skip to content
Swing dance : Justice O'Connor and the Michigan muddle Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Swing dance : Justice O'Connor and the Michigan muddle

Author: Robert Zelnick
Publisher: Stanford, Calif. : Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, ©2004.
Series: Hoover Institution Press publication, 528.
Edition/Format:   Book : EnglishView all editions and formats
Database:WorldCat
Summary:
"Ever since her 1981 nomination to the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has consistently provided the "swing vote" between a four-justice bloc of liberals and a four-justice bloc of conservatives. Rarely in the minority on any case, her position in 5-4 splits has usually prevailed. Swing Dance looks at her key role in the 2003 controversial University of Michigan affirmative action cases, which spelled out
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Subjects
More like this

 

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Named Person: Sandra Day O'Connor; Sandra Day O'Connor; Sandra Day O'Connor; Sandra Day O'Connor
Material Type: Internet resource
Document Type: Book, Internet Resource
All Authors / Contributors: Robert Zelnick
ISBN: 0817945229 9780817945220
OCLC Number: 54082314
Description: xi, 208 p. ; 23 cm.
Contents: The swing justice --
Affirmative action before O'Connor --
O'Connor and the employment cases --
O'Connor in command --
The percentage plans --
The Michigan case --
The Sixth Circuit --
Argument --
Decision --
After Michigan.
Series Title: Hoover Institution Press publication, 528.
Responsibility: Robert Zelnick.
More information:

Abstract:

"Ever since her 1981 nomination to the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has consistently provided the "swing vote" between a four-justice bloc of liberals and a four-justice bloc of conservatives. Rarely in the minority on any case, her position in 5-4 splits has usually prevailed. Swing Dance looks at her key role in the 2003 controversial University of Michigan affirmative action cases, which spelled out a new approach to how race may be used in admissions. These contentious decisions preserved affirmative action but applied it less strictly, without assigning any numerical advantage, or extra points, to minority applicants, as Michigan had done in the past. Many now believe they will serve as a model for how other public universities can seek to create diverse campuses in a constitutionally permissible way."

"Author Robert Zelnick explores the backgrounds of the key figures in the case and examines significant past court rulings by both Justice O'Connor and others - providing an account of Justice O'Connor's subtle change in opinion on the abortion issue and how it foreshadowed her ultimate position on affirmative action. He also offers a blow-by-blow description of the daily argument in the Michigan cases, including detailed accounts of exchanges among the justices, the attorneys, and the witnesses. Zelnick concludes with a summation of the aftermath and repercussions of the case to date and explains how the University of Michigan adapted its admissions program to fit the specific requirements of the Court's ruling."--Jacket.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54082314>
library:oclcnum"54082314"
library:placeOfPublication
library:placeOfPublication
owl:sameAs<info:oclcnum/54082314>
rdf:typeschema:Book
rdfs:seeAlso
schema:about
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Discrimination en éducation--Droit--Michigan."
schema:about
schema:about
<http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1161630>
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Universities and colleges--Admission--Law and legislation."
schema:about
<http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1765592>
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Affirmative action programs in education--Law and legislation."
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Universités--Admission--Droit--Michigan."
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Affirmative action programs--Law and legislation--Michigan."
schema:about
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Programmes d'action positive--Droit--Michigan."
schema:about
<http://id.worldcat.org/fast/895042>
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Discrimination in education--Law and legislation."
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Universities and colleges--Admission--Law and legislation--Michigan."
schema:sameAs<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85141092>
schema:about
schema:about
schema:about
schema:about
rdf:typeschema:Intangible
schema:name"Affirmative action programs in education--Law and legislation--Michigan."
schema:sameAs<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2005007615>
schema:about
schema:about
schema:author
schema:copyrightYear"2004"
schema:datePublished"2004"
schema:description"The swing justice -- Affirmative action before O'Connor -- O'Connor and the employment cases -- O'Connor in command -- The percentage plans -- The Michigan case -- The Sixth Circuit -- Argument -- Decision -- After Michigan."
schema:exampleOfWork<http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/288864469>
schema:inLanguage"en"
schema:name"Swing dance : Justice O'Connor and the Michigan muddle"
schema:numberOfPages"208"
schema:publisher
rdf:typeschema:Organization
schema:name"Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University"
schema:reviews
rdf:typeschema:Review
schema:itemReviewed<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54082314>
schema:reviewBody""Ever since her 1981 nomination to the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has consistently provided the "swing vote" between a four-justice bloc of liberals and a four-justice bloc of conservatives. Rarely in the minority on any case, her position in 5-4 splits has usually prevailed. Swing Dance looks at her key role in the 2003 controversial University of Michigan affirmative action cases, which spelled out a new approach to how race may be used in admissions. These contentious decisions preserved affirmative action but applied it less strictly, without assigning any numerical advantage, or extra points, to minority applicants, as Michigan had done in the past. Many now believe they will serve as a model for how other public universities can seek to create diverse campuses in a constitutionally permissible way.""
schema:workExample
schema:workExample

Content-negotiable representations

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.