Again, Tyranny of the Courts!

[PoliticalChic]

1. DETROIT — A federal appeals court Friday struck down Proposal 2, the 2006 Michigan referendum that banned affirmative action in college admissions, employment and contracting, setting up another U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the issue.

“It’s a tremendous victory,” Detroit attorney George Washington said Friday, shortly after the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional.

“Affirmative action is back on the agenda,” Washington said.

Washington, who represents members of a coalition of organizations that fought the 2006 ballot proposal, said he expects the state to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to review the decision and, if that fails, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Michigan ban on race in college admissions is illegal, judges rule » National News » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO


2. Tyranny: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man &#8212; Thomas Jefferson>; especially: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

4. "U.S. Constitution was a terribly shocking document, especially to rulers all over the world. Because here were a people who were placing themselves in the role of master and placing government in the role of servant. In other words, in one fell swoop, the American people had inverted the historical relationship between citizen and government."
The Constitution: Liberties of the People and Powers of Government, Part 2


5. But, time and again, we allow the group known as &#8216;judges&#8217; to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong. In this particular case, the elected representatives of the people memorialized the injustice of treating some Americans differently from other Americans.
This is wrong. A re-evaluation of the role of judges is necessary.
And it should be based on the following sentiment, penned by a judge, Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

[The decision in item #1 above is] &#8220;based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society&#8217;s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch&#8217;s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.&#8221;
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges: get out of the people's business. You apply the Constitution- and no more!

 

[Mr. H.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k]YouTube - &#x202a;Here comes the Judge!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

YouTube - &#x202a;Here comes the Judge!&#x202c;&rlm;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i1p71lrCxg]YouTube - &#x202a;Pigmeat Markham - Here comes the judge&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

1. DETROIT — A federal appeals court Friday struck down Proposal 2, the 2006 Michigan referendum that banned affirmative action in college admissions, employment and contracting, setting up another U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the issue.

“It’s a tremendous victory,” Detroit attorney George Washington said Friday, shortly after the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional.

“Affirmative action is back on the agenda,” Washington said.

Washington, who represents members of a coalition of organizations that fought the 2006 ballot proposal, said he expects the state to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to review the decision and, if that fails, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Michigan ban on race in college admissions is illegal, judges rule » National News » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO


2. Tyranny: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

4. "U.S. Constitution was a terribly shocking document, especially to rulers all over the world. Because here were a people who were placing themselves in the role of master and placing government in the role of servant. In other words, in one fell swoop, the American people had inverted the historical relationship between citizen and government."
The Constitution: Liberties of the People and Powers of Government, Part 2


5. But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong. In this particular case, the elected representatives of the people memorialized the injustice of treating some Americans differently from other Americans.
This is wrong. A re-evaluation of the role of judges is necessary.
And it should be based on the following sentiment, penned by a judge, Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

[The decision in item #1 above is] “based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges: get out of the people's business. You apply the Constitution- and no more!

Detroit attorney George Washington sorry I found this to good to pass up....


as to the decision, mark me unsurprised......its just more grist for the mill.

and -
Washington, who represents members of a coalition of organizations that fought the 2006 ballot proposal, said he expects the state to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to review the decision and, if that fails, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

didn't back in O'Connors day the sc decide that we needed what another 25 years of AA?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. DETROIT — A federal appeals court Friday struck down Proposal 2, the 2006 Michigan referendum that banned affirmative action in college admissions, employment and contracting, setting up another U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the issue.

“It’s a tremendous victory,” Detroit attorney George Washington said Friday, shortly after the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional.

“Affirmative action is back on the agenda,” Washington said.

Washington, who represents members of a coalition of organizations that fought the 2006 ballot proposal, said he expects the state to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to review the decision and, if that fails, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Michigan ban on race in college admissions is illegal, judges rule » National News » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO


2. Tyranny: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

4. "U.S. Constitution was a terribly shocking document, especially to rulers all over the world. Because here were a people who were placing themselves in the role of master and placing government in the role of servant. In other words, in one fell swoop, the American people had inverted the historical relationship between citizen and government."
The Constitution: Liberties of the People and Powers of Government, Part 2


5. But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong. In this particular case, the elected representatives of the people memorialized the injustice of treating some Americans differently from other Americans.
This is wrong. A re-evaluation of the role of judges is necessary.
And it should be based on the following sentiment, penned by a judge, Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

[The decision in item #1 above is] “based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges: get out of the people's business. You apply the Constitution- and no more!

Detroit attorney George Washington sorry I found this to good to pass up....


as to the decision, mark me unsurprised......its just more grist for the mill.

and -
Washington, who represents members of a coalition of organizations that fought the 2006 ballot proposal, said he expects the state to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to review the decision and, if that fails, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

didn't back in O'Connors day the sc decide that we needed what another 25 years of AA?

"...George Washington sorry I found this to good to pass up...."
Yeah....sure....go fo the low hanging fruit!


Yes..O'Connor drank the Kool-Aid
"Having held in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that diverse college enrollments have proven educational benefits but that colleges should not need race-conscious admissions policies 25 years down the road, a retired associate justice — Sandra Day O'Connor — is now singing what some hear as a different tune…. "
. Having held in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that diverse college enrollments have proven educational benefits but that colleges should not need race-conscious admissions policies 25 years down the road, a retired associate justice — Sandra Day O'Connor — is now singing what some hear as a different tune…. "
Sandra Day O'Connor Revisits and Revives Affirmative-Action Controversy - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education


Have a happy 4th...this is our time to take our country back.

 

[daveman]

Affirmative Action...the soft bigotry of low expectations.

"There, there, Mr. Minority. We know you're just not good enough to succeed on your own, so let us white liberals help you out."

 

[tonystewart1]

Affirmative Action...the soft bigotry of low expectations.

"There, there, Mr. Minority. We know you're just not good enough to succeed on your own, so let us white liberals help you out."

Man I am glad I dont suffer from the disease White Guilt.

 

[tonystewart1]

By the way where is the supreme courts jurisdiction on this case? Is it because colleges recieve federal money? If it is then Michigan should just issue the feds a refund and then the fake juridiction the SC has will disapear.

 

[daveman]

Affirmative Action...the soft bigotry of low expectations.

"There, there, Mr. Minority. We know you're just not good enough to succeed on your own, so let us white liberals help you out."

Man I am glad I dont suffer from the disease White Guilt.

I have never personally oppressed anyone. I'm pretty sure my ancestors never did, either.

Nevertheless, I am not responsible for anything my ancestors may have done. Those who believe in identity politics and the collective over the individual cannot comprehend that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By the way where is the supreme courts jurisdiction on this case? Is it because colleges recieve federal money? If it is then Michigan should just issue the feds a refund and then the fake juridiction the SC has will disapear.

It's bogus. The judiciary is a runaway locomotive...accent on the 'loco.'

Did you see the Rehnquist quote, #5 in the OP? This guy knew what he was talking about.


BTW...WV? Thank you for Nick Swisher!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly you’ve not read the ruling, or if you have, you’ve not understood it:

COLE, Circuit Judge. Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to
the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and
universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task
is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate
is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit
the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).
Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters
Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.

The Supreme Court’s statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal
protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law
substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels
of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial
minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that,
when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as
far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course. Ensuring the fairness
of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by
definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and “discrete and insular
minorities” are especially so given the unique hurdles they face. Cf. United States v.
Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf

Therefore the Sixth Circuit is not capriciously striking down the amendment, nor is it an example of ‘judicial tyranny,’ rather, this is merely an example of a lower court following established precedent and case law as established by the Supreme Court – as lower courts are required to do.

But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong.

When the majority of the people are wrong, it is the responsibility of the courts, per judicial review, to strike down laws which are determined un-Constitutional: Marbury v Madison (1803).

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; we are ruled by laws, not men – the Constitution protects the people from the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943).

The OP would thus be well advised to research the facts of law first before exhibiting his ignorance is this and similar threads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clearly you’ve not read the ruling, or if you have, you’ve not understood it:

COLE, Circuit Judge. Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to
the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and
universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task
is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate
is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit
the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).
Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters
Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.

The Supreme Court’s statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal
protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law
substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels
of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial
minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that,
when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as
far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course. Ensuring the fairness
of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by
definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and “discrete and insular
minorities” are especially so given the unique hurdles they face. Cf. United States v.
Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf

Therefore the Sixth Circuit is not capriciously striking down the amendment, nor is it an example of ‘judicial tyranny,’ rather, this is merely an example of a lower court following established precedent and case law as established by the Supreme Court – as lower courts are required to do.

But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong.

When the majority of the people are wrong, it is the responsibility of the courts, per judicial review, to strike down laws which are determined un-Constitutional: Marbury v Madison (1803).

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; we are ruled by laws, not men – the Constitution protects the people from the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943).

The OP would thus be well advised to research the facts of law first before exhibiting his ignorance is this and similar threads.

Clearly you understand neither my post, nor my perspective.

"When the majority of the people are wrong,..."
The people are not wrong, the aggrandizement by the judiciary is wrong.

The courts, and you, bend and twist the language to mean up is down, and black is white.

I believe that 'equal protection' means....equal protection. Orwell was making a point when he wrote 'all animals are equal...but some animals are more equal than others.'

It does not mean special rights nor consideration for any particular group, nor does it mean equal outcomes.

Peter Kirsanow, one of my particular heros, refused to submit a photo on his college application, because he refused to be treated differently due to his race. He is black.

You would do well to consider the meaning of his behavior.

It is clear that you are knowledgeable. But knowledge is not the same as wisdom.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

 

[tonystewart1]

Clearly you’ve not read the ruling, or if you have, you’ve not understood it:

COLE, Circuit Judge. Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to
the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and
universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task
is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate
is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit
the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).
Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters
Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.

The Supreme Court’s statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal
protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law
substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels
of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial
minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that,
when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as
far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course. Ensuring the fairness
of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by
definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and “discrete and insular
minorities” are especially so given the unique hurdles they face. Cf. United States v.
Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf

Therefore the Sixth Circuit is not capriciously striking down the amendment, nor is it an example of ‘judicial tyranny,’ rather, this is merely an example of a lower court following established precedent and case law as established by the Supreme Court – as lower courts are required to do.

But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong.

When the majority of the people are wrong, it is the responsibility of the courts, per judicial review, to strike down laws which are determined un-Constitutional: Marbury v Madison (1803).

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; we are ruled by laws, not men – the Constitution protects the people from the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943).

The OP would thus be well advised to research the facts of law first before exhibiting his ignorance is this and similar threads.

In that case the SC did not have jurisdiciton. Show me where the constitution gives the SC the right to here a case that does not involve more than one state. It is clearly spelled out in the Constitution the limitations of the court.

You can not take the courts word on whether they have power or not. You dont ask the fox if he should be watching the hen house. Here is a quote from Justice Frankfurter who wrote the disenting opion on West Virginia BOE v Barnette:

“As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution.... It can never be emphasized too much that one’s own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one’s duty on the bench.”

 

[tonystewart1]

Just in case anyone cant remember the wording here it is and I want someone to use the Constitution to prove that the SC has the power to legislate.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Moonglow]

I never liked when Reagan signed affirmative action into law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never liked when Reagan signed affirmative action into law.

Executive Order 10925 makes the first reference to "affirmative action"

President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. July 2, 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson

The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. June 4, 1965 Speech defining concept of affirmative action

In an eloquent speech to the graduating class at Howard University, President Johnson frames the concept underlying affirmative action, asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination:
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Sept. 24, 1965 Executive Order 11246 enforces affirmative action for the first time

Issued by President Johnson, the executive order requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender. 1969 The Philadelphia Order

Initiated by President Richard Nixon, the "Philadelphia Order" was the most forceful plan thus far to guarantee fair hiring practices in construction jobs. Philadelphia was selected as the test case because, as assistant secretary of labor Arthur Fletcher explained, "The craft unions and the construction industry are among the most egregious offenders against equal opportunity laws . . . openly hostile toward letting blacks into their closed circle." The order included definite "goals and timetables." As President Nixon asserted, "We would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment."

Read more: Affirmative Action Timeline — Infoplease.com Affirmative Action Timeline &mdash; Infoplease.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clearly you’ve not read the ruling, or if you have, you’ve not understood it:

COLE, Circuit Judge. Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to
the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and
universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task
is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate
is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit
the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).
Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters
Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.

The Supreme Court’s statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal
protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law
substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels
of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial
minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that,
when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as
far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course. Ensuring the fairness
of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by
definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and “discrete and insular
minorities” are especially so given the unique hurdles they face. Cf. United States v.
Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf

Therefore the Sixth Circuit is not capriciously striking down the amendment, nor is it an example of ‘judicial tyranny,’ rather, this is merely an example of a lower court following established precedent and case law as established by the Supreme Court – as lower courts are required to do.

But, time and again, we allow the group known as ‘judges’ to decide that the people are not capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong.

When the majority of the people are wrong, it is the responsibility of the courts, per judicial review, to strike down laws which are determined un-Constitutional: Marbury v Madison (1803).

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; we are ruled by laws, not men – the Constitution protects the people from the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943).

The OP would thus be well advised to research the facts of law first before exhibiting his ignorance is this and similar threads.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land."

Constitution.
Supreme law of the land.

Try to incorporate that into your thinking.