Essay Available:
Pages:
5 pages/≈1375 words
Sources:
12
Style:
APA
Subject:
Literature & Language
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 18
Topic:
Jurisprudential Philosophy
Essay Instructions:
Define your judicial philosophy and ideology. Describe your normative view of how justices should decide constitutional and statutory cases. Be sure to support your normative prescription with substantive rationales for your position and consider the potential problems or defects with your chosen legal approach. Please also consider your judicial ideology and consider how that may interact with your jurisprudential philosophy. Please see the grading grid attachment document for"Jurisprudential Statement" to guide you on the components of the statement.
"Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Docket No. 11-345
October 10, 2012
Issue: Whether this court's decision interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. (Kagan, J., recused)"
Your judicial philosophy should be related to this topic above and where your stance is on the issue, since you are the defending attorney (it's important to state your judicial philosophy belief). Please DO NOT state your judicial philosophy for the prosecuting attorney side, ONLY defending attorney side, as you are the defendant's attorney.
Writer,
One last thing, a judicial is a philosophy which motivates a judge to disregard the law and issue a decision based on his or her own political or personal beliefs. It is also a philosophy in which a judge motivates a judge to overturn a precedent or strike down a statute or a regulation. Basically, state your own political as well as personal beliefs according to the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin for the defendant side in order to persuade the judge to stand with you and make a decision based on your judicial philosophy, etc.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Jurisprudential Philosophy
Name:
Institution:
Professor:
Course:
Date Due:
Case Background
The American Supreme Court is expected to hear a highly popularised case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In this case, the court will decide on whether, the University of Texas considerations of race factor in its admission programs are constitutional or not. This case involves a 22-year-old woman by the name Abigail Fisher. In 2008, the lady was denied a place during the admissions to the University of Texas in favour of a minority race student with low qualifications. Owing to this, the woman went to court and filed a suit against the college. Her argument was that, the University’s consideration of race factor in its admissions was a violation of the previously set standards by the high court. In the 2003 case of HYPERLINK "/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html"Grutter v. Bollinger, the high court had decided that Universities and colleges should regard race as a factor in its holistic review programs. Additionally, the UT claims that the mode of admission was based on an equal basis system where all vacancies were given to all races. This according to the University board was meant to achieve diversification (Stephanie, 2012).
Thesis statement
In legal perspectives, there could be found a number of defects and legal aspects in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The case, which was a basis for affirmative action case if passed, would prevent the high court from adhering to its virtues. The argument in this case posits that the only option available for Fisher is being refunded her application fees. UT will incur little expenses from the proceedings. The college might also employ the eleventh amendment and Title VI jurisprudence to bar her fees recovery from the University.
My judicial philosophy with regard to this case is case is that it is not right to bar an individual from receiving his or her rights on the basis on racial segregations. My opinion is that individuals should be given equal opportunities with regard to their qualifications. An attempt to sacrifice and individual on the expense of others is morally and ethically wrong.
There appear three loopholes in Fisher’s position to recover the application fees. Fraud and unconvincing are probable avenues for influencing the case. In essence, if the court was to operate on its principles, it may find the case as being a small issue.
One of the important issues that could be raised in this Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin court case is whether such racial consideration in colleges and Universities has any noteworthy education advantages that authenticate it with the present personified and backtracking legal decisions dealing with what can be termed as systematic racism.
An issue that was raised by the Supreme Court decisions when dealing with racial matters in school administration was whether the program benefitted students in any way. If the court presents a negative judgement against Fisher, then opponents on racial segregation will be more than happy in comparison to proponents. This is because most of the opponents of racial diversity base their arguments on doctrinal elements concerning the role of the courts in racial diversity matters. In translating racial tensions in the light of affirmative action to the more sound doctrinal factors that the court has made significant to its debate of the constitution, we may fail to articulate on the real issues at hand.
Their could be no concrete reason as to why the high court should decide this case in favour of UT unless it plans to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger decision by the supreme court. If this is the plan, the court can quash the UT program on some tiny ground unveiling the scale of what the college is doing. Alternatively, it can ultimately overrule Grutter v. Bollinger. This is because in essence, affirmative action politics at the Supreme Court have been fuelled by the judge’s personal beliefs and assumptions rather than the legal perspectives.
In my opinion, courts should make decisions with regard to constitution and statutory cases on the basis of precedent. A precedent is a principle established in previous court cases that may bind or persuade a court in deciding similar cases. It is universally acknowledged that in legal perspectives, cases ought to be decided in relation to the provision of similar and predictable outcomes. Hence, the code of precedence is the means through which those objectives were achieved.
Rationale
With disregard to precedent set by Grutter, The University of Texas in legal perspective fails to meet Grutter’s standards in its admission systems. If the Supreme Court decides that UT meets Grutter’s standards, then the court must clarify the deviation from this ruling or overrule Grutter. However, overruling Grutter will be dangerous precedence in political perspective (Condon, 2012).
