Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action illustrates a significant problem with recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court justices may be from any political party or political philosophy, but they should all agree on fundamental principles. The concept that of “unalienable Rights” is perhaps the most important. A willingness to decide cases based on the facts and applicable law rather than a political agenda is also an essential quality.
Unfortunately, the mindset of recent appointees to the high court has failed to demonstrate these attributes.
The most recent illustration comes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette case. This matter, arising in Michigan, concerned a law approved by the voters banning the practice of affirmative action in admission to state universities. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have similar legislation. Justice Kennedy stated that “this case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it.”
In that way Dorn Spinal Therapy has been generally known as generic price viagra downtownsault.org it can relieve infertility, digestive and breathing problems as well in their life. Other symptoms may also include such as a dull ache in forehead or back of head and pain in neck and shoulders which travels to head. 7.Heart soft pill cialis my link Disease: Chronic anxiety and mental pressure lead to persistently increased level of stress hormones. This myth is not accurate, however, as cheap levitra tablets is an outstanding treatment for age-related erectile dysfunctional problems for any affected age group. Everyone knows that to use herbs is considered the best treatment option for erectile dysfunction. cialis without prescription In the Michigan case, the electorate made a decision not to permit racial bias in the form of affirmative action in admissions to state universities. The majority opinion held that judicial interference in the decisions of the electorate was inappropriate. The issue voted on by the citizenry did not interfere or limit the rights of any individual or group; it forbade the use of a particular criteria in admissions that gave preference to applications based on race.
Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that the electorate’s decision could only be held legal if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and if minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior. Her concept is one based on politics, not law, and is inappropriate.
The introduction of concepts foreign to the American belief in equality under the law and unalienable rights was also made manifest in the appointment of Justice Kagan in 2010. During the confirmation process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she did believe in the concept of unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal guardian of basic freedoms. These worrisome attitudes of recent appointees to that body are deeply troubling.