The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[unofan]

The Michigan affirmative action case came down today. Ultimately, the law is upheld 6-2 with Kagan recused. But the 6 yes votes resulted in four opinions, none of which gathered more than 3 votes.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The Michigan affirmative action case came down today. Ultimately, the law is upheld 6-2 with Kagan recused. But the 6 yes votes resulted in four opinions, none of which gathered more than 3 votes.

I can live with this. I'd rather colleges make sure they properly address the economic background of students as opposed to dealing with essentually the same issue (opportunity) from a color-of-your-skin perspective. Mind you, someone (the gubmint?) needs to be vigilant in tracking that there's not a huge drop off in minority enrollments overall on college campuses.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Subscribed because the software patent issue could be the single most fascinating and important case(s) in the last twenty years when it comes to technology.

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And in other opinions, the court effectively turned an anonymous tip into probable cause if it's delivered via 9-1-1, or at least, that's my surface impression of the coverage of it. Can anyone who's read the opinion tell me that this doesn't effectively give the court's imprimatur to the DEA/NSA/etc. sanitizing illegally-obtained evidence by turning it into an anonymous tip? 'Cause that's what I immediately thought of when I read the facts of the case.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And in other opinions, the court effectively turned an anonymous tip into probable cause if it's delivered via 9-1-1, or at least, that's my surface impression of the coverage of it. Can anyone who's read the opinion tell me that this doesn't effectively give the court's imprimatur to the DEA/NSA/etc. sanitizing illegally-obtained evidence by turning it into an anonymous tip? 'Cause that's what I immediately thought of when I read the facts of the case.

Yeah, here's my question:

If the tip proves to be false, does that mean any evidence would be inadmissible?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Wow. The dissent to this case is one of the most flippant I have ever read.

An excerpt:

The Court says, ante, at 5, that "[b]y reporting that she had been run off the road by a specific vehicle . . . the caller necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge." So what? The issue is not how she claimed to know, but whether what she claimed to know was true. The claim to "eyewitness knowledge" of being run off the road supports not at all its veracity; nor does the amazing, mystifying prediction (so far short of what existed in White) that the petitioners' truck would be heading south on Highway 1.

Edit: Actually, the dissent is so compelling, I can't believe that five justices went the other way. Jeebus.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Edit: Actually, the dissent is so compelling, I can't believe that five justices went the other way. Jeebus.

That was exactly my thought.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Any time you see one of the hard-liners (right or left) side with the other side, you know there's a good read and probably a very compelling argument.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The Michigan affirmative action case came down today. Ultimately, the law is upheld 6-2 with Kagan recused. But the 6 yes votes resulted in four opinions, none of which gathered more than 3 votes.

It was even weirder that all 8 Justices agreed that affirmative action indeed was discriminatory.

Sotomayor's opinion (well, the parts of it that I read....) was a bit disappointing: "even though affirmative action is 'discriminatory', that's okay anyway because...."


The saddest part of this entire conversation is that there indeed is an effective alternate way to address the goals of "affirmative action" in a non-discriminatory way.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It was even weirder that all 8 Justices agreed that affirmative action indeed was discriminatory.

Sotomayor's opinion (well, the parts of it that I read....) was a bit disappointing: "even though affirmative action is 'discriminatory', that's okay anyway because...."


The saddest part of this entire conversation is that there indeed is an effective alternate way to address the goals of "affirmative action" in a non-discriminatory way.

Yeah, but according to her, you're white (I presume, just playing the odds) so you don't get to have an opinion on this. WAAAARRRRGARBL.

[unofan]

It was even weirder that all 8 Justices agreed that affirmative action indeed was discriminatory.

Sotomayor's opinion (well, the parts of it that I read....) was a bit disappointing: "even though affirmative action is 'discriminatory', that's okay anyway because...."


The saddest part of this entire conversation is that there indeed is an effective alternate way to address the goals of "affirmative action" in a non-discriminatory way.

All 8 justices said affirmative action is constitutional as well. Kennedy went out of his way to make sure everyone knew this case did not challenge that fact in his plurality opinion, as did Breyer in his concurrence. Funny how you ignored that part...

[unofan]

Any time you see one of the hard-liners (right or left) side with the other side, you know there's a good read and probably a very compelling argument.

Scalia and Breyer usually flip on criminal cases. I understand why Scalia does, I've never understood why Breyer does.

Alito is the biggest cop *** kisser on the bench. I still have yet to see him side with a criminal defendant. There have been a few 8-1 decisions with him as the lone dissenter in criminal cases.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

All 8 justices said affirmative action is constitutional as well. Funny how you ignored that part...

I thought they actually said that they weren't considering the constitutionality of affirmative action, just the constitutionality of the state ban on it.

[unofan]

I thought they actually said that they weren't considering the constitutionality of affirmative action, just the constitutionality of the state ban on it.

They did. By doing so, they implicitly acknowledged its constitutionality by precedent. They would not get that specific about what they're not talking about if they didn't wish to make sure prior precedent was still good without question.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

They did. By doing so, they implicitly acknowledged its constitutionality by precedent. They would not get that specific about what they're not talking about if they didn't wish to make sure prior precedent was still good without question.

I guess I disagree. They specifically tiptoed around that concept because they didn't want to rule on that. Only the case on hand. Either way though, it will come up again.