government played in causing this attack and the really just d despicable and deplorable treatment that has been meeted out to these heroes in the year since, they re afraid they will be muzzled during the trial and after the trial they will again be pushed under the rug. that s why you re hearing them speak out, not because they want to interfere in any way shape or form by twith the prosecution d a terrific professional job for get in the way of a conviction by this terrorist. they want to make sure they are not forgotten and pushed under the rug. in addition to wanting to see nadal hasan convicted, they also want purple heart status for the victims of his massacre. why is that so tough for them to attai attain. because a policy determination has been made in the government to deny them the same kind of treatment that was
have enough cases to make a mathematical determination about how to grade people. the federal government and dr. sweet and dr. roberts and all these folks have made a policy determination that children are less important than adults. for all the adults waiting for lungs, because we don t want to say they don t deserve them either, but if you put a 10-year-old on the same list then would she go to the top because she s the sickest? she would and she should. as a matter of ethics. any ethicist in the united states, what are the instincts in our country? do we protect the youngest and weakest or throw them to the wolves almost literally. let s hear from sarah s mom janet about the issue right now. they say they can t measure how sick a child is. they are telling me measurements can t measure how sick a kid is under 12 so the l.a.s. score
michigan whose voters amended their constitution in 2006 to ban affirmative action. a lower court of appeals had overturned the state s action, saying the majority could not place unique burdens on minorities. but today in a 6-2 decision, with justice kagan recusing herself, the supreme court disagreed. while not taking a position on the constitutionality of affirmative action itself, the court says states have a right to vote on whether or not to ban it. justice anthony kennedy wrote for the majority saying quote, there is no authority in the constitution of the united states or in this court s precedence for the judiciary to set aside michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor, but that does not justify removing certain court determined issues from the voters reach. democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for
while not taking a position on the constitutionality of affirmative action itself, the court says states have a right to vote on whether or not to ban it. justice anthony kennedy wrote for the majority saying quote, there is no authority in the constitution of the united states or in this court s precedence for the judiciary to set aside michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor, but that does not justify removing certain court determined issues from the voters reach. democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate. in other words, the majority of the voters in michigan should decide whether or not affirmative action is right for that states. seven other states ban affirmative action, including california and florida. today s ruling could embolden more states to do the same. and for more on this heated c