Split Decision
Do the means justify the end or does the end justify the means? Whatever it is, it is the ends that matter, but the means that stink, apparently. Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan (5-4), but struck down the means the undergraduate school had been achieving racial diversity, or the infamous "points" system (6-3). It was kind of like a split decision double header, with the always hard to peg Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the deciding vote to continue to allow Affirmative Action. At any rate, it's still okay to take a person's race (as well as other mitigating circumstances, such as legacy) into account when they apply to college; it's just not okay to quantify how much one takes race into account. In other words, it's a judgment call, like when a manager summons the bull pen after the starter has surrendered a few hits.
The "Big Three," Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist (along with Kennedy) of course voted against Affirmative Action in both cases. It makes on wonder why they even bother listening to the arguments at all, if the justices are going to stick with a "because I said so" approach to the judiciary.
If ol' Sandy leaves the bench, then our President will think it's his mission from god (okay, Karl Rove) to appoint an ideologue in her place. That seems to go against the purpose of the judiciary, whose mission is to say "well, these are the laws" not "well, this is how we interpret the laws to suit our needs." When all else fails, just label the thing that you do not agree with as unconstitutional. Are we not better served with a David Souter than we would have been with, say, a Robert Bork? (Yes, I do realize that Souter was appointed by Bush I, while Bork was nominated by Reagan.)
|
Do the means justify the end or does the end justify the means? Whatever it is, it is the ends that matter, but the means that stink, apparently. Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan (5-4), but struck down the means the undergraduate school had been achieving racial diversity, or the infamous "points" system (6-3). It was kind of like a split decision double header, with the always hard to peg Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the deciding vote to continue to allow Affirmative Action. At any rate, it's still okay to take a person's race (as well as other mitigating circumstances, such as legacy) into account when they apply to college; it's just not okay to quantify how much one takes race into account. In other words, it's a judgment call, like when a manager summons the bull pen after the starter has surrendered a few hits.
The "Big Three," Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist (along with Kennedy) of course voted against Affirmative Action in both cases. It makes on wonder why they even bother listening to the arguments at all, if the justices are going to stick with a "because I said so" approach to the judiciary.
If ol' Sandy leaves the bench, then our President will think it's his mission from god (okay, Karl Rove) to appoint an ideologue in her place. That seems to go against the purpose of the judiciary, whose mission is to say "well, these are the laws" not "well, this is how we interpret the laws to suit our needs." When all else fails, just label the thing that you do not agree with as unconstitutional. Are we not better served with a David Souter than we would have been with, say, a Robert Bork? (Yes, I do realize that Souter was appointed by Bush I, while Bork was nominated by Reagan.)
|
<< Home