Racial Equality Loses at the Court

Editorial Board, New York Times, April 23, 2014

A blinkered view of race in America won out in the Supreme Court on Tuesday when six justices agreed, for various reasons, to allow Michigan voters to ban race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

In 2003, the court upheld such a policy at the University of Michigan Law School because it furthered a compelling governmental interest in educational diversity. Opponents of affirmative action moved to amend the State Constitution to ban any consideration of race or sex in public education and employment. In 2006, voters passed the amendment by a wide margin.

Affirmative action supporters sued to strike down the amendment, arguing that by changing the rules of the game in a way that uniquely burdened racial minorities, the amendment violated the equal protection clause. A closely divided federal appeals court agreed.

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and allowed the amendment to stand. {snip}

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a three-member plurality, sided with the voters, who he said had undertaken “a basic exercise of their democratic power” in approving the amendment. He cautioned that the ruling took no position on the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies themselves. {snip}

Not so, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, in a stinging 58-page dissent. “Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she wrote, such as when they pass laws that oppress minorities.

That’s what the affirmative action ban does, by altering the political process to single out race and sex as the only factors that may not be considered in university admissions.

{snip}

The Michigan amendment has already resulted in a 25 percent drop in minority representation in Michigan’s public universities and colleges, even as the proportion of college-age African-Americans in the state has gone up.

In the most eloquent part of her dissent, Justice Sotomayor rightly took aim at the conservative members of the court, who speak high-mindedly of racial equality even as they write off decades-old precedent meant to address the lingering effects of “centuries of racial discrimination”–a view that is “out of touch with reality.” The reality, she wrote, is that “race matters.”

{snip} “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he [Chief Justice John Roberts] wrote glibly in a 2007 case striking down school integration efforts in Washington and Kentucky. “Things have changed dramatically” 50 years after the Voting Rights Act, he wrote last year in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of that act.

These quotes represent a naïve vision of racial justice. As Justice Sotomayor put it, “we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”

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.
  • Only the NYT would consider brilliant the 58 pages of blithering Sesame Street idiocy that was Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent.

    • dcc2379

      Of the three muppets, what is the name of the one on the right?

      • willbest

        I think that one is Prairie Dawn

      • Olorin

        She is apparently sniffing glue (note the broken-capillary nose, the heavy eyelids and the ditzy stare)…so um…Arianna Huffington?

        Not sure who the guy in the middle is wearing the AME church choir robe with the ginormous container of cocaine in front of him.

        The rat looking thing on the left is anybody’s guess, but it has the overall expression of Bill Maher.

        Could this be a TwitSnap of a Tides or Ford Foundation petit dejeuner?

        • foundingstockcracker

          I think you’ve got the general gist of the picture.

        • Kenner

          You need to comment more often…!

    • So CAL Snowman

      It looks like Sotomayor is about to get high on some glue before going into work for the day.

      • BillMillerTime

        If she did, would anyone even notice any difference in her opinions?

      • Sotomayor doesn’t need to get high on glue; she’s already stupid.

        • joesolargenius

          Sotomayer is another La Raza miscreant that got her start pandering for that organization !

    • sbuffalonative

      Sesame Street was geared to urban minorities who for some reason weren’t doing as well in the new integrated schools they demanded and got.

      Just imagine all the proud Lainas that saw that episode and now dream of being a supreme court justice.

      But their only chance of making it is affirmative action just like Sotomayor.

      • CallahanAuto

        Roosevelt Franklin!

    • Pelagian

      Shes a moron. She also killed the baseball replacement players in 1995 for no good reason. A business can’t actually hire whom they want in Free America, you see.

      • Laura Dilworth

        but the firemen beat her

  • MekongDelta69

    You would expect anything different from The New York Slimes??

    I’ve been trying to post there for I don’t know how long. (They moderate their comments – of course.) I have NEVER had even ONE of my comments posted – no matter how benign they would seem to anyone reading AmRen.

  • dcc2379

    “That’s what the affirmative action ban does, by altering the political
    process to single out race and sex as the only factors that may not be
    considered in university admissions.”

    Then why can’t we use race as a factor in picking a buyer for a house? Before the Civil Rights travesty, liberals didn’t want anyone to be singled out for their race and sex.

    “. . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” of the 14th Amendment means what? As I’ve stated in the past, academics and judges and liberals can find in the Constitution where it says it is okay to cut up unborn babies, but they don’t know what the right to bear arms means.

  • So CAL Snowman

    So the New York Times believes that banning discrimination against Whites and Asians is a form of discrimination against blacks and browns? The editors of Pravda must be smiling in hell. This is unreal.

    • TXCriollo

      So Cal its all the same with the NYT their readership is geared to the left wing in NYC. They need to play non whites are the victim or they wont have any of the left wing crybabies buy their paper

    • WR_the_realist

      What do you expect from a newspaper whose favorite economist, Paul Krugman, believes the federal government isn’t borrowing enough money?

      • a multiracial individual

        Krugman is racist.

        “If you want a wealthy society you can’t make that offer global.”

      • Kenner

        Krugman is a Marxist who won a Nobel prize for Economics [!]

        • Nobel Prizes for economics are often awarded to people who have published mutually contradictory theories. The Nobel Prize Committee is thus not even self-consistent.

  • TXCriollo

    i was reading the nyt comments even the readers there think affirmative action needs to go, see the left knows what a downward spiral this will cause

  • John R

    “Affirmative action supporters sued to strike down the amendment, arguing that by changing the rules of the game in a way that uniquely burdened racial minorities, the amendment violated the equal protection clause. A closely divided federal appeals court agreed.”
    Okay, so striking down racial preferences for minorities means “changing the rules of the game that uniquely burdens minorities”? But, it was WHITE PEOPLE that were being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST by affirmative action. White people were being “uniquely burdened.” Talk about up side down logic. Freedom is slavery; slavery is freedom. And equal treatment is discrimination.

  • Daniel Smith

    “race matters.”

    Indeed it does, ma’am!

    • WR_the_realist

      Yes, and Sotomayor should read Michael Levin’s book, “Why Race Matters”.

  • Jesse James

    We won’t hear again about the Constitutional limits places on the majority once whites are no longer the majority.

    • dcc2379

      With white liberals acting black and voter fraud, we are a minority because white unity has been shattered. It can change, but will it?

  • willbest

    The only time you need more than 10 pages to write a SC opinion is when you are trying to sell BS.

    • Sometimes, they’ll write long opinions that are worth reading, not Sesame Street fluff, because they think they’re establishing some sort of precedent, or maybe they want to show off their mental chops.

    • Extropico

      A prolix screed might be useful to the clerks drafting the opinion for the affirmative action justice who is still trying to learn English and our jurisprudence.

  • dewdly

    First we are told that biological race does not exist and that race is merely a social construct. Then we are told that the social construct was ill-conceived and needs to be undone. Then we are told that we can undo the social construct by using it “affirmatively.” After using the bad social construct affirmatively for a number of years with no diminishment of the inherent problems of racial differences, we, once again, suspect that race is biological.

  • Ahnenerbe

    I expected nothing less from a affirmative action SC judge

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Imagine that, Michigan ends racial discrimination and the liberals are furious. You have now entered the twilight zone.

    • Olorin

      My thoughts exactly, only I’d say “progressives” rather than liberals.

      They entered the TZ right after 9/11 when Chomsky claimed it was an inside job, and besides, the 3,000 deserved it.

    • shawnmer

      They are actually getting quite upfront about the fact that preferential treatment and not true “equality” is what they think fair, indefinitely. The sewer known as SalonDOTc*m recently was very forthright in saying that stacking the deck against whites will “never” be appropriate to end since we allegedly got such a huge, insurmountable head start in wealth and privilege that blacks and Hispanics can never be reasonably expected to close this gap and attain economic parity.

      I gave them points for honesty of intentions at the time!

    • dcc2379

      But, with liberals at the helm of academia, I will bet that racial discrimination will just receive a new name.

  • JIMMY

    Justice Scalia said it best: “It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisdictional twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself.”

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    If you want to ensure fairness then simply pass a law that requires colleges and employers to hire the best available applicants, so if you get passed over and someone with lower test scores gets into a school or if you get passed over for a job and a less qualified applicant gets the job, you then have legal some recourse. What you don’t do is enact laws that amount to the very type of behavior you are complaining is unjust and are trying to remedy. You don’t fix racial discrimination by legislating more racial discrimination. Affirmative Action is one of the most idiotic lame brain laws ever passed in this country, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional.

  • Great piece of Sotomayor worship by the libtards at the NY Times. Not a bit of analysis of law or legal precedent in the article. Just whining, Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! There, I’ve summarized it for the average three year old mind, which the article was aimed at–libtards have the mentality of three year olds.

  • BonV.Vant

    wow, the jew york times is having a kinipshun fit…yawn

  • Lewis33

    So on the the side of sanity we get “he said” referring to Kennedy, but siding with the Times editorial board deserves “the most eloquent part of her dissent”, how subtle.

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Sotomayor and Ginsberg tremble at the thought of a fair, race neutral system.

  • Caucasoid88

    “We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”

    Didn’t this Wise Latina remark in her autobiography that she is a product of affirmative action? Sounds pretty unequal to me, considering it’s only fair when you base acceptance on merit. The racist boogeyman in the room remains a reason for poisonous policy.

    • r j p

      Do you actually think the “wise latina” could write an autobiography on her own?

  • Luca

    They always want that mythical “level playing field” until they find out that they really can’t compete in that manner. They really want endless special privileges, concessions, considerations, lower standards, benefits and compromises.

    • MikeofAges

      As soon as the “level playing field” was achieved legally, special privileges then were demanded. One of these special privileges was the special privilege of establishing onerous rules for whites even when these had nothing to do with whether there was minority outreach or not. More than minority inclusion, it is the affirmative exclusion of white men that make the Affirmative Action system so onerous.

      Throughout American history, whatever the extant racial system was, that was the system for everyone and defined everyone’s conditions of life. Roughly, the succession of systems has been, slavery (till 1865), segregation (1865-1945), equality (1945-1970), and Disparate Impact or Affirmative Action (1970 till the present). In my estimation, racial relations were best during the equality era. Equality actually was working better and better as time went on, and outreach could have been implement without the twisted monstrosities of the Affirmative Action system. I was there, and I do know.

      Each of these successive systems existed because it had a legal existence, affirmed by the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court reject Disparate Impact as unconstitutional, even if there is some other form of outreach, the Disparate Impact system will continue. The Supreme Court has yet to overturn this system, which the Court itself created of its own accord in the early 1970s.

      You might want to know, Disparate Impact operates by applying antitrust law to race relations. Under Disparate Impact, whites, white men especially, are treated as a monopoly entity subject to special rules, sanctions and punishments other entities are not subject to. Under constitutional law, the 14th Amendment is the basis and authority for antitrust law. So, applying antitrust law to race relations is seen thereby as not a 14th Amendment violation. Even though antitrust law never was meant to be applied to individuals, only business entities. You see why the regime wants to hold to the idea that everything an individual does constitutes commerce.

    • dcc2379

      For a liberal, it depends what you mean by level.

  • shawnmer

    “Uniquely burdened” minorities? “Uniquely BURDENED” them?? Therefore it violated equal protection?

    They were already being UNEQUALLY, preferentially treated, you twits! Yeah, taking away your privileged treatment to make you EQUAL with everyone else – which is what you claimed you wanted, remember?? – I suppose in the literal sense “burdens” you. But does any sentient being think that makes sense?

  • Kenner

    Their idea of a level playing field is a cemetery filled with whites.

    • MikeofAges

      Sometimes it seems like black society’s idea of a level playing field is an exactly equal and parallel hierarchy between black and white society. That this has never existed anywhere at any time in any multi-ethnic society seems not a deterrent. No one else in America seems to worry so much that their group is overrepresented in one activity and underrepresented in another. All seem to accept this circumstance as a normal part of life. Except American blacks.

      Over many generations, for example, American blacks never have been successful in starting independent businesses outside of professional services. But that doesn’t seem to stop them from blaming this circumstance on racism instead of their own culture. The preference of blacks for working for institutional employers is pretty obvious. Many other people want the same thing, a secure, long-term job, but not quite so universally as blacks. If American blacks were up front about what they wanted, the rest of us might be able to respond. As it is, they seem to be ashamed of wanting security and the possibility of living under a paternalistic system where, overwhelmingly, they work for the other guy. Hey, if that’s the way you are, that’s the way you are, and the reason why doesn’t matter anymore. The rest of world can’t give up its nature and puts its impetus aside forever so that American blacks will not have to acknowledge and live with their own nature just like everyone else does.

      If American society ultimately fails, and the time comes when each has to take care of it own only, no one will suffer more than American blacks.

      • Nonhumans

        So very true. Their parasitic nature renders them inept in so many respects. When the collapse occurs, they will be extremely dangerous, for a month or so, until they start to die off from starvation and stupidity, otherwise.

        What comes after the first few weeks is the reason that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves.

  • shawnmer

    I think we ought not “single out race and sex as the only factors that can’t be considered” in hiring. Or insurance. Or bank lending. Or real estate sales and rentals. Or ….

  • sbuffalonative

    when they pass laws that oppress minorities.

    This is why the NYT’s premise is wrong.

    The Michigan law doesn’t oppress anyone. In fact, by banning race-conscious admissions it levels the playing field; something ‘progressive’ liberals consider important.

    • dcc2379

      As Justice Sotomayor put it, “we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.” The quote reflects her belief that government can interfere and trample personal liberties for aims of elites. Whites at the passing of Civil Rights, the destruction of modern America by removing property rights, worried about this and were told that such racial discrimination against whites would not happen. LBJ had it right when he said after passing the anti-white legislation that, “We will have these n****** voting for us for the next hundred year.” As a bonus, he also got to destroy the last vestiges of the black family, a modern, Western institution that led to some degree of civilization. What a shame I feel compelled to bend to the n-word police, a word used lovingly by blacks and used frequently in their music.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    As Justice Sotomayor put it, ‘we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.’

    Sonia knows she is inferior in intellect and unfit to sit on the highest court in the land.

    She would never have gotten where she is without Affirmative Action, but will never admit that she took the place and benefits of someone far more talented and deserving.

    Unbelievably, The New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children’s classics and study basic grammar books during her summers.

    As Pat Buchanan asked:

    How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of ‘Chicken Little’ and ‘The Troll Under the Bridge’?

    The Wide Latina should be cleaning the floors and offices of the SCOTUS building instead of sitting in one of the judges seats passing judgement.

    Imagine an entire bench filled with Sotomayor and Kagan types.

    And finally, the hateful, NY Slimes, with its dirty lies and glaring omissions would never report on those locked out of college admissions, promotions, etc. by lesser qualified non-White candidates like Sotomayor because it agrees with and promotes anti-White AA.

    All The News That Sulzberger’s Propaganda Rag Sees Fit To Distort

    –Mike King

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      New York Times:

      Sulzberger’s sleazy propaganda rag of half-truths and globalist propaganda.

      Don’t start your day without it!!

      • dcc2379

        Luckily everyone knows the New York Times is the New Pravda.

  • MBlanc46

    “Racial equality” might have lost, but, fortunately, equal protection under the law has won a round.

    • WR_the_realist

      Precisely. We can have racial “equality” only with a never ending program of discrimination against the successful races. The left is now admitting as much. So I guess that makes them racist. Well, welcome to the club, progressives! We both agree that the races are not equal. The only difference is that the left hopes to create equality by constantly discriminating against whites, while I feel that if we’re stuck with a multiracial, multiethnic society and still want a reasonable degree of freedom, we have to accept that some groups will do much better than others.

      • MBlanc46

        Well said.

      • r j p

        I will never declare a negro my equal.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    Amazing how bad this reasoning is. What isn’t important is the clear language of the constitution, or even the will of the voters, but rather the interests of blacks at the expense of whites.

    To summarize the insanity: the voters of a state pass a law outlawing discrimination based on race in education admissions, and two Senate-approved Supreme Court justices rule against the state, saying in effect that the 14th amendment forbids what it in fact requires. The solution to this madness is impeachment. Clearly neither lady is in her right mind. Have them impeached, on charge of insanity, using their opinions as evidence against them.

  • bubo

    Blacks, browns and unmarried white females are the ones who push affirmative action. Married white women understand it might be their sons or daughters who are hurt by AA and their husbands in the job market. They keep pushing the issue and Asians might start leaving the Dem plantation too.

  • DudeWheresMyCountry?

    Someone needs to simply ask Proto-mayor, “admit it, you think minorities are not as smart and you are afraid not using race will diminish minority representation.” There is no other reason for her positions. Someone needs to address the elephant in the room by confronting this elephant in the courtroom.

  • “We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”
    –Sonia Sotomayor

    We could best address the issue of racial inequality that exists in our society by stripping our inferiors of citizenship and then deporting them.
    –Michael Scott

  • LIBERTYSINCURSION

    “that by changing the rules of the game in a way that uniquely burdened
    racial minorities, the amendment violated the equal protection clause”. Equal protection is apparently synonymous with not only not protecting Whites and Asians equally. But actively seeking to do harm to Whites and Asians, by discriminating against them for no other reason than the color of their skin. The blatant hypocrisy of these people is far beyond disgusting. Basically, race must be a factor if it will benefit racist blacks and Hispanics. And race must never be a factor if it does not benefit racist blacks and Hispanics. I’m sensing a disparate impact here. You know, the supposedly “good kind” that disproportionately HARMS Whites.

  • LHathaway

    She’s right about one thing, we Are approaching a century of racial discrimination. . . .

  • Reverend Bacon

    Thanks. That’s the harshest of anything I’ve seen about Mr. Sotero.

  • FlaVet

    Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result.

    Quit your whining. Your whole life has been one AA pass after another. If you hadn’t been one of the preferred pets, you’d be unqualified to work at a holiday inn. It’s clear you have no understanding or appreciation of the voters rights.

    “Wise Latino” my tail! Just another racist enshrined on the Court along with the other 4 kumquats.

    • dcc2379

      It would be great if all the justices and the Speaker and president/vp and Senate Majority leader would take an IQ test.

  • Pelagian

    Anybody here tempted to take her up on the “race matters” meme and join her to fight the absurd idea of “color-blindness”? Anybody??

  • Tom_in_Miami

    Baloney! They will still pick according to race and who’s going to do something about it. We have no law in this country, only whims handed down by the ruling classes.

  • Mrfinoni

    College enrollment is irrelevant if you don’t pass! If they dumb colleges down enough the diploma becomes the same as a high school diploma. However more Whites may just have to attend private 4 year liberal arts colleges with a few token minorities to post on their Facebook. Preferably without a football team thus reducing the number of illiterate Blacks.

  • MooTieFighter

    Real simple. How is a state is discriminating by banning discrimination?