Supremely Bad Court

I propose that we rename both the US and Michigan Supreme Courts to a name that better describes what their recent decisions indicate they are - Supremely Bad Courts.

There are four cases which I find particularly disturbing...


Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Alright, I know it's not exactly popular right now in Michigan to take a stance on Affirmative Action - but what can I say? I've been a big fan of it for years and just because a group from California was able to trick Michigan voters into getting rid of it doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Maybe I'll write about why I think it's a good idea - but that's for another blog entry.

For now I'd like to focus on why this particular ruling was a bad idea. My argument for this is rather simple... I don't think the source of the problem was addressed by the court and I don't think they can address the source of the problem, this ruling was a poor attempt at a bad compromise. These practices were essentially created in response to desegregation and from what I've seen in many schools, we haven't finished solving that problem. While we may not have segregation by policy anymore, we still have it in practice.

I've heard many of the arguments presented by the parents in how this was creating an educational divide and unfair assignments. However, the source of their problems isn't assignments based on race, it's an education system that's failing their children. If the Supreme Court really wanted to solve the problem, they shouldn't have attacked efforts at creating more diverse schools. They should have ruled that our Government is not meeting its obligations to its citizens and therefore our spending budgets should be thrown out. However, given that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved in creating budgets, that is why I believe the real source of the problem presented in this case isn't something the courts can fix. The compromise they presented will do more damage than good.


Morse v. Frederick
Okay really, do you need to ask why a case involving a student's freedom of speech is something I'd be concerned about? Maybe it's just a sign of the times or evidence of the generational divide...but if the courts believe a banner that says "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" encourages drug use...then there are A LOT of other banners, shirts, magazines, etc. that are brought into our schools which they're going to have to get rid of as well.

Plus, I like to think that the student was voicing his stance on the political topic of legalizing marijuana (which I am not indicating my support of one way or another). Perhaps an Olympic Torch event, which was held off school property by the way, isn't the best place to do that, but hey, you've got to start somewhere right? I know he was there on a sort of school sponsored event, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

To be honest, even if he made the statement in his school, I would have supported his right to do so. Why can't he express how he feels about something being legal or illegal while he's in school? Saying that the banner is going to convince someone to run out and buy an illegal drug isn't giving young people enough credit. If we have to accept that someone proclaiming their general, but nonviolent, dislike of GLBT people in written word is protected by freedom of speech, I think we can accept "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" is protected as well.


Michigan Voter ID Law Upheld
The Michigan Supreme Court has decided that in the future, voters in Michigan must present photo identification in order to vote or sign an affidavit swearing to their identity. I'm not 100% sure what they think this will accomplish aside from confusing voters or discouraging them.

If a person is going to commit fraud, why wouldn't they just continue to do so by just signing the affidavit? They were going to be dishonest and vote illegally...but now that they have to sign an affidavit...well forget it. I don't think it's going to stop anyone.

What I do think it will do is deter people who don't understand the whole thing from voting. If people are told they need an ID and they don't have one for whatever reason, they may just decide not to vote. If they show up and forgot their ID, they may just turn around.

Given that voter fraud hasn't been a huge problem in Michigan, but decreasing voter turnout has been a huge problem in Michigan - I think this is the wrong kind of law. Regarding the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling...any barrier to legal voting - such as having a $10 piece of ID - should be struck down by the Court. It's unfortunate that this particular barrier is seen as beneficial to the political party currently favored by a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court Justices.


The bad news about the US Supreme Court is that we're stuck with them for awhile. However, the 2008 election may give us a chance to improve the chances that we won't be stuck with them for too long. The good news about the Michigan Supreme Court is that we elect them! Sadly, many people in Michigan don't seem to realize it, but we are one of the few states that actually does elect our Justices.

The top of the ticket isn't the only place that deserves our attention. So I encourage...no...I beg you to please read up on all of the candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court and keep in mind the impact that they have on our state.