Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
January 4, 2007
LAW: The People Rule

The Sixth Circuit says nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment requires racial preferences in university education.

It's still amazing to me that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ran better with the voters than the GOP candidates did, even in a state where the Democrats control everything and have failed miserably in managing the state's economy.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:26 AM | Law 2006-08 • | Politics 2006 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Racial preference does not truely benefit anyone. Improve elementry and high school educations for those minorities and the rest will take care of itself. The answer is not to change the standards, but to bring everyone to the same standard. It can be done, but money isn't the answer. Holding both the teacher and the student responsible is the solution, but you will never convice the teachers union.

Posted by: maddirishman at January 4, 2007 10:23 AM

Additionally, there should be no provision for a court at any level overruling a vote of the people. I would be very interested to hear the legal justification for what has been going on in California with their ballot inititives for years. Is there real legal basis or have the judges just taken this power?

Posted by: maddirishman at January 4, 2007 10:32 AM

Irish, when you say that a court at any level should not overrule a vote of the people, is that only when you like the ballot initiative? Don't mean to be sarcastic, but what if the folks in California ruled that late term abortions are legal. Is that it? What about no death penalty? What if they voted that Muslims could not travel on airplanes that travelled only within California?

No matter the law, it MUST conform to the Constitution, and the final arbiter has always been what those 9 people in robes in DC say it is. Doesn't mean I always agree with them; they don't always agree with each other. But under our laws, that is that.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at January 4, 2007 11:45 AM

No, I do not mean only when I agree with the outcome. There was a stem cell inititive on the ballot in Missouri that passed and I did not support. There was an effort to overturn it in court and I was a vocal opponet.

We are not talking about Constitutional issues. To the best of my knowledge none of the California issues violated actual language in the Constitution. That not withstanding judges have been throwing them out for years.

I am not aware of a ballot inititive that has made it to the ballot with clear unconstitutional language. I agree with you that the Constitution is a precious document that should be preserved at all costs, but I do object rulings that not only doesn't exist, but from historical reading clearly shows was not the intent of the framers.

Posted by: maddirishman at January 4, 2007 12:44 PM

Irish, in the end we do agree. However, what is also true is that the judges don't always agree with either of us (we may have different views, but I bet we could sit in a room and reach agreements more easily than a bunch of politicians). Also, like reporters, eventually, the judges get the last word.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at January 4, 2007 8:04 PM

You are probably right about agreeing. I took your comments as playing Devil's Advocate.

Posted by: maddirishman at January 4, 2007 9:36 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg