The overturning of the Sixth Circuit Court may have positive impact on other Michigan imperatives.
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.
Racial preferences are wrong, yet still considered to be a legitimate means to encourage more participation by “diverse” groups and special interests. The policy embraced by the leftist in the SCOTUS, (Sotomayor) and agreed to by the half there Justice (Ginsburg) proves itself to be one of segregation and divisive however. It was corrected and answered by the citizens of Michigan with a certain finality in 2006, as is the right of a sovereign state.
The craziness of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision In its ruling last year reversing the Michigan ban, was that they inferred that the issue was not affirmative action, but the intent of those who oppose it. Falsely defining the intent, and once again reading the minds and hearts:
The appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment because it presented an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters, who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.
Ignoring the passive nature of simple equal protection by elimination of a special place in line due to a presumed ‘diversity.’
Nothing is so scary to the progressives, than separating their ability to posit favor to certain demographics from the great big pile of money provided by the everyman. Without the ability to dispense advantage, power is ceded to its natural place; the voters and taxpayers.
The usefulness of those who would provide these artificial balances has now been corrected to whatever clerical responsibilities they still hold. The arguers for continuing divisive policy have been for now, mad moot, and less damaging to our public discourse.
In this case, anyhow.
The clock is ticking till the day that the US Supreme Court takes up the arguments of relativity being accelerated through the courts, and public opinion otherwise.
Another Michigan case that has nationwide relevance is the referendum of 2004 which defines marriage constitutionally as that between a man and a woman. The current state of the case was predicted by the Attorney General prior to the activist judge’s ruling of March 21.
The question however, is if the the Supreme Court will take up the question of the definition as the state voters have made clear in the constitutional referendum passed in 2004. Will Justice Kennedy speak to the validity of the 2.7 million voters who passed it in the same way he did the MCRI case?
California’s proposition 8 should have been the settling of this dispute. In an inglorious way, the Supreme Court deferred to the 10th circuit, saying that there was no standing by defenders of the marriage amendment to argue in the federal court,(supreme AND federal appeals) ultimately leaving the issue settled by the single activist judge (Vaughn Walker) of the district court.
Kennedy, sometimes a swing vote and the writer of the majority opinion on Prop 8 may be the fifth decider in a decisive issue of national importance. Justice Kennedy may be obliged to own his words and side with the sovereign decision of Michigan Voters, perhaps saying here as well:
“is simply that the courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”
And perhaps if the MCRI proponents (Michigan citizens) had not been so soundly vindicated, it might have been quite yet another matter.
Timing is indeed everything.