Justice Scalia: 14th Amendment for All, Not ‘Only the Blacks’

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, October 15, 2013

The Supreme Court appeared eager during oral arguments Tuesday to uphold a Michigan ban on affirmative action, with the justices even considering whether they would need to overrule previous precedents to make sure the state’s color-blind school admissions requirement can remain in place.

Michigan voters added the ban on race- and sex-based preferences to their state constitution in a 2006 vote, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year held that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it sets a higher political bar for minorities.

{snip}

Affirmative action supporters, though, countered that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is designed not to be color-blind, but specifically to protect racial and ethnic minorities from the actions of majorities.

Shanta Driver, the lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said any state action that puts minorities at a disadvantage, even if the purpose is to lessen a special benefit those minorities had enjoyed, violates the federal Constitution.

“It’s a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority,” Ms. Driver said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia balked at that interpretation.

“My goodness, I thought we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he said. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that.”

He challenged Ms. Driver to cite one Supreme Court precedent that agreed the Equal Protection Clause was designed only to apply to blacks. She said she could not.

{snip}

Justices said the current case is not so much about affirmative action as about the political process.

Opponents of Michigan’s amendment say that by elevating a ban on racial preferences into the state’s constitution, the state has imposed a higher burden on minorities than it has on other groups, such as alumni or geographic regions.

{snip}

The justices prodded the attorneys on whether they could uphold the Michigan amendment without overturning two other Supreme Court rulings, both of which ruled that states couldn’t change their political process to impose discrimination.

But in the current case, Michigan officials argued, they aren’t imposing discrimination, only eliminating a special preference for minorities.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Rick Brooks

    “the blacks”
    I’m sure libtards will accuse Scalia of racism (gasp) is the coming days for using the word “the” in front of the word blacks.

    • Sharpton was in hysterics over this.

      What if Scalia had said, “We need to do more for the blacks.”

      No prob.

      • haroldcrews

        When is Sharpton not in hysterics?

    • Andy

      You should see the comments on this article in the Huffington Post.

  • WmarkW

    The issue is the “political structure doctrine” that Jared T warned about three years ago. The pro-AA argument, is that a minority that wants a racial preference is faced with the unfair burden of having to amend the state constitution to get one. Only in a society in which racial preferences are common, could anyone make an argument that there’s a constitutional right to pursue one.

    ttp://www.vdare.com/articles/the-political-structure-doctrine-another-excuse-for-anti-white-discrimination

    • WmarkW

      I should have added that the Political Structure Doctrine is the most dangerous idea that needs to be opposed. Consequences could include the “right to racial healing,” which came up in a set of notes Elena Kagan once wrote at Harvard. This would mean suspension of all other rights (like speech or peaceful assembly) if they don’t promote minority’s view of themselves or their environment.

      • NordicHeritage

        That’s what welfare and other affirmative action programs have been about. They are basically stealth reparations programs.

        • Jesse James

          So do you suppose in the next hundred years or so in the interest of fairness and legal consistency that blacks will be required to pay some form of reparations for all the rapes, torture, murder, assault, theft and general destruction that they have levied on white America?

          • QuinnTheEskimo9

            No because by then there won’t be any blacks left. After we’re eliminated what race on earth will take up where we left off and fill up the ‘groids EBT cards and pay for their slovenly life styles? The Chinese? Mexicans? Each hate blacks and won’t tolerate them. They won’t be forced to hand over their earnings so blacks won’t riot, because they are ethno-centric and look after their own people. They will drive the blacks off of the North American continent, and they’ll do it quickly.

      • SFLBIB

        “…suspension of all other rights (like speech or peaceful assembly) if they don’t promote minority’s view of themselves or their environment.”

        I think this is a fallout of an idea that came out of the Frankfurt School of thinkers. As close as I can remember, their idea was to limit free speech of the media [among other powerful groups] so the speech of the hoi polloi was equal.

    • SFLBIB

      “…a minority that wants a racial preference is faced with the unfair burden of having to amend the state constitution to get one.”

      This is true only if they wish to pursue the political solution of a racial preference. There is an alternate one: they can hit the books and study just like other groups, then every group will have an equal chance. Last time I visited the U of M library, I didn’t see a white governor blocking the door.

  • Puggg

    Shanta Driver, the lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

    “Shanta Driver,” sounds like someone who benefited from AA.

    • itdoesnotmatter

      You’re right.

      • Puggg

        Hm. I was expecting a real Sistah, more along the lines of Precious or Rachel Jeantel.

        • itdoesnotmatter

          This is close enough for government work, though.

        • Xerxes22

          No. they need someone with a good IQ, who can make a decent presentation. In other words, they need someone with a lot of White DNA.

      • Spartacus

        It has a very intelligent stare…

        • itdoesnotmatter

          Spartacus, you are kidding, right? I think it looks as if someone inserted a “Yes, Master, I will do as I am told” chip in it’s brain.

          • Spartacus

            Sarcasm, my friend. Sarcasm…

          • itdoesnotmatter

            Thought so. Just checking. Sumdoods here in our [mostly] awakened forum are drawn to exotic races.

          • Alfred the Great

            I thought it was, “Yes, Massa.”

          • itdoesnotmatter

            Silly me, of course you are right. Thanks for the correction.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          So does a predator such as an wolf, brown bear or Siberian tiger before it attacks. Whoever, and whatever she is, she belongs among her people, not mine.

      • QuinnTheEskimo9

        Hideous. No other word for it.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        Good Lord, that nose of hers is big enough to be the fairing for a Atlas V rocket……she is definitely a Jew.

        • itdoesnotmatter

          I think part bantu, part Middle Eastern. The hair looks frizzy negroid.
          The over-sized nose, I think is a camera parallax problem.

    • Brian

      1/2 black, 1/2 jewish?

      • blight14

        What a lovely hybrid that would make…….pass!

      • Mergatroyd

        Looks like Lani Guinier. Same ethnic make-up, 1/2 Jewish 1/2 black.

        • sbuffalonative

          A very dangerous combination genetically, socially, and politically.

    • Luca

      She’s another loud-mouth mulatto activist, lawyer and organizer. If you can’t get what you want through intelligence, logic, law, civility and hard work get it by any means necessary.

  • Luca

    If an admission policy is based only on merit, then it is indeed blind to all other classes or factors. Whatever the “impact” is, would not be due to the policy itself. All applicants wishing to apply to a college or a job should do so by SSN only and in that way the admissions/employment process is even further “blind” to any perceived injustice or preference.

    After 50-years and perhaps 3 generations of special treatment for blacks, there should be nothing but a level playing field in college admissions. That was the goal of AA from the onset. Well, I have news for all blacks…we are there. You have arrived at the level playing field, now play ball like everyone else. Or as we used to say when we were kids, “Put up or shut up.”

    • itdoesnotmatter

      Count on sinister leftist Berkeley to find a way around the SSN I.D. only. The admissions board could easily trace, sub rosa of course, the SSN to a name.
      Latrino Gomez or LaTamponisha Washington names would give up the race neutral game.

      • cablegirls

        Contrary to popular belief, Berkeley is fairly middle-of-the-road “politically” and it provides most students a very good college education. It’s the city of Berkeley that carries the reputation for being ultra-progressive.

        • Bon, From the Land of Babble

          You are correct.

          The largest student organization on the Cal Berkeley campus is Young Republicans.

          It is small, mostly non-student groups of non-White, outside agitators that get all the press.

        • Brian

          People are always talking on here about how universities are hotbeds of liberalism. I had a very different experience, I suppose because I went to engineering school. The gov’t three-letter-acronym agencies recruited from there, and NASA and DoD. We used to get liberal protest groups coming in with their flower power BS, signs reading ‘Georgia Tech is a whore of the Pentagon’, etc.

          • Sick of it

            I also attended an engineering school. There were still quite a few liberals (usually in liberal arts, education, etc.).

          • Brian

            Fortunately we did not have any liberal arts or education departments. Engineering, sciences, management, architecture only.

          • Sick of it

            Wow no business school? Oops, I just took a swipe at management degree programs. My bad.

          • Brian

            They have an MBA program now, but not when I was there.

          • WR_the_realist

            Courses where you have to deal with hard reality are not conducive to leftist ideology.

          • Brian

            True. I head the heard the expression ‘check your math’ some, but never ‘check your privilege’.

          • Alfred the Great

            As a civil engineer, I can say that it is difficult to have any bias with numbers.

        • Luca

          Anecdotal evidence does not make an argument. Hollywood is a hotbed of raging liberals but one can find a conservative here and there, same with the media.

          Liberalism is woven into the fabric of every gov’t school but obviously to varying degrees.

          My personal theory is those people inclined to study and understand the sciences are not liberals, while those studying the arts tend to be very liberal.

          • SFLBIB

            I think it is more than a personal theory.

            politicaltypes[dot]com/content/view/24/56

          • Alfred the Great

            Your theory is EXACTLY correct!

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        The written essay part of the application process is used to get around California’s Prop 209 — and is given a lot of weight. THIS is where the UC lefty admissions committees are able to spot blacks and browns. The better the story of triumph against racist, White America, the better chance of admission to a UC — with a full scholarship.

        As if a hardship story makes one qualified to handle UC- caliber material.

        See recent story on Kashawn Campbell to find out what happens when unqualified blacks are admitted to universities on the basis of hardship or first to go to college (or some other lame excuse) over test scores:

        www // amren // com/news/2013/08/a-devastating-affirmative-action-failure/

        Notice in the article — and I read several on this particular case — Kashawn’s SAT or ACT scores are never revealed. I suspect they are VERY low — if they were UC caliber, they’d be splashed all over the papers — and, Kashawn wouldn’t be so far out of his league and failing miserably.

        Bon

        • itdoesnotmatter

          I read that article.
          There is no way in h*** an unqualified student should be admitted to UCB.
          It is too stratified academically. Even highly motivated, capable merit students have social and academic difficulty with lower division classes. They are huge, impersonal, one feels more as a number than a human being.
          Other than tutors, a TA is the only individual a struggling student can turn to for academic help, and too often the TAs are overwhelmed/busy, or not that good.
          I encourage prospective admits to take lower division classes at the state level. It’s just too stressful.
          I know because I did it, and spent many hours tutoring peers who needed support. They thought they were prepared; they were not, in spite of high scores and academic achievement in high school.

    • Alfred the Great

      Many of my peers in the Army asked why the officer promotion boards were not this way. The answer is easy. The minorities wouldn’t get promoted. That’s why affirmative action is alive and well in the military. And, yes, it’s a similar situation with the women.

  • libertarian1234

    Blacks have AA privileges in entry, grading and certification. Without giving them such unfair advantages their college level enrollment would dwindle down to about twenty percent of what it is now……maybe even less.

    To end AA we need a revamp of the education system, but it won’t get back in sync until the existing radical leftist academics are purged throughout the country. They’re damaged goods and beyond repair.

    I doubt that even re-education centers with anti-cult deprogrammers could straighten them out.

    • So CAL Snowman

      It’s not the education system that is necessarily the problem. It’s trying to hold black and brown people to White educational standards that is the problem.

      • itdoesnotmatter

        [trying to hold black and brown people to White educational standards that is the problem]…..

        A truism, that, and enough to give one pause for reconsideration of Critical Race Theory. Black scholars [an oxymoron if there ever were one] might have a point.
        Time and time again, it’s been proven that blacks and browns cannot be held to N. Euro standards, civilly, socially, academically/intellectually, legally.
        Operating at all times under diminished capacity, they cannot follow White mens’ rule of law.
        All the more reason for separation; we are imperiled by a lesser species presence among us.

  • bigone4u

    “Shanta Driver, the lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said any state action that puts minorities at a disadvantage, even if the purpose is to lessen a special benefit those minorities had enjoyed, violates the federal Constitution.”
    ____________________________
    Translation: Any state action that blocks or removes special advantages for minorities violates the federal Constitution.
    Given the Court’s decision in the Obamacare and Fisher cases, I am not optimistic that the Michigan law will be upheld. Scalia is one of two or three reliablily constituitional votes on the Court. Roberts is now a mystery man.

    • So CAL Snowman

      Are you talking about the same Scalia who declared that the obamacare mandate penalty was NOT a tax?

      • Alfred the Great

        Scalia is suspect also. Even he makes comments that are not embedded in the Constitution.

        • Sick of it

          We could do with some WASP representation on the Supreme Court.

    • Alfred the Great

      Roberts should be impeached, if the reports are true about the deals he made before voting on the socialized medicine case.

      • bigone4u

        I read that he used to be gay and Obama was holding that over his head to get him to vote for the Affordable Care Act, best renamed as the Un-affordable I don’t Care Act.

        • itdoesnotmatter

          Nitpicking. I long for the day when “gay” meant happy, bright, energetic.
          I refuse to use that word again for homosexuality. It’s gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria, never mind the DSM 5 that, under APA duress, depathologized it.

        • QuinnTheEskimo9

          There is also the questionable adoption of his children, and I think it is this that was used to blackmail him. In the U.S. today, being gay adds to one’s cred. Obama and Emanuel are both gay and once belonged to a gay bath house in Chicago called “Man’s Country.” Google Larry Sinclair for more information.

    • dukem1

      I’m so sick of all things SCOTUS I could puke.
      I see nothing there but a council of Mullahs telling us what the laws passed by our elected officials are really supposed to mean.
      Roe V. Wade? Miranda? Citizens United?The ACA? Brown V. Board of Education?

      Meaningless….It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
      I have no particular expertise re History, and even less regarding Law….
      But I just don’t think things were supposed to turn out this way.

      • bigone4u

        I’ll join you in your puking session. The Court’s decision upending the California ban on gay marriage was sickening.

      • Sick of it

        With my knowledge of both history and the law, I sadly come to the same conclusions. These people are criminals.

    • To be fair, I was never optimistic re our chances on the Fisher case in the Federal courts. Of course I don’t like Texas’s policy, I wouldn’t vote for such a policy or sign such a bill. The problem is that SCOTUS would have to find some Federal Constitutional grounds to declare the Texas policy to be unconstitutional.

      If I was on the Supreme Court, (I can hear all the screams of horror from the peanut gallery), and this case was in front of me, I don’t think I could come up with a Federal constitutional angle to get rid of the Texas policy. The three possible angles are:

      1. Straight 14th Amendment. The problem is, the Texas policy doesn’t specifically state race, even though we both know that there was an intended racial angle to giving automatic admission to someone in the top 9% of ghetto or taco high school but not to someone in the top 11% of white flight high school even though the latter is honestly more deserving.

      2. Disparate impact. Sure, like I just said, the Texas policy has a race-based disparate impact. But I’m opposed to that legal doctrine, and I wish it didn’t exist. So why should I start using it as part of my legal rationales?

      3. Penumbra. Except I’ve only ever seen penumbral reasoning applied to “negative liberties” (“government shall not…”) found in the first ten amendments, aka Bill of Rights. I really really really really don’t want to open the Pandora’s Box of attaching penumbras to the 14th, even though it’s easy to argue that the Texas policy is in the penumbral shadow of the 14th.

      • Dave4088

        The Texas AA law may not be theoretically based on race, but in fact non-white racial groups benefit largely at the expense of whites and the end result is discrimination against white people. It shouldn’t require any Constitutional legal twaddle to strike it down. I think an argument can easily be made that the law creates a “disparate impact” on white college applicants.

        The larger issue is that whites are a numerical minority in Texas, yet federal programs to protect minorities don’t apply to them.

        • Of course it creates a disparate impact on white applicants.

          But I don’t agree with the doctrine of disparate impact, and I wish it would go away. Why would I use it in legal jurisprudence?

          Things do “require Federal Constitutional legal twaddle” to strike them down when you’re a member of the Supreme Court.

      • Alfred the Great

        As a Texan First, I can tell you that the intent behind the law was two fold: 1) get more minorities into the top tier universities and 2) get more talented whites into the lesser universities because they have no other place to go.

  • Alfred the Great

    Amendment XIV is a Civil War amendment that was to safeguard the blacks by ensuring that the laws also applied to them. If States want to make affirmative action laws, they have the constitutional authority to do so. However, they also have the constitutional authority not to do so. It’s called Liberty and each State has the authority to make laws for its society.

    • Sick of it

      Affirmative action violates the Constitution. Equal protection under the law does not give any body the right to raise up one group above another.

  • JohnEngelman

    Affirmative action was never supposed to be a permanent entitlement. Advocates have always ignored the durable race gap in intellectual aptitude and performance however it is measured. They have never explained how society benefits from reducing standards for races that by every objective, measurable criterion really do tend to be less intelligent than whites and Orientals.

    • So CAL Snowman

      They don’t have to explain it because they never call it reducing standards. They always call it leveling the playing field or changing the curriculum to meet a diverse 21st century global population.

    • dukem1

      We’ve had about two generations now of affirmative action, Any “minority” group, family or individual that has not maxxed out every advantage available has, for one reason or another, missed the boat.
      I’d say we have exhausted our supply of diamonds in the rough.
      No matter how many helping hands or steps-up a person gets, at some point it’s sink or swim.

      It’s over. Those who can swim have done so. More power to ’em.
      The rest…we owe them nothing, except our charity if we are so inclined.

    • willbest

      You create a program, you get a constituency. It never dies. Eventually the whole system collapses.

      • JohnEngelman

        Those who benefit from affirmative action are less intelligent than those who are harmed by it. I doubt the white liberal guilt complex can last much longer.

    • MikeofAges

      Affirmative Action never should have been temporary either. Throughout American history there have a series of racial systems. Roughly: slavery (to 1965), reconstruction and counter-reconstruction (1865-90), separate but equal, accompanied by Jim Crow (1890. A brief equality era. Affirmative Action. Some would say, the succession of racial systems is American history. The point, whatever racial system has ex

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    A college is a business, their paying customers called students. If the business of education can legally discriminate by race as to who their customers are then any other business should be afforded the same privilege of doing so as they see fit. Affirmative Action is hypocrisy.

    • What is it about this comment that makes me want to pull out an old Screwdriver CD and play Back With a Bang over and over and over again?

  • Jefferson

    Affirmative Action, where a D average Bantu student can get into a good university to make up for slavery in the past.

    • Then get a good lawyer job at DOJ or any silk stalking law firm that refused to run background checks because of concerns over the “unfair impact.”

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      Affirmative Action, where a D average Bantu student can get into take the place of a more-qualified student at a good university to make up for slavery in the past.

      Fixed

  • Anything good they do for us will be temporary and brief. Scalia represents the shameful past; Toure is our progressive future.

    Demographic change is turning White voters into a voiceless minority in our own country. (You can’t vote you way out of this problem.)

    The Darkness, aka Diversity, will soon overwhelm us and fill Congress with racist anti white extremists who will pack the vibrantly enriching court with a “strong coalition” of dangerous multi-hued psychotic mongrels, totalitarian paedophile sociopathic perverts, muzzie terrorist illegal aliens.

    America is consumed with metastasized, fast spreading incurably fatal disease (“virulent”). The sooner you admit it, the better you will prepare for Stage Terminal and can take advantages of all the opportunities soon offered for making right so many wrongs.

    Explicitly eradicating White privilege will become the law of the land. Your Whiteness is already criminalized on the streets (Kim Kilgore, Martha Childress, Jimmy Johnson, Tevin Geike, Chris Lane, Jonathan Foster, Brittny Watts, Eve Carson, Lauren Burk, Emily Haddock, Channon Christian, Anne Pressley, Julie Love), but soon it will be criminalized in the written legal code.

    “After all we know by now, something’s wrong with you if you aren’t and avowed racist already.”

    -RevJeddy

    • dukem1

      Thing is, the demographics indicate a “browning” of the country….i.e Mexicans.
      Whatever it is they bring to the table, “White Privilege” ain’t included.
      Demographics – not to say mortality rates – indicate as well that I will be dead and buried when it all goes down.
      Good luck to everyone,

      Wish there was some law could be passed that would stop all this – especially the mortality part…but I don’t see it.

    • willbest

      That isn’t entirely true. I would bet money that the dems won’t get 40% of the white vote ever again. Even if the GOP tries to shove an establishment tool down the electorates throat again.

      • Alfred the Great

        For years I have seen a consistent 38% minimum for libs in the electorate. So maybe not forty, but they will always have that 38. More legal immigration and citizenship for the 10s of millions of illegals will definitely make that 38% figure go up.

  • MekongDelta69

    In present day America, ‘Shanta’ is in the ‘Driver’s’ seat.

    We aren’t even riding Shotgun anymore…

  • Dave4088

    Anyone with a room temperature IQ (that would exclude most blacks, anti-racist nut jobs and white liberals) understands that affirmative action laws confer preferences to non-whites at the expense of whites. There’s been innumerable cases of anti-white discrimination that it isn’t even debatable any longer with some of these cases being so in your face and deliberate it’s breathtaking.

    I believe “conservative” Scalia is somewhat of a wild card and sometimes votes with the political left, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he winds up voting to strike down the Michigan ban on affirmative action; his bloviating against it notwithstanding.

    • willbest

      Asians do best in terms of college admission without racial preferences. The Ivies have a 16% hard cap, but UC Berkeley and UCLA are pushing 40% or more.

      • cablegirls

        I just looked up UCLA: 35.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 29.0% White (non-Hispanic). 10.4% “International,” 3.9% Black non-Hispanic, 17.2% Hispanic.

        You could probably add most of the 3.4% “Unstated or Unknown” to White, since stating “White” isn’t going to get you any gibs.

        • Sick of it

          UCLA sounds like it would be rife with crime.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          And what is the % of White in this country? 75%?

          • Sick of it

            If you factor in around 30 million illegals, we are approximately 60% of the population. That estimate includes any Arabs or children of mixed parentage who are officially called white.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            That’s a good point. There is a fair amount of subterfuge in the census numbers and ‘Diversity’ listings such as these. One example would be the town of Glendale, CA. It is the largest Armenian Balkan state in America. They comprise more than 1/3 of the population. But, there is no sign of it in the census proportions. They are listed as ‘white’, but they don’t consider themselves white. Armenians are also included in the special preferences at federal contractors.

  • Spartacus

    “…specifically to protect racial and ethnic minorities from the actions of majorities.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    How about you guys stop referring to yourselves as “White” and start calling yourselves by your ancestries ? Dutch-Irish, Irish-German, Anglo, etc. And then sue the state if you don’t get any benefit from affirmative action. After all, you’d be an ethnic minority…

    First lawyer who starts doing something in this regard is probably gonna make a hefty sum out of it, not to mention create a huge level of chaos all around the country once others start following his lead .

    • Jesse James

      The problem Spartacus is that most of us have such mixed ethnic and national ancestries that it is pretty difficult to just put your finger on one line of ascent and say, yes this is who I am. In my own immediate ancestory I have Slovak, Scots-Irish, English, Scottish and like so many “good” Southerner’s even some Creek. (My grandmother’s grandmother was full blooded Creek) So you know, what the hell does all that make if not White, Southern, American.

      • Spartacus

        So you’re part of multiple ethnicities… That’s great ! That means you should get twice the affirmative action !

        • Jesse James

          hmm my wife always says I am hard headed perhaps…perhaps…wait for it…perhaps I am a Muleatto.

      • Brian

        Just call yourself a Civilized-American or Triple-Digit-IQ-American. Both of those are oppressed minority groups.

  • HJ11

    The pendulum is swinging back toward common sense, as more and more Whites awaken. I can feel it. A bit of light here, a bit there. Stay White, my friends, when a critical mass of White opinion forms, things will change fast.

    • willbest

      Not if the dems win another presidency it won’t. I wouldn’t bet on Kennedy and Scalia making it 6.5 more years, and in the meantime Roberts is already starting to crack.

  • He challenged Ms. Driver to cite one Supreme Court precedent that agreed the Equal Protection Clause was designed only to apply to blacks. She said she could not.

    That’s it ….. go before SCOTUS unprepared.

    • QuinnTheEskimo9

      Pretty soon it won’t matter, if it even does now. The media will still comment and report on Mz. Driver’s skillful arguments and call her brilliant, gifted and supremely talented (as they did Kagan), while calling the likes of Scalia an out of touch extremist who should retire.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Last time I checked Eskimos (Inuit, Ojibwa, etc.) get the red carpet treatment at federal contractors.

        Are you a faux Eskimo or just talking out of both sides of your mouth?

  • ” . . . the blacks . . .”
    Like a different species. LOL
    Love it!

  • willbest

    That may be but it seems to me a good 20% of whites still think its a good idea.

    • Sick of it

      Liberals are the most cruel when it comes to treatment of the mentally impaired. They even despise old people.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    The 14th Amendment was largely nullified by Griggs versus Duke Power in 1971. That’s what they reference when engaging in reverse discrimination.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no longer worth the paper its printed on.

    • QuinnTheEskimo9

      No such thing as reverse discrimination, Mr. Breitbart, there is only discrimination.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Get lost, leftist poodle. Ventilate some of that igloo air.

    • LIBERTYSINCURSION

      Please, stop with the whole “reverse discrimination” thing Andrew. You’re using the enemies language, vocabulary, phrasing, and definition which lends credibility to their idea that discrimination against whites is a completely different form of discrimination. In fact they argue, it’s so different that it’s not even discrimination. “Reverse Discrimination” and Reverse Racism for that matter, both imply that whites are just getting back the discrimination they themselves put out in return. As if 20 year old would be college students ( If Only They Had The Right Skin Color ) were the ones discriminating against blacks in Selma 50+ years ago.

      Allowing the enemy to define the debate is nothing less than an early surrender.
      Words have power, don’t give yours away.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        My lengthy response was deleted. Par for the course in this police state. Apparently it wasn’t ‘approved speech’–just the truth (oh my–we don’t do that at DISGUSt). Do you hear the jack boots in the distance?

        It was pointing out the multiple reasons why you are clueless–if not a Media Mutters shill. Let’s see how long this post lasts.

  • Sick of it

    Equality does not equate to superiority. Obviously these people have a low reading comprehension level.

  • Nice Guy

    +JMJ+

    This is the crux of the problem:

    “Michigan voters added the ban on race- and sex-based preferences to their state constitution in a 2006 vote, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year held that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it sets a higher political bar for minorities.”

    Special-interest elitists legislate immorality over the valid objections of the citizenry. We either need to do away with these federal courts or alter our political structure to reflect referendums, not representative-based government.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Michigan’s Proposal 2 was modeled on California’s Prop 209 and passed into Michigan Constitutional in law 2006 by 58% to 42%.

    California’s Prop 209 is under constant attack but has been upheld by California’s Supreme Court twice.

    Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued to strike down the Michigan amendment, said…’I want the same rule book. I want the same playing field. The problem with Proposal 2 is that it creates two playing fields,’ he said.

    No it doesn’t, Mr. Rosenbaum and you know it.

    Affirmative Action IS discrimination against Whites; it is race-based privilege and it is illegal and unconstitutional.

    How difficult is that for you and the ACLU to understand? But you and the rest of the ACLU are for anything that discriminates against Whites in favor of non-Whites.

    The proper course of action would be for this case to be laughed out of court — but, after the obamacare decision — does anyone here trust Judge Roberts?

    Bon

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    As demographics continue to change in the U.S., any opposition to AA won’t matter because no argument against it will be allowed.

    In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society’s laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings — as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge ‘white man’s justice’? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers?

    Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, THERE IS NO GETTING IT BACK AGAIN.

    –From A Warning For America From South Africa

    As it is, SCOTUS is hanging on by a thread.

    Bon

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      The bloody history of Eastern Europe will be repeated here the moment the future enemy majority refuses to abide by the Supreme Court’s rulings, let alone American law. In other words, they will start what will turn into both a civil and a world war at the same time.

  • tacheles

    I am waiting for the leftist loons to argue that the Constitution is unconstitutuonal.

    • Sick of it

      They already did in the 19th century.

  • Boris McGuffin

    I think we should have a new amendment that states in no uncertain terms that this country was founded by white gentles and made great by same, and that if you are not a white gentle then you’re only here because we are too generous for our own damn good, but from now on, this country belongs to the founding stock, that we’re kings of the ranch around here, and if you don’t like the way we run the show, you’re encouraged to suck it up and leave.

    And yes, it should be stated in one long run-on sentence like that.

  • odious liberal

    The negroes are losing their exalted status, maybe they will wake up and stop helping illegal aliens.

  • Andy

    The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War. Its primary intention was to protect blacks, but it was worded in a way that protects all groups.

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    Imagine that, for once the Supreme Court ruled intelligently, the Constitution and all of its amendments apply to all citizens equally. That washes up everyone having more rights than the founding white population of the country.

  • Mergatroyd

    When were laws for Affirmative Action ever put to a popular vote? (or mass non-white immigration for that matter)?
    Every popular vote put to the people, in Michigan, California, etc. has been against AA, gay marriage or giving illegal immigrants more rights and benefits (prop 187 in California).

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Although Republicans are in the minority, the Berkeley College Republicans is the largest political organization on campus.

    en // wikipedia // org/wiki/History_of_the_University_of_California,_Berkeley

    • itdoesnotmatter

      The Republican Club has 60 members, Bon.

    • itdoesnotmatter

      Bon, I don’t hold any stock with wiki, anyone can add anything to their sites.

      However, if you must cite wiki, you omitted this bit:
      “Democrats outnumber Republicans on the faculty by a ratio of nine to one, leading to some conservative student criticism of the faculty for teaching with a liberal bias.” To that I say, duh.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Although Republicans are in the minority, the Berkeley College Republicans is the largest political organization on campus.

    en // wikipedia // org/wiki/History_of_the_University_of_California,_Berkeley

  • KittyAmerica

    Thanks for that I needed a laugh; I was crying with laughter. Only an insane society would let these chimps run loose.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    Those DISGUSt people censored me again. I’m starting to wonder if that outfit is run by the NSA?

  • What? You mean that the high powered firm she works for can’t even get its own domain name and has a WordPress blog as its website?

    • Brian

      She’s way too busy fighting injustice to get bogged down in The Man’s high-tech wizardry!

  • emiledurk16

    “Justices appeared eager?” Sonya “I think a wise Latina women would be more qualified than a white male” Sotomayer is eager to overturn the disgraceful abomination known as Affirmative Action…..doubt it.

    “the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year held that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it sets a higher political bar for minorities.”

    Asking that merit be the determining factor in admission procedures is “setting the bar higher for minorities?”

    By the way, whose the “minorities”? I thought race was a sociological construct? According to that absurdity, there can be no “minorities”.

    I’m white and speak English. I’m the minority in my neighborhood.

    “Shanta Driver, the lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said any state action that puts minorities at a disadvantage, even if the purpose is to lessen a special benefit those minorities had enjoyed, violates the federal Constitution.”

    Considering merit as a primary factor puts minorities at a disadvantage?

    I would think that levels the playing field.

    But the left knows that if merit is the decisive factor, white males, god forbid, would excel and rightfully gain a position.

    “It’s a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority,” Ms. Driver said.

    Miss Latoya Driver, who the hell do you think has the “privilege” when one’s ethnicity gives him or her a 200 pt SAT leeway and a “quota” status? Talk about discrimination!
    This whole thing stinks and smells like a rat.
    I have a dam good idea who that rat is.

  • Brian

    The idea of “Natural Equality” is one of the most pernicious
    delusions that has ever afflicted mankind. It is a figment of the human
    imagination. Nature knows no equality. The most cursory examination of
    natural phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality as
    universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation. The evolution of
    life is the most striking instance of this fundamental truth. Evolution
    is a process of differentiation — of increasing differentiation — from
    the simple one-celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely
    differentiated, complex life forms of the present day. –Lothrop Stoddard, ‘Revolt Against Civilization’

    • LIBERTYSINCURSION

      “The idea of “Natural Equality” is one of the most pernicious delusions that has ever afflicted mankind”. < How True! )

      Nice quote Brian!

  • Sick of it

    Not Eskimos and Marxists do not represent WASPs.

  • RHG

    This is just ridiculous, if you are black and legitimately earned your grades in high school you will have colleges throwing themselves at your feet to get you in. What affirmitive action does is give incompetents special treatment over more qualified candidates simply because of the color of their skin and I thought that was the essense of “discrimination” and therefore against the law.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      It was against the law. Now it isn’t. Read-up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, read the Title VII section. That is where it was against the law.

      Now fast forward to SCOTUS Griggs vs. Duke Power of 1971. Read the devil in those details. Specifically this language: ‘from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.’

      That’s the sound of CRA 1964/Title VII being rendered obsolete and the quota barn door opening. The anti-European American gangsters have been hanging their racists hats on this one ever since. 40+ years and counting.

      Some constitutional perversions last a long time. Look at Roe vs. Wade of 1973.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    The left scoffs at the SCOTUS and the Constitution. It won’t amount to even a pebble in their road. They operate in a parallel, lawless universe.

  • Transpower

    This is good news–for a change!