They're just upholding Bakke - that's not a shift - - they're trying to make it sound like stare decisis is being done away with, it's not - - - state governments can't have quotas and they can't have double standards.
2007-07-19 09:10:50 · 2 answers · asked by truthisback 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
OK R but on the affirmative action rulings they haven't changed or reinterpreted the law one bit. You can agree or disagree with their take but their take hasn't changed, it's been consistently "we outlawed quotas that harmed blacks, the fact that a generation later you want to use quotas to help blacks doesn't make quotas legal."
Point is there isn't a shift on this issue, the law's not unclear - why does the Globe say there is a shift and that the law is a gray area?
2007-07-19 09:36:46 · update #1
I always thought the was a strange thing to say because the Supreme court is supposed to make their decisions based on what the constitution says not what they judges thinks.
As far as quotas go, I always thought they were racist. To say you have to let so many people of a certain race into the school is racist. You are not looking at them as a person.
2007-07-20 03:08:32 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The replacement of moderate O'Connor by less than moderate Alito represented a shift. Constitutional law is essentially interpretation in the modern context by the judges sitting on the bench.
2007-07-19 16:15:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