Preview Of The New Session Of The U.S. Supreme Court
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-01/preview-new-session-us-supreme-court
As of this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court is back in session. In the new term the justices will decide cases dealing with affirmative action, unreasonable searches and human rights. In the latter case, the court will hear arguments today on whether to allow victims of human rights abuses committed in foreign countries to seek justice in U.S. courts. Legal analysts also say it's likely the court will agree later in the term to take up challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Diane and her guests discuss the implications of the major cases before the court and how individual justices might affect outcomes.
Guests
Stuart Taylor
author and journalist, covering the health care case for Kaiser Health News, and a contributing editor for National Journal. He's the author of a new book, "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."
David Cole
law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and author of "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable." His previous books include "Less Safe, Less Free" and "Terrorism and the Constitution."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Welcome back Diane. I know the program is focused on what is coming up for the Supreme Court. But I have always wanted a clear explanation why the Supreme Court turned down the outing of Valerie Plame case? The appeal against those who outed her.
Also when we have such a controversial decision such as the recent one by Justice Roberts. What goes on behind the scenes between say Scalia and Roberts?
I would like to add a detail to your guests' characterization of the Top 10 Percent situation at the University of Texas. Your guests are conflating two different types of admissions at the university. There is no race quota in the Top 10% situation, which is strictly based on class ranking for high school students. The racial considerations used for application are for students admitted outside of the Top 10%.
Moreover, Top 10% is not a policy of the university. It was a law enacted by the state legislature, resulting from a significant portion of the state - particularly the Rio Grande River valley - rarely or never having their students accepted to the state's flagship universities (UT and Texas A&M). State universities in Texas are technically part of the state government, are funded in significant portion by state funds, and therefore the universities were required to adopt this policy.
Please discuss new challenges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Wiretapping?
If Affirmative Action is repealed, then there is a likely chance that history can repeat itself. While I'm sympathic for Abigail Fisher, racism is still alive and well in this country.
Until people stop generalizing others based on racial stereotypes and until the covert practice of rejecting people jobs and housing as a result of their names, the can we re-consider.
Great broadcast.
In my town, the city government has implied "consent to search/detect" with K9 in public housing and has, in at least one instance, subsequently searched a dwelling and charged the occupant with possession of drugs.
We certainly have a drug problem, but is this the way to attack it?
I have deleted this comment.
Remember the oldest and still most important form of affirmative action in the U.S. is "being white", so quit the whinning and allow other colors and socioeconomic goups the same unfairness white folk have enjoyed for over two centuries and at the end of the day we'll have a better society just like we now have much better athletes and more entertaining sports and music that is heard around the world
Thanks to you and your guests for discussing the new Supreme Court term. I wanted to press Stuart a bit, as a white woman, on his response to the caller who objected to Affirmative Action. Stuart observed that the vast majority of the American public opposes, and has opposed, racial preference. That's just not true. For the entire history of this country, the preference has been strongly in favor of whites. Discussing the context for Affirmative Action, even briefly, seems appropriate here.
One of the most discriminatory things that universities use to allow people to enroll is the legacy enrollment. If your grandfather gave money, and your father gives money, it is almost a given that you will get into said university. Those people sometimes aren't worthy of being there but because of who they are they are guaranteed a place. Nobody talks about this as a criterion for admission and how it disadvantages even whites who do not have a connection to the university.
The very same Conservatives who despise Affirmative Action,who tell us let the most qualified get the jobs and education,quickly abandon their ideals when it comes to public education. The Conservatives demand we dump experienced and highly trained professional teachers,with inexperienced,and un-certified "Teach For America" grads. These folks are die hard Ayn Rand ideologues,with a mission to brain wash children.No Civics.No Science.No critical thinking. The race to the bottom promoters.
Happy to hear you Diane !
Wishing you good health Maestra
jlynwood wrote:
One of the most discriminatory things that universities use to allow people to enroll is the legacy enrollment. If your grandfather gave money, and your father gives money...
So what exactly is money good for? If I give my hard earned money and I went to that university why shouldn't I be able to buy some consideration with it. Every liberal I hear wants money to be useless, I make my money by working hard, I should be able to spend it how I want. If you want the same things then make it a priority in your spending. If you do not have enough income to justify this then GET A BETTER JOB. I have never felt a calling to perform a function, I have felt a calling to provide for my family. Perhaps that is the better calling as it shows responsibility to others instead of myself. If you wish to be in a position that does not pay as well then you have chosen to live within those means, you have not , however, chosen what means I live by. Now your bed is made happy snoozing, I sleep like a baby every night knowing I am doing well by my family and providing for my child.
This Supreme Court has 5 right wing extremists controlling America. For me and millions more like me,free speech includes voting. For the T-Party 5,these guys believe free speech is the wealthy legally bribing politicians,and denying Americans the right to vote.We got rid of Royalty in 1776,why don`t the wealthy and their servant judges get that?
IF YOU DON`T COUNT THE VOTES,YOU DESTROY DEMOCRACY!
Thank you for devoting an hour to this important topic. Listeners interested in knowing more might want to take a look at our Supreme Court Preview: http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2012/09/could-this-supreme-court-ter... and our new video: Unequal Justice: The Relentless Rise of the 1% Court: http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2012/10/afj-releases-unequal-justice...
Alliance for Justice
Washington DC
www.afj.org
Stuart Taylor is the typical Right Wing apologist. Talking about coerced voluntary consent to searches or whatever, he seems unaware that States have Implied Consent Laws for roadside stops and inplied Implied Consent Laws in the rest.
That was accomplished by lame device of calling use of Public highways a privilege.
"When did driving on a Highway become a privilege??? When the cops wanted to get around Citizens use of the Fifth Amendment.(Another of the Freedom Loving Right Wing's attacks on our real Liberty)
When we rode or drove horse-powered vehicles, bicycles or walked on Public Roads and streets, there was no question of rights, a notion that persisted well into the Automobile Age.
In addition, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows deprivation of any Civil Right except possibly after renouncing of Citizenship. That is, no deprivation of Voting, Parental, driving, flying, Naturalization or ANY OTHER RIGHT ACCORDED TO OTHER CITIZENS.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
June 29, 2012 - 1:27 pm"
But even Professor Cole is an Accomodationist. My reading of the Constitution says a cop must make a Sworn Presentment, not to swear that his Paid or Otherwise rewarded Informant or his Dog told him something.
Furthermore, the cop must decribe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized..
As to the Blood Tests, another even farther reach, even the Inquisition was forbidden to draw blood!!!
Furthermore, have not the Supremes said that surgical removal of a bullet is unreasonable- that if the bullet was protruding from the skin, the cop might pluck it off legally?
They have no right to invade one's body to search for alcohol.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
@Clifford Spend time reviewing the decisions of the supreme court over the past 8 years and then reconsider your comment of "5 right wing extremists". To me, it looks like the majority of their decisions have gone down paths that the liberal left embrace. Remember that presidents appoint these judges. Typically democrats appoint democrats and republicans appoint republicans... What should be considered is term limits.... for the honorable judges AND for those in the legislative branches of our government. Lifetime service can be a service or a disservice if all of their decisions are made following a biased ideology that gives no consideration to the constitution.