The overturning of the Sixth Circuit Court may have positive impact on other Michigan imperatives.
The US Supreme Court decision today was probably an easy one.
In a 6-2 ruling. (see KG’s article for a link) the court upheld the ban enacted by Michigan voters in 2006; Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Race shall NOT be used in admission policies in our colleges and public institutions, or for purposes of employment or contracting through government. From the Detroit News
The ruling championed the right of the voters to set policy in writing their own state constitutions.
“Perhaps, when enacting policies as an exercise of democratic self-government, voters will determine that race-based preferences should be adopted. The constitutional validity of some of those choices regarding racial preferences is not at issue here,” Kennedy wrote. The decision here “is simply that the courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who appealed the appeals court ruling, hailed the justices decision.
That was a free promo, Bill. Lets start working on the next battle shall we? – JG
There is no doubt Michigan’s Attorney General carried this one across the finish line, but the argument was simple on a number of levels.
Fact is, there is no inequality to start with. Consider that simply because marriage is between one man and one woman, it does not exclude those who are of a different sexual orientation from enjoying that same privilege, or right. They can still do so within the definition established by we the people of the state of Michigan!
It was his courage to stand up against the formerly unimaginable wanton persecution by state agencies like the (feral) DNR and the AG’s office. IT was the support of people who were aware of what was going on that allowed him to survive, and cause the Attorney General’s office to fold under the weight of a huge, easily recognizable, mistake. It was his willingness to suffer the loss of business as the state threatened his customers, and cut off his sole income.
And all throughout this process other farms were shut down and forced to slaughter their livelihoods because they had no means to fight ‘city hall.’
At least I do. He knows it, and there are a lot of good reasons why. Of course we have disagreements on a couple of issues, and will call them out as we see them, but he has done a reasonable job of representing the state and its constitution (reasonable – not great) during his term.
But he needs to get out front on this thing.
In fact he could have done so a while back. The feral DNR issue has been a debacle from the get go, and THEN AG Schuette’s office sends out the guy in the video below. He first verbally challenges the Mark Baker directly (bypassing the attorney) in way that certainly appears threatening, pulls the I don’t really give a $Hi# attitude with the rest of the crowd, and then decides the pledge of allegiance is not for him.
Clearly, we dodged a bullet by not establishing a state run exchange. The AG appears to be watching for 'ricochets.'
For anyone who wondered WHY we did not establish a state run exchange, the answer is clearly about surrendering authority.
Not unlike the camel’s nose, the exchange was a buy-in to undermine state sovereignty. Fortunately, Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette appears to be trying to make sure the mandate does NOT apply to Michigan residents. From MLive:
Attorney General Bill Schuette is arguing an IRS rule offering tax credits to individuals buying health insurance on the federal exchange from states without their own exchanges violates the U.S. Constitution.
The argument was made in a “friend of the court” brief filed in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where individuals and businesses from states without insurance exchanges are challenging the ability of the IRS to offer tax credits for buying insurance through the federally established exchange.
Schuette and the attorneys general for Kansas and Nebraska argue that allowing the IRS to offer the credits overrules the decisions not to set up exchanges under the Affordable Care Act that 34 states made and is invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
Schuette’s on the right track.
Additionally, it should be noted that this might not be the most popular move, and could be painful to his campaign in the general. As many Michiganians are expecting a federal subsidy, it may not happen or they may lose that subsidy if this action is successful.
The motion asks Judge David Lawson to rule in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples. The motion argues that the 2011 law banning the benefits “eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair” and promotes “financially sound” local agencies.
In June 2013, Lawson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, Public Act 297, saying the plaintiffs in the case had a good chance of proving at trial that the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.
“A good chance” is a pitiful reason to upend due process and legislate from the bench.