![]() The majority opinion stopped short of deciding the case in favor of the white contractor. Breyer-said affirmative action should be preserved as a “catch-up mechanism designed to cope with the lingering effects of racial subjugation.” Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. The four dissenters-Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Thomas and O’Connor were joined in the majority by Chief Justice William H. It is a form of “racial paternalism,” he wrote, whose “unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.” ![]() In a concurring opinion, Thomas denounced affirmative action in the strongest terms. With Thomas casting the fifth and deciding vote Monday, the court reversed course and took a giant step toward wiping away preferential policies based on race. Justice Thurgood Marshall, the legendary civil rights lawyer and leading liberal, had retired, and his seat was taken by Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative. Something else had also changed since the court last revisited the issue in 1990. The stakes were high, too, since more than $10-billion a year in federal contracts is directed to minority-owned firms under an array of affirmative action programs. Pena, 93-1841, arrived just as the court, Congress and the Administration were rethinking the entire concept of affirmative action. appeals court in Denver rejected the white contractor’s claim on the grounds that the Supreme Court had twice before upheld affirmative action programs authorized by Congress.īut the case, Adarand Constructors vs. The Latino businessman had benefited from a 1987 law that requires the Department of Transportation to steer at least 10% of its funds to firms owned by racial minorities or women.Ī federal judge and a U.S. The affirmative action case decided Monday arose when a white road builder from Colorado complained that he lost a federal contract for a guard rail repair to a Latino businessman, even though the white businessman had submitted a slightly lower bid. The Clinton Administration wound up on the losing end in both cases, having urged the court to preserve affirmative action and court-ordered desegregation. The ruling, in a Kansas City case, marked the third time in four years that the court has pressed judges to end long-running desegregation orders. ![]() In a second setback for civil rights lawyers, the court said low achievement levels among minority students are not reason enough to continue a court-ordered school desegregation plan.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |