#WTFnews" data-image-description="<p>[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300"]<a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="zemanta-img-inserted zemanta-img-configured" title="U.S. Supreme Court building." alt="U.S. Supreme Court building." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Supreme_Court.jpg/300px-Supreme_Court.jpg" width="300" height="225" /></a> U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption]</p> <div id="article-body"> <p>By Peter Schmidt</p> <p>Washington</p> <p>The <a class="zem_slink" title="Supreme Court of the United States" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8907083333,-77.0043444444&spn=0.01,0.01&q=38.8907083333,-77.0043444444 (Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States)&t=h" target="_blank" rel="geolocation">U.S. Supreme Court</a> appeared Tuesday to be leaning toward upholding state prohibitions on race-conscious admissions at public colleges as the justices heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging a ban passed by voters in Michigan.</p> <p>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely regarded as the swing vote in <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-to-Review/138149/">the case</a>, joined justices with more conservative reputations on race matters in expressing skepticism toward the argument that the Michigan’s ban represented a discriminatory restructuring of the political process to put minority members at a disadvantage in influencing admissions policy. Only two liberal members of the court—<a class="zem_slink" title="Ruth Bader Ginsburg" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> and Justice Sonia Sotomayor—voiced sharp criticisms of the Michigan measure, <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Michigan-Overwhelmingly-Adopts/5563/">adopted</a> as an amendment to the state’s Constitution in 2006.</p> <p>With one of the court’s four liberal members, <a class="zem_slink" title="Elena Kagan" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">Justice Elena Kagan</a>, having recused herself from hearing the case as a former U.S. solicitor general, the odds appear in favor of the court overturning last year’s decision by the <a class="zem_slink" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/default.html" target="_blank" rel="homepage">U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit</a> to <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Court-Strikes-Down-Michigans/135818/">strike down</a> Michigan’s amendment as a violation of the <a class="zem_slink" title="United States Constitution" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">U.S. Constitution’s</a> equal protection clause.</p> <p>A decision to uphold Michigan’s ban would have the effect of leaving intact a similar California measure that has twice survived challenges before the <a class="zem_slink" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</a>. It would also keep firmly in place similar bans adopted by voters in Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington, by the governing board of Florida’s public universities, and by lawmakers in New Hampshire, potentially encouraging campaigns for similar measures elsewhere.</p> <h4>Looking Back</h4> <p>Most of Tuesday’s deliberations in the Michigan case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (No. 12-682), focused on how the state’s ban on racial preferences in admissions comported with the <a class="zem_slink" title="Equal Protection Clause" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment</a> of the U.S. Constitution, a bedrock civil-rights measure adopted in the wake of the Civil War.</p> <p>The State of Michigan defended its ban as echoing the Fourteenth Amendment’s own prohibition of discrimination. Race-conscious admissions policies already are “barely permissible” under Supreme Court precedents subjecting them to strict judicial scrutiny, Michigan’s solicitor general, <a class="zem_slink" title="John J. Bursch" href="http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-19441-60567--,00.html" target="_blank" rel="homepage">John J. Bursch</a>, argued. “It cannot be unconstitutional for the people to choose not to use them anymore,” to move “into a race-neutral future,” he said.</p> <p>But Mark D. Rosenbaum, a lawyer representing a group of students challenging Michigan’s amendment, argued that the measure unconstitutionally “creates two playing fields” for those wishing to influence college admissions policies. Whereas other constituencies, such as alumni or residents of rural areas, can lobby university boards or administrators for favorable treatment in admissions, Michigan’s minority residents cannot gain such advantages without mounting a successful campaign to repeal an amendment that had passed easily in a state which is 85 percent white.</p> <p>“The people of the state have multiple options available to them if they don’t like the way the universities are operating. But the one option they don’t have is to treat racial matters different from all other matters,” said Mr. Rosenbaum, a law professor at the University of Michigan and chief counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles.</p> <p>A similar argument was offered by Shanta Driver, a lawyer for a second group of plaintiffs, consisting of students, college applicants, University of Michigan faculty, and the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, which she leads. She got into a heated exchange with Justice Scalia by urging the justices “to bring the Fourteenth Amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority.”</p> <p><a class="zem_slink" title="Antonin Scalia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">Justice Antonin Scalia</a> responded, “My goodness, I thought we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races.” He asked: “Do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th Amendment, that it protects only minorities? Any case?”</p> <p>Ms. Driver responded, “No case of yours.”