Bakke

Pity that the article did not point out that the new ground she broached was rejected as an unconstitutional interest by Powell in Bakke and by O'Connor herself in endorsing Powell's opinion.

IsThatLegal? 2003

But as I've shown, this rejected argument from Bakke is different enough in its content to leave the door wide open to the claim that O'Connor ultimately endorsed. posted by Eric 10: 27 AM |

IsThatLegal? 2003

I think Jaffe is vastly over-reading Powell's opinion in Bakke, trying to milk from it a condemnation of any forward-looking state interest in increasing diversity downstream in the workforce.

IsThatLegal? 2003

Thus, it seems that to this extent Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan's position in Bakke has won out, although nobody is willing to admit it.

Balkinization 2003

Here is the relevant portion of Powell's opinion in Bakke:

IsThatLegal? 2003

The one state claim in Bakke that does at least moderately resemble the one that O'Connor endorsed was the one about improving healthcare service in underprivileged communites.

IsThatLegal? 2003

Thus, it seems that to this extent Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan's position in Bakke has won out, although nobody is willing to admit it.

Balkinization 2003

Moreover, following the Supreme Court's 1978 opinion in Bakke vs. University of California, Judge Sparks's ruling would still have allowed for a system that treated race as one (but never the sole deciding) factor in admissions.

Notes, "Critical Presentism", Romanticism and Contemporary Culture 2002

Do you mean that Bakke is recent – a case decided 24 years ago? um, okay …

Report: Law School Discriminates at cvillenews.com 2002

It was up to the court to wrestle with the age-old issue after leaving things very confused in 1978, by its so-called Bakke ruling in the University of California case.

CNN Transcript Jun 23, 2003 2003