Scott Comerford
1B) Based on the book's decription, and some of his rulings, I would most like to eat and talk with Breyer. I like that he is willing to compromise in court, and actually works toward solutions instead of just stating his opinion and being unmovable. I also value that he tries to promote society's welfare instead of just being content with how things are. I also agree with him on civil rights issues. I'd like to talk with him about the future of civil rights, where he sees the trend going and if he could think of a hypothetical way to change the course if he didn't like it.
2A) PIICS vs. Seattle School District No. 1 was about affirmative action in schools. After a certain percentage of white people were admitted into the school, to protect diversity, the school then used race as a tiebreaker. White parents got upset about this and sued the school district. The majority of judges sided with the parents. but many of them wrote opinions about it. Roberts says that if we use race as a factor for anything, that makes us racist, and if we just ignore the problems, they'll magically go away. Justice Thomas stated that we can't be sure that any policies based on race aren't just going to hurt the people we are intending to help, and that policies forcing anything are bad. Also on the majority, but taking more of a middle ground was kennedy, saying that affirmative action is okay, you just have to be more sneaky about how you do it. Breyer on the dissent was furious at the idea that we should turn our back on race issues. And Justice Steven agrees and basically adds that the idea of reverse racism due to affirmative action is dumb.
3A) In the Health Care case, Justice Roberts suprisingly supported the ACA but struck down a fairly important part of it. He struck down, with a large majority, the part that forced states to cover insurance for everyone up to 33 percent over the poverty line(60), saying that it was unconstititutional coercion of the...