June 22, 2017

Supreme Court Immigration Ruling Applauded by Project 21’s Emery McClendon

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Washington, DC – Project 21 member and Indiana Tea Party organizer Emery McClendon has the following statement about President Obama’s loss in a critical immigration case that was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today:

As one who followed the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DACA, case closely, and a person that participated in a press conference outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on the day of the oral arguments, I am happy for this outcome. It would have been better if they had agreed with the lower court, but the matter should never have gotten the appeal. Many of those who support Obama’s action do not understand the implications if it had been approved.

We need to enforce our laws that are already on the books, and no illegal immigrant should be allowed to receive assistance from our government to break the law or to automatically tag on to others to become citizens.

The case was even more controversial than the typical immigration case because in it, 26 states charged that President Obama, in seeking to grant amnesty to some 5 million illegal aliens through executive order, thereby bypassing the Congress and its lawmaking powers, had exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

The high court deadlocked 4-4, which left in place a lower court ruling for the states and against the President.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Affirmative Action Ruling by U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas Today Disappoints Black Conservatives

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

WASHINGTON, DC – Leaders of the Project 21 black leadership network are expressing disappointment over the decision handed down this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas, a key affirmative action case.

The high court ruled that the race-conscious admissions program at the time of Abigail Fisher’s application to the University of Texas is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

With the Pacific Legal Foundation and others, Project 21 submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case in September, and has twice before submitted friend of the court briefs in Fisher (here and here).

“I ?m very disappointed,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, an attorney, constitutional law commentator and former member of the faculty at the George Mason University School of Law. Once again the Supreme Court had the chance to banish the role of race in school admissions. In this case with no showing of bias or race-based hostility and with the option of a very workable race-neutral admissions alternative, the Supreme Court chose to allow schools to use the race of a college applicant as a relevant selection criteria. In the 21st century we should be able to move past the shibboleth that the race of the other students in the classroom is relevant to your ability to learn.”

“Instead of these constant arguments about affirmative action I’d like to see as many resources and as much attention paid to properly educating black students regardless of socioeconomic status as is being paid to preserving racial preferences. Academic set asides actually diminish a black student’s chance of graduating from college; by placing them in environments that they are ill-prepared to be a part of. Instead of looking at forcing students into elite universities, let’s address the root issue, low academic performance,” said Project 21’s Stacy Washington, host of the Stacy on the Right Show, broadcast on 97.1 FM News Talk KFTK out of St. Louis, Missouri.

“Black students come into kindergarten with fewer words spoken to them over the beginning of their lives. They know fewer sight words and cannot count as high as their white counterparts. This deficiency widens over time, resulting in a lower probability that they can compete in extremely competitive academic environments. This is easily rectified. End these set asides and place the focus on teaching parents how to prepare their children for school,” Washington continued.

“Reading 20 minutes a day. Limiting TV viewing to the weekends only. Placing academics at the top of the priority list. Asking your children questions, listening to their thoughts. Eating dinner together. These things provide an environment that produces children that can compete with others regardless of race.”

“Let’s spend some capital on teaching parents that,” Washington concluded.

“I cannot say that I know all the details of the case, which will be forthcoming,” said Project 21’s Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality. “But in this day and age, where we are several decades away from segregation, and a country where the definition of what it means to be a minority, African-American and/or black is not as simple nor as one dimensional as it once was; we need a reimagining and redefinition of Affirmative Action. A program that should be character-based, socio-economically-based vs. race- or gender-based.”

“A poor person of any color, a socio-economically deprived individual who demonstrates a ‘character quotient’ to overcome and do extraordinary academic work has earned special consideration and benefit of affirmative action,” Innis added.
“One is not born with virtue because one’s gender happens to be female, as opposed to male; nor black, as opposed to white, nor because a surname is Hispanic as opposed to Anglo.”

“Virtue comes with acts, not birth,” Innis concluded.

