U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS, SPRING 2011

 

CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES, DAY TWO; and

RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

 

Woll 24 (Gomillion v. Lightfoot) and 30 (University of California Regents v. Bakke)

News summary #3

Friday, April 8

 

24, Gomillion v. Lightfoot

 

            This case opened the door to greater federal court involvement in state and local government rule-making with respect to elections. We previously discussed the political question doctrine (Woll 68 and 69); note that in this case, the Court does not apply this doctrine to the state of Alabama’s actions – this is a constitutional issue, according to the majority opinion, and in the end the Alabama law was voided as a violation of the 15th Amendment.

 

30, University of California Regents v. Bakke

 

            This key 1978 precedent established guidelines under which affirmative action plans would be considered in future year. “A sharply divided Court” (OSY p. 161) ruled that strict quotas to admit persons from disadvantaged groups were unconstitutional, but race could be considered as a factor in medical school admissions decisions.  Additional discussion of Court rulings on affirmative action can be found in OSY p. 161-2.

 

 

QUESTIONS:  why is a strict quota system deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?  Why is it still acceptable for colleges and universities to consider race?  Why is affirmative action so controversial today?

 

 

NEWS SUMMARY #3 QUESTIONS

 

1.  Inform one another about the Supreme Court decisions (and reasoning for them) raised in the articles you found.  If your articles concern Supreme Court cases that have NOT yet been decided, also discuss what the articles say about how the Supreme Court might rule, and what evidence leads you to this conclusion.

 

 

 

2.  If your articles give any evidence about the political views of Supreme Court justices, discuss what the articles say, and how the justices’ political views might affect their decisions on the cases mentioned in the articles.  Also discuss whether justices are interpreting the Constitution as contemporary American citizens, whether the original intent and meanings of the Constitution’s authors appear to be the central concern of the justices, or whether a blend of the two approaches is in evidence.