Warren Burger

<h1>Text Preview</h1> <p> <P>Warren Burger served as chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1986. The Burger Court, not known for activism, was at the center of two highly controversial cases in the 1970s that had a huge impact on the nation: <i>Roe v. Wade</i> and <i>Regents of University of California v. Bakke</i>.</P> </p> <p> <P><i><b>Roe v. Wade</b></i><b> (1973)</b> was an extremely controversial case concerning abortion. In this case, the Court based its decision to allow abortions on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process <b>right to privacy </b>clause. <i>Roe v. Wade</i> opened a huge national debate that is still raging today. The Court's 7-2 decision has weathered the storm of judicial assaults, including <i><b>Stenberg v. Carhart</b></i><b> (2000)</b> that ruled against state laws that banned some late term abortions. </P> </p> <p> <P>There are also several decisions that have eroded the landmark <i>Roe v. Wade</i> decision. For example, <i><b>Webster v. Reproductive Health Services</b></i><b> (1989)</b> and <i><b>Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey</b></i><b> (1992)</b> upheld state laws that restricted abortion rights. <i>Rust v. Sullivan</i> (1991) limited abortion access for poor women, and the 1976 Hyde Amendment excluded abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid.</P> </p> <p> <P><i><b>Regents of University of California v. Bakke</b></i><b> (1978)</b> addressed affirmative action programs, which attempted to provide minorities and women with job and educational equality. Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old white male, applied to the University of California Medical School. Bakke claimed that the school denied him admission because he did not help fulfill a minority admissions quota. He asserted that reverse discrimination against white males could not be tolerated in order to make up for years of bias against women and minorities. The Court proclaimed that although affirmative action programs are legal, race and gender could not be the only factors taken into account. Since there was no single majority opinion in the case, and because the Court proclaimed that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible, it instigated a national debate regarding affirmative action.</P> </p> <p> <P>Two parallel University of Michigan cases, <i><b>Grutter v. Bollinger</b></i><b> (2001)</b> and <i><b>Gratz v. Bollinger</b></i><b> (2001)</b> challenged the reverse discrimination policies of higher education institutions. Once again, the High Court stopped short of a definitive answer. In the Grutter decision, by a 5-4 majority, the Court upheld the "flexible" consideration of race as one factor for admission to public institutions of higher learning. By a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected a point-system plan for undergraduate admissions in the Gratz decision. With these three cases, the Court attempted to make a decision against affirmative action quotas, and at the same time, retain affirmative action policies.</P> </p> <p id="TextCopyright">Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education</p>