“By upholding the use of race in college admissions, the United States Supreme Court has once again made it impossible for aspiring non-white students to succeed on their own academic merits without there being a ‘question mark’ attached to them,” said Project 21’s Darryn “Dutch” Martin. “Racial preferences will forever represent a dark cloud over the heads of every minority student, no matter how academically conscientious and hard-working, who wants to be taken seriously based on his or her individual accomplishments and work ethic alone.”

Project 21 has released six press releases in the Fisher case since 2011 (here, here,here, here, here, and here), quoting many of its leaders.

Video and audio recordings of very many Project 21 leaders discussing affirmative action on television and radio can be found on the National Center for Public Policy Research YouTube page. A Project 21 policy luncheon on the Schuette affirmative action case, featuring Jennifer Gratz, can also be viewed on the National Center YouTube page.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Share

Maine Supreme Court Decision Against HSUS Not Necessarily a Victory for Sportsmen

Maine sportsmen shouldn’t go off half cocked and with swelled chests believing that the decision by the Maine Supreme Court to uphold Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler’s ruling that a lawsuit, filed by Katie Hansberry and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), declared “moot,” was some kind of major victory for sportsmen.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance put out a presser extolling the victory: “Today’s ruling just reaffirms our position and is a clear and decisive victory for sportsmen in Maine,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “The people of Maine deserve to hear from the experts when it comes to these issues, and today’s ruling rightfully upheld that position.”

A writer for the Bangor Daily News reports: “In March 2015, Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was moot because the election had been decided. She also declared the department’s campaign activities were legal because restricting speech on a contested issue was not in the public’s interest.”

I think it’s imperative that readers examine the written ruling of the Maine Supreme Court on the issue, compare it with comments being made and determine that this ruling is not a huge victory for sportsmen. As well, it’s important to understand what was and what wasn’t written in the decision.

As I understand it, Katie Hansberry and HSUS filed a lawsuit to stop representatives from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) from speaking out in opposition to Question One on the Maine ballot – an initiative that would have effectively ended bear hunting and trapping in the state. From the perspective of MDIFW such a referendum, if passed, would have seriously impeded the department’s ability to responsibly manage black bears.

Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler, at the time of review of the lawsuit, ruled the case “moot” because the referendum voting had already taken place. However, HSUS and Hansberry decided to appeal that ruling and sought from the Maine Supreme Court a clear ruling that would, in the future, prohibit state departments, and in this case MDIFW, from using what they deemed public resources against public referendum issues.

While the Maine Supreme Court upheld Wheeler’s moot ruling, in response to the appeal the justices attempted to explain why the moot decision was upheld and why the same Court could not make a blanket ruling about future campaigns that involve state departments.

The Court writes: “An issue is moot when there remains no “real and substantial controversy, admitting of specific relief through a judgment of conclusive character.”  A controversy that declares rights “upon a state of facts that may or may not arise in the future” is not justiciable.” 

HSUS was seeking a ruling that they could perhaps use that would prohibit any department from speaking out, for or against, in future referendum campaigns. The Court was not going to give them that ruling because there is no way to determine future issues and the context in which such campaign issues may arise.

The lawsuit against the MDIFW claims that employees/representatives of that department, continuing to be allowed to speak out against HSUS’ efforts “harms ongoing efforts” of HSUS. The Court thought otherwise: “This alleged harm does not present a “real and substantial controversy” that could be addressed through “specific relief.” Any relief that MFBH will obtain is theoretical, depending on whether it becomes involved in a future ballot initiative.”

The Court also explains, in depth, certain exceptions to “mootness.” (1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and public we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature.

Perhaps of most importance is the following statement found in the ruling as it pertains to why “mootness” exceptions do not exist: “However, the core question at issue in this case is not a generic question; rather, the question presented is the specific agency’s authority in the context of the facts at issue. Each State agency’s authority turns on its individual enabling statute. Although the question may recur, the extent of an agency’s statutory authority, the actions taken by the agency, and the context of those actions will vary and are not predictable. An interpretation of the Department’s enabling statute in the context of this now-concluded action may have little authoritative value in future litigation.” 

Hansberry and the Humane Society of the United States did not get what they wanted but it should be understood that they also were not shut out in their efforts. What they got was a better understanding of how to go about filing the next lawsuit in order to better satisfy the demands of the Maine Court. The ruling does not declare that all of Maine’s governmental departments are free to campaign for or against public issues. Each department is different and the context of the lawsuits – circumstances involved – can and will determine the viability of a lawsuit against the state.

In this particular case, because the lawsuit never reached the Courts before the referendum voting, the case was declared moot and considerations as to future lawsuits could not be evaluated “generically.”

A victory? Perhaps. A huge victory? No. And even the so-perceived victory is in the eye of the beholder. Is it a victory to know that in the right context, the state can be sued to prevent the public from gaining knowledge about a department’s ability to do their jobs? Is it a victory that in the same or different context, that state can not be sued?

Doors always swing in two directions. What we should learn is that in this one particular case, HSUS was not able to get the Court to give them what they wanted to make their future lawsuits easier by censorship. However, they gained understanding for the next time.

Share

Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Fails to Convince Supreme Court to Hear Case…BUT…

According an article I just read from George Smith of the Bangor Daily News, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, the front name for the Humane Society of the United States, failed to convince members of the Maine Supreme Court to hear their case against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for alleged violations when MDIFW campaigned against a Humane Society of the United State’s ballot initiative to end bear hunting.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, this effort was geared toward convincing the Court to hear an appeal. According to Smith, that convincing didn’t go so well but the Court did not issue a decision.

Smith brings up an interesting point that may need a closer look at. In writing about the focus of the HSUS’ case, Smith quotes the attorney for HSUS as saying, “We are challenging their use of taxpayer money to campaign against the initiative, not their right to speak on the issue.”

Smith provides his own commentary: “At that point I wanted to jump up and shout, DIF&W did not spend taxpayer dollars. They get no taxpayer dollars! Sportsmen pay all the bills at that state agency, although we have tried, for decades, to win General Fund tax dollars for DIF&W, without success.”

The Supreme Court evidently did not offer any information directly to the core of the appeal as to whether or not MDIFW could use taxpayer money to campaign against a citizen’s initiative. All the Court basically said was that because the referendum has been voted on, the case is moot – which is exactly as the Lower Court ruled.

Smith further explains: “I took great interest in a part of the discussion that focused on whether or not DIF&W and other state agencies should be able to testify at the legislature for or against bills. That is a great analogy really. One Justice noted that, “The citizen initiative process is exactly like the legislative process, it just puts the issue in front of the people.” That Justice asked Wertheimer, “Isn’t the proper place for your argument the legislature?”

It appears however that this matter may not be that cut and dry. I recall in the debates that have taken place earlier about HSUS trying to censor MDIFW, that Maine has certain “ethics” when it comes to “using taxpayer money” by a department in providing testimony. The question seems to be whether or not Maine law prohibits any member of a state agency to actively campaign for or against a citizen-brought referendum, and whether it is prohibited as such because it is improper use of taxpayer’s money?

Perhaps this question will be decided at a later time. One Maine Supreme Court justice asked if the answer to such a question should be sought in the Maine Legislature.

And what if it is? What will happen? Will the Legislature or the Courts try to tell members of a department, funded by voluntary payments for licenses and registrations that they are prohibited to speak out on issues?

Perhaps a bit unknowingly, Smith, a proponent and activist for funding the MDIFW with General Fund money, provided good evidence as to why such an effort might not be so good. If it is deemed “unethical,” either through existing statutes or future statutes, that public taxpayer money cannot be used to campaign for or against any initiative, then how would such a law effect the MDIFW where none of it’s money comes from General Fund taxes? Funding is provided by voluntary fee payments for licenses and registrations. Probably it is a good thing MDIFW isn’t funded by general tax dollars.

People shouldn’t forget that these political doorways swing in more than one direction. Anytime laws are written to restrict one’s freedom of speech or create more regulations that stifle progress, generally don’t do anybody any good. What seemed to work out good for the bear hunters this time, might bite them in the hind end the next.

Share

Second Amendment is Considered “Infringable” by Most

ShallNotBeInfringedPeople should ask why it is that the Second Amendment is fair game for infringement – “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

I have often said that if an honest person is interested in protecting constitutional rights, more than likely they will find themselves among strange company. A right is a right….isn’t it?

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And yet, this nation has spent billions of dollars infringing on this right and billions of dollars protecting other rights. I personally know of no organization, that sucks millions of dollars out of the population for their cause, that practices in the protection of the Second Amendment without infringements. Why?

The Second Amendment seems front and center, one more time and one more time we read and hear from the Press and other anti-Second Amendment tyrants, about masses of American citizens eager to expand background checks in order that any person can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Background checks is registration of guns. People kid themselves, much because they choose to have faith in this corrupt government and believe that when the U.S. Government carries out a background check, information about the person being checked, for gun purchase, is not shared…but it is stored. Therefore, it is a gun registration act. While the check may not contain the information about the gun, it does record that an individual purchased a gun. It will also track, each and every time a person buys a gun.

When argument is made that the requirement of a background check infringes upon a person’s constitutional right, this is most often rebutted by people who state that a background check does not prohibit a person from buying and owning a gun. While not completely true in making such a statement, what is never discussed is that it is not written and surely was not the intent of the Bill of Rights, that a person had to register with the state in order to be able to exercise a constitutional right. Doing so would be an utterly ridiculous idea. Wouldn’t it? Do we have to register to deliver a speech? Would you deem it acceptable to have to get a license to make sure your home isn’t unlawfully entered and searched by government? Would you find it okay to get a license to attend the church of your choice?

I repeat: Government requiring a background check is gun registration. It is at its simplest form an onus placed on the individual, in what must be done in order to exercise a right. That in and of itself can be argued as unconstitutional. This also applies to the act to get licensed/registered to carry a concealed weapon. Disguised as something promoting safety, the registration becomes necessary in order to exercise your Second Amendment right.

Michael Bloomberg, and his little fascists, have invaded the State of Maine, in order to get a referendum placed on a ballot that would implement a draconian law that would require background checks on any and all gun sales and transfers. It’s so absurd that being in someone’s house, let’s say while they were away on vacation, and the house had a gun(s) in it. Both the owner and you would be guilty of failing to get a background check before the “transfer” was made. Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

Background checks is another example of gun registration. Some argue that it will lead to gun registration. They fail to see that it already is a form of gun registration. What happens now when you go buy a new gun? It’s being registered. What happens now if you purchase ammunition and use your credit or debit card? You’ve just “registered” yourself as buying ammunition, which is necessary in order to fully exercise your Second Amendment right.

Yesterday, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching about this unconstitutional act to INFRINGE upon the rights of others. In my reading, I saw references made to Supreme Court rulings about the unconstitutionality of requiring some form of registration in order to exercise a right.

In Thomas v. Collins, 1945, Thomas traveled to Texas to deliver a speech before a group of people lawfully assembled to learn about forming a union. His duty was that only of speaking. Local officials presented Thomas with a restraining order that prohibited him to attend this function and deliver his speech. After consulting his attorney he went ahead and made his speech  but was charged with breaking the law because he did not obtain the proper “licenses” to recruit people to a union. The case found it’s way to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Rutledge. The appeal was based on what was believed to be an infringement upon his First Amendment Right of free speech. Justice Rutledge in part stated: “The restraint is not small when it is considered what was restrained. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the Republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed on the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.”

The SCOTUS determined that it was unlawful to limit, through registration, freedom of speech in this case. The local regulations required those who assembled and conducted union forming business, obtain permits to do so. They did. It was believed that because Thomas was to speak to the assembled group, he could have his First Amendment rights restricted because he didn’t obtain a permit first.

You also cannot restrict a constitutional right based on what might happen. Can you?

We see a similar restriction of the First Amendment in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965. In this case, before the SCOTUS, the challenge came as the result of a postal requirement (law) that the post office would not deliver certain “unsealed” mail unless the recipient first “registered” to receive this mail. This was ruled by the court as a First Amendment infringement because it required a “registration” in order to exercise one’s First Amendment.

In Justice Douglas’ majority opinion, he states: “We conclude that the Act [the requirement to register in order to receive perceived unwanted mail] as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”

Something so simple as this and yet the Courts will seemingly go out of their way to protect at least the First Amendment while stripping the Second Amendment to shreds.

If readers can see beyond the end of their noses, they might find the third case an interesting one and an example of how any kind of gun registration can be self-incriminating (Fifth Amendment).

In Haynes v. United States, 1968, Haynes was charged with the violation of 26 U.S.C. 5851(part of the National Firearms Act) because he failed to register a weapon the state had determined to be undesirable, and wanting registration of such a weapon for the purpose of taxation. Haynes contended that the requirement to register his gun would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The majority opinion in this case, while having some issues with the National Firearms Act, found that: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”

The SCOTUS ruled that the requirement to register a firearm, the act of which would incriminate the registrant, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

All of these cases are complicated and full of extenuating circumstances. However, the broader issue here is the effort of the Courts to protect certain constitutional rights while infringing on others, namely the Second Amendment.

It would therefore seem to me, that background checks, being a form of registration, is forcing people to undergo a registration in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. According to these cases, and the context to which those decisions by the Supreme Court were made, makes gun registration unlawful.

Consider the context of the rulings. Simple events like registering with local authorities before delivering a speech, or returning a simple postal card letting the service know whether you wanted to receive questionable materials, where consider such grave infringements, they were done away with in order to protect First Amendment rights.

In the third case, we see where, because of ill-written guns laws, even though a gun may be in a person’s possession without being registered, the protection of the Fifth Amendment and a person’s protective right against self-incrimination, that right being more important than the registration of a gun.

Then why is it that we allow the continued infringements on the Second Amendment? Every time you and I or your neighbor, or the NRA or anybody else says, reasonable restrictions on buying and owning guns are necessary and responsible, we cannot see that these actions are an infringement and therefore is a destruction of the right.

We are not dealing with rational lawmakers and lawyers. Because of much complacency and a willingness of American’s to allow central government to infringe on our Second Amendment, current laws and policies that set precedence, in this day and age of corruption and total disregard of the constitution, become the rule of law. Although executive actions by a sitting president can be overturned, the precedent exists and therefore carries some kind of authority into the future.

We know the Press/Media/Journalists, etc. will fight tooth and nail to protect their First Amendment rights. They will use that right to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

It is, however, very clear that the Second Amendment is fair game for destruction. Those wishing to destroy it, offer no respect to those of us who find it extremely valuable – even to the value that it may be the last fortress that is protecting all the other rights.

I just wonder how these same mental midget, emotional Second Amendment destroyers will see things when their prized right is taken away from them? When it is, it will NOT be because I worked to destroy them.

Share

Affirmative Action Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court

Black Conservatives Join Supreme Court Legal Brief Demanding End to Race-Based University Admissions

Schools Accused of Trampling Constitution for Politically-Correct Diversity Goals

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Same Racial Preferences Case Twice in Almost Two Years

 

 Project 21, a leader in the promotion of black conservative public policy opinion and activism, has joined a new legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing racial preferences in school admissions.

Project 21 joined an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) legal brief written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, American Civil Rights Institute and National Association of Scholars in the case of Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

This is the second time the Fisher case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case, Abigail Fisher, who is white, claimed that race preferences prevented her acceptance at the University of Texas at Austin in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant.

In 2013 the Court ruled 7-1 that race-conscious admissions policies must be narrowly tailored in order to be constitutional, and sent the case back to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard. The Supreme Court justices told the 5th Circuit to retry the case under standards of “strict scrutiny.” The lower court sided with the University of Texas at Austin again. In July 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for a rehearing to determine if the 5th Circuit properly followed the Supreme Court’s instructions.

A date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court has not been announced. A decision is expected by June 2016.

“The Supreme Court’s earlier rulings make it clear that quotas and other kinds of broad-based racial preferences are impermissible,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and was a leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. “One would think that, in 2015, no school would think it necessary to rely on a racial test to balance out its student body. In this case alone, however, the Court has given every opportunity for the lower court and the University of Texas itself to reassess its race-based admissions policy. Yet it appears only direct intervention by the Court will now be sufficient. The days for race-based social engineering are numbered.”

Project 21’s Cooper is a University of Texas at Austin graduate.

Fisher and her supporters, including Project 21, asked the Court to determine if the lower court followed the orders of the justices to thoroughly and thoughtfully re-examine if the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race preferences for the sake of campus diversity were permissible, the University of Texas at Austin immediately instituted the race-conscious admissions policy challenged in the Fisher case. It was instituted despite other schools’ use of additional considerations to achieve their own diversity goals, factoring in things such as parental income, parental educational histories, general family history and even a Texas policy that guaranteed state-run university enrollment for students in the top percentages of their high school graduating classes. The Project 21 brief notes:Washington, DC –

There is no evidence that the University considered many of these race-neutral options, nor has it documented why these options would fail to produce a critical mass of underrepresented students and the educational benefits a diverse student body provides.

The brief also argues that “the University has failed to prove that its race-conscious program is narrowly tailored” to benefit alleged diversity goals because the assertion is not proven, the university has not seemed to weigh the costs and benefits of a race-conscious admissions policy nor has it proved it pursued all available alternatives to a race-conscious policy.

Furthermore, the brief explained this problem is not limited to the University of Texas at Austin:

There is no evidence that universities have weighed the undeniable costs of racial preferences against the benefits that purportedly result from classifying individuals on the basis of race. And there is no evidence that universities have given serious thought to whether these benefits can be achieved through race-neutral means. This demonstrates that universities nationwide continue to flout the Court’s limits on the use of race in admissions decisions.

Because the situation is not unique, Project 21 and the other organizations on the PLF-written brief noted the Court must definitively address the issue of the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies:

This Court’s most recent decision in Fisher – emphasizing the need to exhaust race-neutral measures before turning to race-based classifications – has not changed the behavior at our nation’s public universities…

[P]ublic institutions are not considering the costs attendant to racial preferences, and whether those costs outweigh the purported benefits.

“Over a century ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan said ‘Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ The justices who underwhelmed almost everyone by sending the Fisher case back to the 5th Circuit in 2013 now have another chance to reaffirm Constitutional principle,” said Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks , the former executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s Greater Los Angeles chapter. “Justice Clarence Thomas got it right on Fisher when he wrote ‘I would… hold that a state’s use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.’ And, as my friend Richard Sander — a UCLA law professor and expert on social and economic equality — has patiently explained, race preferences hurt the supposed beneficiaries. These students, he wrote in The Atlantic, ‘fall behind from the start and become increasingly lost as the professor and her classmates race ahead… the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.'”

The brief additionally cites “academic mismatch” as a perilous byproduct of poorly-crafted race-conscious admissions policies, noting that “racial preferences… cause acute harm to those who receive them.” By placing minority students in schools above their academic aptitude so that the institution can achieve its diversity goals, the brief noted “[t]he result is a significant gap in academic credentials between minority and nonminority students at all levels.” This may lead to changed majors, dashed hopes and – worst of all – disparate dropout rates among minority students.

Project 21’s Hicks added: “The broader debate surrounding ‘affirmative action’ has changed since the Court last ruled on this case. This time, they are thankfully afforded a second chance to end the divisive practice of race preferences.”

In sum, the Project 21 brief points out to the justices that:

When an educational institution discriminates on the basis of race, narrow tailoring requires that it prove independently how racial preferences are the least harmful means to secure the educational benefits of diversity… The Court can ensure that students are treated equally under the law by holding that the University’s decision fails to satisfy the narrow tailoring requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.

Additional information about this case and the amicus brief just filed can be found in a blog post by the author of the brief, attorney Joshua Thompson, at the Pacific Legal Foundation website here.

Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events and politics in tens of thousands of instances since its founding in 1992. Most recently, this has included Fox News Channel programs such as “Special Report with Bret Baier,” the “O’Reilly Factor,” “Fox and Friends” and “The Kelly File” as well as CNN’s “The Situation Room,” HLN’s “Dr. Drew,” Blaze TV, America One News Network, TVOne, RT and Newsmax TV. On radio and in print, Project 21 members have appeared on or been cited by the Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thom Hartmann, the Progressive Radio Network, EurWeb, Orlando Sentinel, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations that include WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati.

Project 21 has participated in many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are available for media comment on this case as well as the overall issue of race preferences in what some call a “post-racial” contemporary America.

A leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

The Village People of Today

VillagePeopleSCOTUS

Share

Maine’s a good place to find a hippie

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s use of the word hippie in his dissent leads to some research.

Source: Maine’s a good place to find a hippie – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Share

[It’s By Design You Know!] ObamaCare Ruling a Blow to the Rule of Law

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Supreme Court Ruling in King v. Burwell Means Americans Will Have to Wait Longer for a Free-Market Health Care System

ObamaCare Is Unsustainable as Exchanges Will Eventually Devolve into a Death Spiral

Ruling Also a Blow to the Rule of Law

Washington, DC – “The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell means Americans will have to wait longer for greater liberty in their health care system, said Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“The Court has had two chances to stand up for freedom and against ObamaCare and has blown them both,” Dr. Hogberg said. “This won’t change the fight for health care freedom. It will just take more time to move toward a free-market based health care system.”

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would have been a great opportunity to start replacing ObamaCare with free-market based policies. Rather, Americans will have to suffer the problems of ObamaCare for the foreseeable future.

Dr. Hogberg notes that the ObamaCare exchanges are already exhibiting signs of a death spiral, where insurance premiums rise precipitously, causing young and healthy people to drop their insurance. This renders the “risk pool” older and sicker, causing premiums to rise again, and the process repeats.

“We’re seeing loads of insurers ask for big premium hikes, at least 20% and in many case much higher,” said Dr. Hogberg. He recently examined this in a National Policy Analysis entitled “ObamaCare Premium Hikes for 2016–Ignore Them at Your Own Risk.”

“In the end, the exchanges are not sustainable, and free-market based reform of our health care system will be necessary. Today’s Court ruling only delays that,” said Dr. Hogberg.

In the longer term, Congress must adopt policies that repeal ObamaCare and replace it with policies that promote liberty. NCPPR provides an easy-to-access spreadsheet at http://goo.gl/y1ALI2 that summarizes a dozen plans from conservative and libertarian think-tanks and Congressional Republicans offering free-market alternatives to ObamaCare. The spreadsheet explains how each plan treats vital health care policy issues such as tax credits, pre-existing conditions, Medicaid and Health Savings Accounts.

“There are a lot of great ideas out there, from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to Rep. Tom Price and the Republican Study Committee,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Unfortunately, most of the media has ignored them, so most Americans are unaware that free-market alternatives to ObamaCare exist.”

While the ruling isn’t a fatal blow to achieving health care freedom, it is a serious blow to the rule of law.

“From here on out, presidents and the bureaucracy can apply the law however they like, even if the law says different,” said Dr. Hogberg. “As long as they can plausibly claim that Congress intended for the law to say something different, presidents and the bureaucracy will win every time before the Supreme Court.”

David Hogberg is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. He is author of the forthcoming book Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Share

Articles: Gay Marriage vs. Religious Liberty

The counterargument is that marriage is a privilege and not a right, a union of one man and one woman sanctioned over millennia by virtually every culture and country over time as the stable foundation of any society, a framework for the bearing and rearing of children that are the future of any society:

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/gay_marriage_vs_religious_liberty.html#ixzz3Yo5CtQll
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Source: Articles: Gay Marriage vs. Religious Liberty

Share