Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
https://youtu.be/maXIpCNsaOo?t=2585
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-682
Antonin Scalia
My goodness, I thought we've -- we've held that the 14th Amendment protects all races.I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only -- only the blacks.But I thought we rejected that.You -- you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities?
Shanta Driver
I think it is -- it's a measure that's an antidiscrimination measure.Antonin Scalia
Right.Shanta Driver
And it's a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by -- by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority.Antonin Scalia
And unless that exists, the 14th Amendment is not violated; is that right?So if you have a banding together of various minority groups who discriminate against -- against whites, that's okay?Shanta Driver
I think that--Antonin Scalia
Do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th Amendment, that it protects only minorities?Any case?Shanta Driver
--No case of yours.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: Dissent: Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
@WallerLegal I’ve read the opinion itself. Please cite the part in the dissent where anyone says that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to whites.
@sjpaladinnpc
That view drains the Fourteenth Amendment of one of its core teachings. Contrary to today’s decision, protecting the right to meaningful participation in the political process must mean more than simply removing barriers to participation.It must mean vigilantly policing the political process to ensure that the majority does not use other methods to prevent minority groups from partaking in that process on equal footing.Relatedly, Justice Scalia argues that the political-process doctrine is inconsistent with our precedents because it protects only the minority from political restructurings. This aspect of the doctrine, he says, cannot be tolerated because our precedents have rejected “mentions ...the political-process doctrine has not been applied to trigger strict scrutiny for political restructurings that burden the majority. But the doctrine is inapplicable to the majority. The minority cannot achieve such restructurings against the majority...mentions Race matters. Race matters in part because of the long history of racial minorities’ being denied access to the political process... Race also matters because of persistent racial inequality in society
Challenge To Affirmative Action Ban Reveals Deep Divide At Supreme Court
"My goodness, I thought ... we've held that the 14th Amendment protects all races," Justice Antonin Scalia said, as the justices consider whether a Michigan ban on affirmative action is constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg focused on the 14th Amendment's aim at protecting against "political powerlessness," but the final say is likely in Justice Anthony Kennedy's hands.
Plaintiff in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action argued.
We ask this Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that’s expressed in Hunter-Seattle, and to bring the 14th Amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority…
