4. describe a case in which the supreme court used the principle of equal protection
- possibly through the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment - to
expand civil rights for marginalized groups. then describe how the supreme court
used the equal protection clause to limit a program that benefited marginalized
groups in regents of the university of california v. bakke. (4 points)
for the first example, choose from these cases:
• hernandez v. texas
• bolling v. sharpe
• boynton v. virginia
• united states v. virginia
• obergefell v. hodges

The answers are:

1-The case: -Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

2-School affirmative action programs cannot use quotas to admit minority applicants.

Explanation:

1-The Supreme Court used the principle of equal protection--Hernandez was convicted of killing a man in cold blood in Jackson County, Texas, but his legal team found that not one of the roughly 6,000 jurors selected over the previous 25 years had a Hispanic last name. Americans, Hernandez's lawyers claimed he had been deprived of equal protection because discrimination prevented him from being tried by a jury of his peers.

Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'—that is, based upon differences between 'white' and Negro."

Equal protection applies to different ethnic groups; it is unfair to try a defendant before a jury that deliberately excludes members of the defendant's ethnic group.

2-The Supreme Court  used the equal protection clause to limit a program that benefited marginalized  groups in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Allan Bakke, who had twice unsuccessfully applied for admission to the medical school, filed suit against the university. Citing evidence that his grades and test scores surpassed those of many minority students who had been accepted for admission, Bakke charged that he had suffered unfair “reverse discrimination” on the basis of race.The Supreme Court,  agreed that the university’s use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!

it should be a. song dynasty’s civil service examination system created an administrative bureaucracy manned by the landed aristocracy.