SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Judiciary

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (547)2/22/2012 11:14:33 AM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 817
 
I looked up Grutter v. Bollinger, and that case mentioned that the rulling was that the policy in question didn't violate the standard in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. So I looked up that case

It's interesting in that there was no real majority decision. There were two issues. One justice (Powell) had a certain opinion on both. There were two block of four judges who each agreed on one and disagreed on the other (with the agreement being on a different point for each block of four). So Powell had a 5-4 majority on each point, but none of the other justices actually concurred with his opinion.

====

It is important to note that there were two opposing 4-person plurality opinions and then Justice Powell's. Each of the 4-person plurality opinions concurred only with parts of Justice Powell's opinion and not the same parts.

Justices Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun concluded in one plurality opinion that race could be used as a factor when it was for the purpose of remedying substantial chronic underrepresentation of certain minorities in the medical profession.

Chief Justice Burger, Justice Stewart, and Justice Rehnquist joined Justice Stevens' view that whether race could ever be a factor was not at issue in the case, but that the special admissions program under consideration violated Title VI because it excluded from consideration an applicant on the basis of race.

Justice Powell concluded that though race could not be the basis for excluding a candidate, race may be one of many factors in admissions considerations.

The issue before the Court was twofold: 1. Whether Bakke's exclusion from consideration in UC Davis Medical School special admissions program for minorities because he was white was unconstitutional and a violation of section VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and 2. if it was unconstitutional, should UC Davis Medical School be required to admit him.

Justice Powell concluded that excluding a candidate from consideration solely on the basis of race was unconstitutional, no matter what the purpose, and since UC Davis Medical School could not prove that, even without the special admissions program, Bakke would never have been admitted anyway, UC Davis was compelled to admit Bakke.

Though the Stevens' plurality opinion did not concur with Powell's assertion that race could be one factor among many in admissions' considerations, it did agree with Powell that the UC Davis special admissions program excluding Bakke because he was white was unconstitutional. Stevens' plurality also concurred with that part of Powell's opinion that UC Davis should be required to admit Bakke.

Therefore, though there was no clear-cut majority view on using race as a factor in general, there was a 5–4 split in which the majority (the Stevens plurality and Powell) agreed that the UC Davis Special admissions program was unconstitutional because it excluded applicants on the basis of race. Similarly the same 5–4 split concurred that UC Davis be required to admit Bakke...

en.wikipedia.org
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext