leyton supports civil unions and "special benefits" for gay couples.  (Those are his words.)

But maybe more informative than what Leyton said directly was what he said when attempting to dodge one question in particular.

Attorney General Mike Cox months ago went to court to back Arizona's common sense illegal immigration law.  Skubick asked the candidates whether or not Michigan needs an Arizona style immigration law of its own.  

Leyton:

"Michigan needs a law that's good for Michigan and that's an Attorney General who cracks down on employers who hire illegal immigrants."

The answer to the illegal immigration problem, to national security and to securing Michigan's borders is to declare war on job makers and only to declare war on job makers.  And that shuffling noise you hear is the sound of more job providers making their way towards Michigan's exits in case another job killing liberal like Leyton lands in Lansing.