Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (1138)	8/22/2006 11:49:02 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

writ.news.findlaw.com I can't spend that much time looking for such a case- but I bet there are some. Here's a case where discrimination was upheld because there was a "compelling interest"- which apparently doesn't always have to be that compelling- in the "strict scrutiny minus a few molars"...: "Meanwhile, just as rational basis review has been changed, strict scrutiny has been changing apace. Consider the courts decision upholding the Michigan law school affirmative action program, despite the application of strict scrutiny. One might say that the Court has now minted "strict scrutiny minus a few molars and incisors." Perhaps it implanted the missing teeth into its rational basis review. Justice O'Connor's opinion upholding the affirmative action plan simply cannot be squared with traditional strict scrutiny. For instance, it explicitly rules that courts must "presume" that universities are acting in "good faith" when they declare diversity as a compelling interest. But that makes little sense: It's the courts, not anyone else, who are supposed to decide if compelling interests are indeed compelling - and sincerely offered. After all, strict scrutiny is only triggered when a governmental actor has made a classification that is inherently suspect. This kind of presumption can soften the compelling interest requirement. (It must be compelling if it's presumed to be sincerely offered, right?" Maybe we discriminate against gays because the discrimination is so very sincere? I found the above reasoning hilarious, btw, but it does show that the court will stand on its head to do what it wants.