The case of Gratzn which occurred almost the same time as that of Grutter v. Bollinger centered on how race should not be counted on towards a sum that also measured test scores, leadership capabilities and other factors. Gratz’s decision was based on the notion that Colleges had to find “a measurable” way which may not always be quantitative in accounting for race factor in their admission systems HYPERLINK "http://campusprogress.org/bios/full/jeff_raines/"(Raines, 2012).
Fisher had good credentials to warrant her join the UT course, but she was overruled by a black student and Caucasian student who had lesser grades. The African student was in the 52nd grade while the Caucasian student was in 89th grade to be specific. These facts could warrant the courts to rule in favour of Fisher. Apparently, it may also be an important caution which may prevent a full refurbishment of these policies and instead pose as another li...
Name:
Institution:
Professor:
Course:
Date Due:
Case Background
The American Supreme Court is expected to hear a highly popularised case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In this case, the court will decide on whether, the University of Texas considerations of race factor in its admission programs are constitutional or not. This case involves a 22-year-old woman by the name Abigail Fisher. In 2008, the lady was denied a place during the admissions to the University of Texas in favour of a minority race student with low qualifications. Owing to this, the woman went to court and filed a suit against the college. Her argument was that, the University’s consideration of race factor in its admissions was a violation of the previously set standards by the high court. In the 2003 case of HYPERLINK "/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html"Grutter v. Bollinger, the high court had decided that Universities and colleges should regard race as a factor in its holistic review programs. Additionally, the UT claims that the mode of admission was based on an equal basis system where all vacancies were given to all races. This according to the University board was meant to achieve diversification (Stephanie, 2012).
Thesis statement
In legal perspectives, there could be found a number of defects and legal aspects in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The case, which was a basis for affirmative action case if passed, would prevent the high court from adhering to its virtues. The argument in this case posits that the only option available for Fisher is being refunded her application fees. UT will incur little expenses from the proceedings. The college might also employ the eleventh amendment and Title VI jurisprudence to bar her fees recovery from the University.
My judicial philosophy with regard to this case is case is that it is not right to bar an individual from receiving his or her rights on the basis on racial segregations. My opinion is that individuals should be given equal opportunities with regard to their qualifications. An attempt to sacrifice and individual on the expense of others is morally and ethically wrong.
There appear three loopholes in Fisher’s position to recover the application fees. Fraud and unconvincing are probable avenues for influencing the case. In essence, if the court was to operate on its principles, it may find the case as being a small issue.
One of the important issues that could be raised in this Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin court case is whether such racial consideration in colleges and Universities has any noteworthy education advantages that authenticate it with the present personified and backtracking legal decisions dealing with what can be termed as systematic racism.
An issue that was raised by the Supreme Court decisions when dealing with racial matters in school administration was whether the program benefitted students in any way. If the court presents a negative judgement against Fisher, then opponents on racial segregation will be more than happy in comparison to proponents. This is because most of the opponents of racial diversity base their arguments on doctrinal elements concerning the role of the courts in racial diversity matters. In translating racial tensions in the light of affirmative action to the more sound doctrinal factors that the court has made significant to its debate of the constitution, we may fail to articulate on the real issues at hand.
Their could be no concrete reason as to why the high court should decide this case in favour of UT unless it plans to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger decision by the supreme court. If this is the plan, the court can quash the UT program on some tiny ground unveiling the scale of what the college is doing. Alternatively, it can ultimately overrule Grutter v. Bollinger. This is because in essence, affirmative action politics at the Supreme Court have been fuelled by the judge’s personal beliefs and assumptions rather than the legal perspectives.
In my opinion, courts should make decisions with regard to constitution and statutory cases on the basis of precedent. A precedent is a principle established in previous court cases that may bind or persuade a court in deciding similar cases. It is universally acknowledged that in legal perspectives, cases ought to be decided in relation to the provision of similar and predictable outcomes. Hence, the code of precedence is the means through which those objectives were achieved.
Rationale
With disregard to precedent set by Grutter, The University of Texas in legal perspective fails to meet Grutter’s standards in its admission systems. If the Supreme Court decides that UT meets Grutter’s standards, then the court must clarify the deviation from this ruling or overrule Grutter. However, overruling Grutter will be dangerous precedence in political perspective (Condon, 2012).
The case of Gratzn which occurred almost the same time as that of Grutter v. Bollinger centered on how race should not be counted on towards a sum that also measured test scores, leadership capabilities and other factors. Gratz’s decision was based on the notion that Colleges had to find “a measurable” way which may not always be quantitative in accounting for race factor in their admission systems HYPERLINK "http://campusprogress.org/bios/full/jeff_raines/"(Raines, 2012).
Fisher had good credentials to warrant her join the UT course, but she was overruled by a black student and Caucasian student who had lesser grades. The African student was in the 52nd grade while the Caucasian student was in 89th grade to be specific. These facts could warrant the courts to rule in favour of Fisher. Apparently, it may also be an important caution which may prevent a full refurbishment of these policies and instead pose as another li...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: