Welcome And A Good ------ ------ There Are Enjoying Hardcore News! ------ Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News Web Site! ------ The Most Comprehensive Global News On The Internet! ------ Your , Area's Most Updated News In The , AND THE WORLD! ------ PLEASE NOTE: Hardcore News Is Best If Used With Firefox Or Google Chrome Gecko Type Browser: ------ Hardcore News Web Site Is Best Using A Screen Setting Of 1024 X 768 Or Higher... ------ Your Current IP Address Is From Internet Provider ... This is All We Know About You, Ever Wonder What Kind Of Information Other Web Sites Could Get From Your Computer?... PLEASE BE CAREFUL Who You Share Information With Online! ------ By submitting personal information to any U.S. website, you are consenting that your information is being maintained and or being used here in the United States, is subjected to applicable U.S. laws. Thus... U.S. law may be different than the laws of your home country. ------ Hardcore News IS SAFE! We Never Track Your Moves Or Sell Your Information. ------ The Only Bull-Sh-t On This Site Is The Propaganda! ------ Stay Informed With The Hardcore News ------ All News is AUTO-UPDATED - AUTO-GENERATED Via Keyword Search Terms And Use Of RSS Based News Feeds And Tabbed Headlines On One Page ------ News From Over 40 Reliable News Sources, Even The News Your Not Supposed To Know! ------ PROVIDING UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS With LIVE Video Feeds FROM AROUND THE WORLD! ------ OUR NEWS IS ALWAYS FRESH DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------ If You Like This Project And Would Like To See & Help It Grow, Please Consider Donating What Ever You Can By Secure PayPal CLICK HERE ------ Please make a gift to Hardcore News today. Your continued support will ensure that Hardcore News is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure. And Thank You, ------ Only YOU Can Make This Project Worth While! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------
Hardcore Main Stream
Top Stories

Mid East Watch


Tech News


Sports News

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Federal appeals court in Cincinnati upholds President Barack Obama's health care law

By DAN SEWELL Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press

June 29, 2011, 12:52PM

CINCINNATI — In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati affirmed Wednesday that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.
A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.
The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.
The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.
The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.
A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.
An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7632289.html#ixzz1QgnmaFIx

Boyce F. Martin Jr.

Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?

The argument over legacy admissions isn’t novel; it’s just another example of a familiar drama playing itself out. White people try to protect their privilege, black people try to level the playing field, Clarence Thomas tries to make sure that nobody else can benefit from the same social programs that helped him, and Asians and Jews say “WTF? We’re minorities and we test well, shouldn’t wealways get in everywhere?”
And the legacy issue, something that should be equally troubling to the “meritocracy” crowd and the “pro-AA” crowd gets lost in the shuffle.
Kahlenberg summarizes his argument against legacies in the Chronicle for Higher Education. He lists ten “myths” about legacy admissions, and then debunks them. The whole thing is a great and thought-provoking read, but here is the myth (and response) that deals with the legal standing of legacy admissions.
It’s a long response, but worth reading closely. The myth appears in bold, and the debunking in regular type:
Legacy preferences may be unfair, but they are not illegal. Unlike discrimination based on race, which is forbidden under the 14th Amendment, it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on legacy status, as the courts have held.
Remarkably, legacy preferences have been litigated only once in federal court, by an applicant to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill named Jane Cheryl Rosenstock, in the 1970s. A New York resident whose application was rejected, she claimed that her constitutional rights were violated by a variety of preferences, including those for in-state applicants, minorities, low-income students, athletes, and legacies. Rosenstock was not a particularly compelling candidate—her combined SAT score was about 850 on a 1600-point scale, substantially lower than most out-of-state applicants—and she was also a weak litigant. She never argued that, because legacy preferences are hereditary, they presented a “suspect” classification that should be judged by the “strict scrutiny” standard under the amendment’s equal-protection clause.
The district-court judge in the case, Rosenstock v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, held that it was rational to believe that alumni preferences translate into additional revenue to universities, although absolutely no evidence was provided for that contention. The decision was never appealed. As Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit notes, the 1976 opinion upholding legacy preferences in Rosenstock addressed the issue “in a scant five sentences” and is “neither binding nor persuasive to future courts.”
A generation later, two new legal theories are available to challenge legacy preferences. First, Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, lays out the case that legacy preferences at public universities violate a little-litigated constitutional provision that “no state shall … grant any Title of Nobility.” Examining the early history of the country, Larson makes a compelling case that this prohibition should not be interpreted narrowly as simply prohibiting the naming of individuals as dukes or earls, but more broadly, to prohibit “government-sponsored hereditary privileges”—including legacy preferences at public universities. Reviewing debates in the Revolutionary era, he concludes: “Legacy preferences at exclusive public universities were precisely the type of hereditary privilege that the Revolutionary generation sought to destroy forever.” The founders, Larson writes, would have resisted “with every fiber of their being” the idea of state-supported-university admissions based even in part on ancestry.
Second, the attorneys Steve Shadowen and Sozi Tulante argue that legacy preferences are a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause. While the amendment was aimed primarily at stamping out discrimination against black Americans, it also extends more broadly to what Justice Potter Stewart called “preference based on lineage.” Individuals are to be judged on their own merits, not by what their parents do, which is why the courts have applied heightened scrutiny to laws that punish children born out of wedlock, or whose parents came to this country illegally.
Shadowen and Tulante argue that legacy preferences at private universities, too, are illegal, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Unlike Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination only on the basis of “race, color, or national origin,” the 1866 law prohibits discrimination on the basis of both “race” and “ancestry.”
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
  • The legacy issue hasn’t really been litigated, but there’s a new call for courts to review affirmative action seemingly every year. If the “meritocracy” people truly are motivated by a competing philosophy of education, as opposed to mere racial prejudice, why aren’t they calling for review of legacy admissions as aggressively?
  • The person who answers “Title of Nobility” when issue-spotting on a law school exam should get an immediate and irrevocable A.
  • How many policies, worldwide, started from a desire to f**k with the Jews? Honestly, I hope they are the chosen in the afterlife, because in real-time it’s non-stop ass rape.
  • Sometimes I think the Fourteenth Amendment is becoming Eric Cartman’s Trapper Keeper. It seems to merge with everything.
  • Note to first-year associates: anytime you’re looking at a law from 1866 to anchor your argument, you need to fire up SeamlessWeb, order some dinner, and continue working.
Look, I don’t know if legacy admissions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, but I know you can’t talk out of one side of your mouth about the evils of affirmative action and yet turn a blind eye to legacies.
Kahlenberg argues that legacy admissions are significantly different than affirmative action admissions — different, and much worse. Again, you can read the full argument here. I’m not sure I agree. Legacy students add diversity to the class as well. I take the Kermit the Frog view of diversity: “We need more dogs, and cats, and chickens, and things.” When you go to school with John Smith, Tyrone Washington, and Marion Coatsworth-Hay, everybody wins.
Except for the people who didn’t get in, but think they should have because of a standardized test. Those people have an unbelievable ax to grind.

Hardcore News Is Brought To You By...

Facebook Social & Comments

Hardcore Links