Today in Supreme Court History: October 12, 1977

10/12/1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke argued.

The Burger Court (1975-1981)

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for Hobie-Stank (or is Hobie really me?) to slam Bakke, let's see, he was a Marine Corpse Vietnam Vet, NASA Engineer, but couldn't get in Med School because he was that ancient age of 36, (for a real treat, read about the guy who got Bakke's spot (Dr) Patrick Chavis) of course, being a smart guy, he went into Anesthesia,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Chavis went into liposuction -- it's what CA *revoked* his license for.
(I assume there is a difference between suspended and revoked.)

And wasn't Bakke still practicing into his 80s?

[Frank Drackman]

Chavis got the Celestial Revocation, murdered in an LA Car Jacking in 2002, who says Jay-Hey doesn't have a sense of humor?
I hope Bakke's not practicing in Minn-a-Soda, where he practiced most of his career, as his license expired in 2003, he's also 84, which is too old to be passing gas.

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1976): After conviction based on marijuana found in car, the Circuit Court (in another case) created an exclusionary rule which was retrospective; defendant demanded a hearing which resulted in suppression of the evidence and vacating the conviction. Here, the Court holds that Double Jeopardy does not bar Government from appealing the suppression finding, because if the appeal is successful, it merely means the guilty verdict is reinstated.

Prunty v. Brooks, 528 U.S. 9 (decided October 12, 1999): one of several orders that day either imposing sanctions on compulsive filers of pro se certiorari motions or requiring them to pay full fees instead of proceeding in forma pauperis; Prunty himself was on his tenth filing, all frivolous; it is noted that all were on non-criminal matters

Patterson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 269 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1925): amendment of Interstate Commerce Commission rate regulation power specifically applying to rates of short vs. long hauls also applied to rates of through vs. aggregate hauls; through rate being higher than aggregate rates is per se unreasonable, just as is short haul rate being higher than long haul rate

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think Powell's controlling opinion is too narrow.

For instance, the history of discrimination is a valid state interest to use in a carefully crafted affirmative action program. Focus on diversity resulted in a "round peg in square hole" philosophy.

Oyez.com has good opinion announcements audio.

You can find Justice Powell's notes on various cases online. For instance, I was wondering why one case (the oral argument was the day before Douglas announced his retirement) took so long to be decided & ultimately was a per curiam [it originally was in Brennan's name]. It involved hot dog sales in New Orleans.

 https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/casefiles/382/

For those waiting for Justice Souter's notes, they should come out in 2059.

[Frank Drackman]

Lewis Powell, another of that Legal Mastermind Milhouse’s genius Surpreme picks (unless maybe Tricky Penis wanted 80 million fewer Blacks over the 50 years after Roe, and maybe the AMA wanted more incompetent minority Docs) Funny how an Amateur like “45” picked 3 Judges who did in 6 years what Milhouse, Ford, Ronaldus Maximus, GHWB and “W”'s Judges couldn’t do in 50
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some Atoning to do (I can Atone and still watch College Foo-bawl)

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“a carefully crafted affirmative action program”

“Carefully crafted” sounds like a commercial for some pretentious beer.

It makes about as much moral sense as “carefully crafted racial preferences for Whites or Asians."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The term "carefully crafted" is a common one. It also is a sensible approach when something is okay but can be a problematic if handled badly. If you think AA is bad, fine.

That's a common opinion. Like that term is common.

[Frank Drackman]

The Affirmative Action that's not supposed to be happening any more?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“If you think AA is bad, fine.”

AA is fine – it’s helped people recover from a serious addiction.

Racial preferences, on the other hand, are not fine, they are evil.

“Carefully crafted” simply means writing a racial-discrimination policy in hopes that the courts won’t interfere with it – like the campaign to “equalize” the Jim Crow schools in order to avoid integration.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Carefully crafted” simply means writing a racial-discrimination policy in hopes that the courts won’t interfere with it

No, it doesn’t “simply” mean that.

This is another case of broad language being given overly restrictive interpretation online, resulting in often dismissive language.

The bit about AA is cute. “Affirmative action” covers a lot of ground, much of which is far from “evil.” I put aside the whole concept of certain “necessarily evils” that avoid more serious ones, since there is enough ground that doesn’t even go that far.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually randomized controlled clinical trials show AA (And NA, Gambers/Sex/Eating versions) has no affect on recovery/relapse rate except it is awkward to try to drink, smoke crack, bet, fuck, eat at one of the meetings.
after the meetings? Hey Now!

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

People who brand affirmative action as evil have no solution to the problem created by all the "racial preferences" in the past. One suspects racial preferences only became evil when they were perceived to cut against white people.

[Frank Drackman]

FIFY:
“People who brand affirmative action as good have no solution to the problem created by all the “racial preferences” in the past except to create racial preferences in the present. One suspects racial preferences only became good when they no longer favored white people”
Seriously, so what "Protected Category" do you fall into? I'm guessing Homo

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Blow it out your ass.

I didn’t say that “affirmative action” was evil (affirmative action is a deliberately broad term taking in both bad and good stuff), but that *racial preferences* are evil. Returning your insult, some people seem to think that racial discrimination is only wrong if aimed at some races, but that it’s OK when aimed at (say) Whites and Asians.

People like you have a ready justification for discrimination against Whites – “well, *they* did plenty of racially oppressive things, so it’s only fair to discriminate against them in return.” It’s pure bullshit, of course, as proven by your willingness to extend your discriminatory practices to Asian-Americans, who generally weren’t involved in the Evil White People stuff you have in mind.

"no solution to the problem created by all the 'racial preferences' in the past"

More bullshit. Opponents of racial preferences have put forward all sorts of ideas for helping people of all races, you simply lack interest in anything which isn't racist.