</p> <h4>Questions of Motive</h4> <p>In the Sixth Circuit’s 8-to-7 decision striking down Michigan’s ban, the majority had relied heavily on two U.S. Supreme Court precedents: its 1969 ruling in Hunter v. Erickson, in which the high court struck down an Akron, Ohio, ballot initiative that required voter approval of any city ordinance regulating real-estate transactions based on race; and its 1982 ruling in Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which the court truck down a state ballot measure that prohibited school districts from voluntarily adopting busing policies to promote school desegregation. In Tuesday’s Supreme Court debate over the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, the two sides differed sharply on how to apply such precedents, or whether they should be rejected as no longer applicable, given subsequent changes in the law.</p> <p> </p> <p>Mr. Rosenbaum said that the issues raised in the Seattle precedent and theSchuette case are identical, because in both “the objective was to obtain diversity.”</p> <p> </p> <p>Mr. Bursch argued, however, that Michigan’s ban on racial preferences differed from the measures at issue in the Hunter and Seattle cases in that it did not repeal an anti-discrimination law. In Hunter and Seattle, he said, the court rejected efforts to end policies that primarily benefited minority members, but in the Supreme Court’s 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, upholding the use of race-conscious admissions by the <a class="zem_slink" title="University of Michigan Ann Arbor UM" href="http://colleges.findthebest.com/l/2086/University-of-Michigan-Ann-Arbor-UM" target="_blank" rel="fdbcolleges">University of Michigan’s</a> law school, held that such policies must educationally benefit all students, and not just the members of racial or ethnic minority groups.</p> <p> </p> <p>Justice Ginsburg cited past allegations that Michigan’s amendment had been motivated by racial animus as reason to doubt claims it promotes equal opportunity.</p> <p> </p> <p>In response, Mr. Bursch told her a federal district court had soundly rejected such accusations as to the measure’s intent, and rattled off a list of nondiscriminatory reasons why voters supported it. Among them, he said, were beliefs that racial preferences are themselves discriminatory, or set minority students up for academic failure, or are not the only means of ensuring sufficient levels of racial diversity in college enrollments.</p> <h4>Weighing Options</h4> <p>Tuesday’s deliberations dealt only tangentially with the legality of race-conscious admissions policies, which the Supreme Court most recently<a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Fisher-Ruling-May-Open-a/140015/">upheld</a> in a June decision involving the undergraduate admission policy at the University of Texas at Austin. But there was considerable debate over the effect of Michigan’s ban on enrollment.</p> <p>Mr. Bursch characterized the picture painted by enrollment statistics as “muddy,” and attributed some of the perceived drop in the University of Michigan’s black and Hispanic enrollments after 2010 to the institution’s decision to follow the lead of the U.S. Census by letting multiracial students check off several boxes on admissions forms. When students who check off “black” and one or more other boxes are counted as black, as they might have been under the one-box system, “the number of underrepresented minorities on campus actually comes out higher,” he said.</p> <p>He also argued that the University of Michigan could achieve more diversity without considering race by eliminating admissions preferences for the children of alumni and doing more to enroll lower-income students.</p> <p>Read more here- <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Appears-Likely/142345/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en">http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Appears-Likely/142345/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en</a></p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/?px"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_h.png?x-id=156b5a81-5a60-483a-9043-f12ecc90d903" /></a></div> " data-medium-file="" data-large-file="" class="size-full wp-image-27380" src="http://caravandaily.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/india-poverty-poor-children.jpg" alt="The Supreme Court pulled up the Central Government for its poor implementation of welfare schemes for children from lower sections of society. AP file photo" width="600" height="330" />
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court Friday pulled up the Modi government for the mismatch between the “wonderful” welfare schemes for children belonging to lower strata of society and their implementation, saying the ground reality was “completely different”, according to Press Trust of India.
“All the ideas you have seems OK. Government of India has wonderful laws, ideas and schemes but the things are different on the ground,” a social justice bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and U U Lalit said.
The observations came while Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court about the schemes which the government has formulated for the welfare of children.
The ASG said the government had introduced a scheme named Sabla in 2010-11 on a pilot basis, which was being implemented in 205 districts across all states and union territories.
Sabla aims at all-round development of adolescent girls of 11-18 years by making them “self-reliant”. The scheme has two components of nutrition and non-nutrition with the former aiming at improving the health and nutrition status of the adolescent girls, the latter addresses their developmental needs.
“It is a wonderful scheme but what is happening? You people do a lot of work, make plans but what happens? Ground realities are completely different,” the bench said.
The apex court also expressed concern over non-filling up of vacancies, including for the post of Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), despite its directions.
Earlier, the court had slammed the Centre for its “casual” approach towards missing children and imposed a fine on it for not complying with its directions like providing the status of such children across the country.
Referring to the statutory provision on vacancies, it had said the Chairperson of NCPCR and its members were required to be appointed within 90 days of the posts falling vacant.–