![]() ![]() It is a continuation and intensification of an egalitarian and democratic impulse in American race relations that has been gathering momentum, albeit fitfully and with dramatic reversals, since at least the Civil War. “I support it because, on balance, it is conducive to the public good. Kennedy called “far-reaching training grounds for the power elite.” A decade ago, he wrote, “I champion sensibly designed racial affirmative action not because I have benefited from it personally-though I have” (Kennedy is African American). ![]() Gateways to OpportunityĪs gateways to opportunity, those institutions are what Klein professor of law Randall L. Bakke (1978), cited the “Harvard Plan” as a model of that kind of affirmative action and explained why the Supreme Court considered it constitutional: “the path to leadership” must “be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity” because “the ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” It was that foundational program that was upended by the Supreme Court’s rulings in two lawsuits decided yesterday. ’32, in his controlling opinion in the landmark case of Regents of the University of California v. Cases that the Court has decided to hear but have not yet been argued are previewed on the website.Editor’s note: Harvard Magazine asked contributing editor Lincoln Caplan, a leading legal-affairs journalist, to analyze the Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action in college admissions.įor almost half a century, race-conscious admissions have been of central importance to Harvard and other selective colleges and universities. The opinions of individual Justices on the practice of the death penalty in the U.S. What DPIC OffersĭPIC has summaries of the important death penalty cases decided by the Supreme Court in the modern era. The make-up of the Court is likely to determine when such a case might be considered and how the Court will rule. Some Justices have called for a comprehensive review of the practice. Recent revelations about the risks of executing innocent defendants, racial bias in its application, and the lengthy time inmates spend on death row, has led society to rethink its support of the death penalty. The key question for the Supreme Court is whether the death penalty itself continues to be constitutional in light of its rare use and its rejection by large segments of society. constitution, others are result of federal decisions on both state and federal death penalty matters. ![]() Some of these cases arise from appeals of state rulings involving the U.S. In recent decades, the Court has regularly considered multiple capital cases each term. In the earlier history of the country, the Supreme Court left much of the practice of the death penalty and other punishments to the states’ discretion, rarely ruling on whether any practice should be considered cruel and unusual. Court rulings can involve the methods of execution used, the competency of defense counsel, the selection of juries, the behavior of the prosecution, and many other matters protected by the right to due process. In particular, the Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that state use of the death penalty adheres to our fundamental rights. States may be more protective of individual rights than required under the federal constitution, but they cannot be less protective. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether the constitution is being followed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |