Today’s news from SCOTUS
Today is a big law news day. Not only do we have the Goodson acquittal, but we have two important SCOTUS rulings.
One involves race-conscious admissions policies in colleges. The case dealt with the University of Texas, and this was how it went down:
Today the Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, a challenge to the University of Texas’s use of race-conscious admissions criteria. When the case was first argued, many speculated that the days of relying upon race in university admissions were numbered. Justice Anthony Kennedy was seen as the swing vote, and he had consistently voted to limit (although not always to eliminate) the consideration of race in educational policies. The predictions were wrong, however, and race-conscious admissions policies have survived. Today’s decision reaffirms the ability of universities to rely upon race as one criterion among many when making admissions decisions, albeit within some limits…
In his opinion, Kennedy concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the use of race in admissions by the university was so great or disproportionate as to create an equal protection violation. Noting that Texas’s admissions policies were, in some respects, sui generis (because of the automatic admission of students in the top 10 percent of each public high school), Kennedy concluded that reliance upon race as a part of the larger admissions process was constitutional, while also stressing (in ways reminiscent of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion concerning the use of race by the University of Michigan law school in Grutter), that the university has a continuing obligation to periodically reassess the extent to which consideration of race is necessary in order to achieve the school’s pedagogical and other goals.
As some legal wags used to say when the Court had 9 justices and Kennedy was so often the swing vote, why don’t we just ask Kennedy what he thinks rather than bothering with the whole Court?
Then there’s the SCOTUS decision (4-4) on Obama’s immigration policy, in which the the tie had the practical affect of letting the lower court’s injunction against Obama stand. It’s not the same as it would have been had Scalia been alive, but it does represent a sort of conservative victory. As far as the future goes:
In either case, however, whether to continue legal defenses of the Obama policies will ultimately be up to the next administration, which will take office before the end of the next Supreme Court term. This also means a Clinton administration could adopt slightly revised policies (addressing the procedural complaints) to strengthen the substantive defense.
See also this for predictions.
When you ask yourself what the current GOP Congress has accomplished, one thing that should be on the list is to hang tough in not confirming any Scalia successor appointed by President Obama. It was widely predicted by those who on the right who detest this Congress—widely, and with great certainty—that the GOP would cave on this. They have not, but I don’t see a lot of people who predicted it owning up to that fact and giving them credit, even begrudgingly (granted, I haven’t done an exhaustive search on it, but I often came across the criticism and I haven’t come across the retractions). Does anyone believe that this decision would have gone the same way had an Obama-appointed successor been allowed to became the ninth SCOTUS justice?
I inadvertently heard a minute or two of Obama’s analysis of the immigration ruling. I am sure that he said that, although he could not issue additional Executive Orders, the ones in effect are not affected.
Could that be? Or is he just advertising that he will do as he wishes regardless of the law?
Oldflyer:
The injunction of the lower court was already in effect against some of his orders. This continued that.
Nothing will change when it comes to bho’s executive overreach. He will continue to ignore any ruling that should chastise a principled POTUS while sternly admonishing the court’s ruling and the evil gop. The U of T ruling was baked in the cake with Scalia gone.
The 14th is a bludgeon as interpreted by the oracles at SCOTUS. Its not discrimination to have standards for admission, especially when it is blatant discrimination to show racial, ethnic, and gender preference to pet victim classes in the name of diversity. Tribalism ain’t the way.
Kennedy seems to want to balance the Court, make sure that things don’t go too far into one camp or the other. In a normal job that’d be fine. But the Supreme Court is supposed to guide the entire judicial system, and that requires clear, consistent rulings. The Supreme Court used to construct rules and tests that could be applied by lower courts. They might be revisited or refined every few decades, but in the meantime they could be used as guides. There’s no value in reading a Supreme Court decision that’s based on balancing competing judicial philosophies, and there’s no way to apply their reasoning to other cases. Possibly the worst consequence is that there’s no way a lawyer can rule out the possibility of success using any conceivable strategy, so nothing is too outlandish to be tried.
I expected that the Senate would cave to Obama. I suspect that they have not both because Obama has not nominated a moderate and because approving a liberal would be suicidal. I suspect that Obama has calculated that if Hillary wins she will be able to get the Senate to approve a leftist. While if Trump wins, another Kennedy is doable. What I do not believe is that leopards change their spots and that the GOP Senate is holding to idealistic principles.
The next term probably won’t see just one new justice nominated. Scalia’s up, of course. But Kagan’s supposed to be getting quite old, and might not last the four years. And while I don’t know anything about Thomas’s physical state, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s thinking about retirement.
Junior – You must be thinking of Ginsburg, who is 83. Kagan is only 56.
Frankly, I think Congress should revisit the legislation, and set the Supreme Court to have eight Justices.
We have had all manner of strife and division and national angst over so many critical 5-4 rulings, and the resultant near-monarchial power of that 9th, unelected Justice. With an eight-member Court, these 5-4 rulings would either become 5-3 rulings, which is near super-majority status and thus far more palatable, or they would be 4-4 rulings which set no precedent and thereby severely limit the scope of the ruling.
When I came out of bronx science I could not get assistance or entry.. They wanted women then… I had to live homeless to get the minimum… Sis, who was not academic, has four degrees or so, two children, five houses… I’ve been homeless twice and have not had a raise or cost of living raises in twelve years and will be homeless again. I will never have a family of a home and we are planning a rational suicide so my wife will have enough
That’s all we can do…
And all we can plan for
From SBA, to work, to the legal system, I can’t get backing, assistance, a fair shake as my employer pays me half market rate for 35 plus years…
Rational suicide is all we have and my only way to insure my wife to be OK and get access to my funds…