You are a Supreme Court justice. A case before you challenges the constitutionality of affirmative action programs for African A
mericans. You believe the programs are constitutional and that they deserve "strict scrutiny." Which case would you use as a precedent to support your point of view? 1. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
2. Miranda v. Arizona
3. United States v. VMI
4. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Answer: 4. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Explanation:
In June 1978, the Supreme Court declared that affirmative action was legal insofar as racial quotas were not used. The case was brought by a white California man, Allan Bakke who said he had suffered reverse racism as he had higher scores than minority group members but was refused admission because of a University rule that reserved 16% of admission slots for minority groups. The Supreme Court ordered the University to admit Bakkie as using quotas was unconstitutional but also held that race can be used as a valid factor in admissions decisions.
This showed that affirmative action was legal but subject to scrutiny.
I believe the answer is: hawk-like noses and bloodshot eyes
According to his view, hawk-like noses and bloodshot eyes are the characteristic that is held by all living organisms which had the tendencies to become violent. In humans, this characteristic tend to contribute to higher tendencies/inclinations in doing criminal behaviour.
Assimilated Assimilation is the process of taking in new information and make incorporate the new information into our existing knowledge. This process was described by Jean Piaget in his theory of cognitive development in children. Jesse is doing this by fitting the new information into his existing schema.
Common law is a law that established by court decision rather than by statues enacted by legislature .
Common law called like that because it was intended to be applied uniformly and therefore be coming among the courts of the various jurisdictions in England .
