Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A USSC case is coming up on university acceptance. My guess is it will be a 4-4 or 5-3 vote. The three liberal justices will vote that whites and asians do not have equal protection under the law.
Kazan has recused herself. She had prior involvement in this case.
Right. But, given Kennedy's views on affirmative action (and word on the street is that Kennedy wrote a 5-4 opinion striking down the race-based UT policy the last time this case was up, but that he then wrote a narrower opinion after Sotomayor's dissent was circulated, which demanded that the 5th Cir. take additional action first), I don't see how we'd end up with a 4-4 split. I predict a 5-3 vote.
You're misunderstanding what Equal Protection means and the Court's historical Equal Protection jurisprudence.
The liberal understanding (the modern understanding) is that the Equal Protection clause covers ANY and ALL people - whites, Asians, gays, straights, bastards, people who wear socks with sandals, etc, etc, etc. This is opposition to the conservative/originalists who think, despite the language of the clause ("ANY PERSON"), that the Court should give the clause the meaning intended by the people who passed it in the 1860s - in other words, the EP Clause only protects black people from certain kinds of discrimination - it doesn't protect Asians, or gays, or people who wear socks with sandals.
The former view has won out (despite all the bellowing from Thomas and Scalia). But like with any right, the Court has defined limits, and the Court has articulated such with the EP Clause of the 14th Amendment (there'a three-tiered system of review and various designated suspect and quasi-suspect classes). The Court won't rule that "whites and Asians don't have equal protection under the law" - the court will judge whether the government can prove an important enough reason that this particular law should be allowed to discriminate in the particular manner it does.
Not quite. The more fundamental issue is over what equal protection and due process/liberty are meant to cover. Indeed, even conservatives acknowledge that "any person" covers more than just blacks (even Clarence Thomas gets that).
Simple question: Are whites and asians entitled to equal protection under the law?
Sure it's a simple question. But the fact you are asking it here leads me to believe there is some issue or question you want to talk about. Why not jump right to that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
