March 25, 2013

Supreme Court to consider Ward Connerly case

The Supreme Court said to day that it would consider overturning an absurd late 2012 ruling by eight Democratic judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturning Ward Connerly's 2006 initiative victory banning affirmative action in Michigan. The Democratic judges said that it was unfair for the thuggish plaintiffs, By Any Means Necessary, to have to do what Connerly did and get the majority of Michigan voters to back their view of affirmative action. 

This was one of the more blatant of the countless post-Obama re-election expressions of sheer who? whom? thinking. 

Scalia gives the impression that he thinks that the five Republican Supreme Court Justices (who aren't terribly young, by the way) are all that stand between the country permanently slipping from a world in which affirmative action can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to one in which affirmative action can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.

23 comments:

rightsaidfred said...

So, when we lose what little conservatism we have on the Supreme Court, that institution becomes just another political apparatchik of the leftist machine.

There is much ruin in a nation indeed.

Pink Arrow Gal said...

now, with GOP justice, SURELY they will overturn affirmative action. Right? Right? Isn't that what Limbaugh has been telling us all these years?

Anyone wanna make a bet? I would bet that AA comes through unscathed. Gop==all talk, no action (unless that action helps the rich, and overturning AA would hurt the rich).

Anonymous said...

The jam on this particular biscuit is the name of the group BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, which implies a delicious insouciance about democracy obviously shared by the Sixth Circuit.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid the end is near...

MarkII said...

...and Desert Lady reincarnates himself yet again.

Simon in London said...

Re the 2012 decision - when judges are just total scum, obviously it weakens respect for the rule of law, right? I wonder if that's a bad thing in the American context - to my impression, Americans give absurd deference to judicial decisions that often have no more legal basis or moral weight than those of a banana Republic or Communist tyranny.

Here in the UK, English Law judicial decisions are much more limited, and reading them I'm always struck by how the judges do justify their reasoning - even if you disagree with their decision you have to respect the way they reached it.
America started off with an English-law system, and at least until recently the same could be said of most US Court of Appeal judgements at least, but generally the quality of US judgements seems no higher than that of Civil Law nations. And the populations of Civil Law nations certainly don't show US/UK style deference to judicial decisions - if they obey at all, they are obeying the State court's power, not its authority.

Is US deference to judicial lawmaking just a relic of an earlier time, that will inevitably fade as people realise that the courts are not worth deferring to? Or is it a necessary part of the American character, such that it will continue to be reliably exploited by "Who? Whom?" artists?

Drunk Idiot said...

Simon in London,

"Is US deference to judicial lawmaking just a relic of an earlier time, that will inevitably fade as people realise that the courts are not worth deferring to? Or is it a necessary part of the American character, such that it will continue to be reliably exploited by "Who? Whom?" artists?"

For the majority of the American population, the latter description fits.

The American citizenry's tendency toward reflexive and unwavering belief in the "American system" (i.e., rule of law, equality of opportunity, non-class stratified society, belief in the decency of mankind, love of college football, country music and apple pie, etc.) seems to be a built-in facet of the American character that just so happens to make Americans the ultimate easy marks for your "Who? Whom artists."

And it's hard to see that changing anytime soon, if ever (though flood the nation with millions of Muslims and vibrant 3rd world immigrants for 30 more years and all bets are off).

It should be noted, though, that the American Left never respects judicial decisions that don't go its way.

The left is simply relentless about getting what it wants. When the left doesn't get its way, it keeps agitating and litigating until it wins (no matter how long that takes).

Only once judicial and/or legislative victory is finally achieved do the nation's laws become legitimate in the eyes of the left.

And then, with judicial/legislative victory in hand, everything is set in stone forevermore, and all the other Americans just accept the way things are and move on ... kind of like Republicans are jumping over themselves to do on amnesty, Obamacare and gay marriage.

drunk idiot said...

Pink Arrow Gal,

You look pretty hot in your picture.

And your aggressive and muscular paleocon positions only adds to your appeal (anybody know how hard it is to find a conservative gal, let alone one who's an attractive blonde paleocon!?!).

How 'bout posting some naked pics.

Anonymous said...

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom Is Slavery
Non-Discrimination Is Discrimination

Actually, Big Brother made a little more sense!

Chosun said...

I think Scalia knows that the ratchet has already slipped free, and he is trying to turn it back without admitting how bad things actually currently are.

Rum said...

"
Anonymous MarkII said...

...and Desert Lady reincarnates himself yet again."

I was thinking the same thing...

Drunk Idiot said...

Still waiting for Desert Cougar to post some nekkid T&A selfies too.

BTW, the University of Minnesota just relieved Tubby Smith of his duties as head basketball coach. Kind of funny that UCLA fired Ben Howland right after his team lost to Tubby and the Gophers in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, and that Minnesota turned around and fired Tubby a day later.

It's not quite as crazy, though, as when UCLA's football team lost to Illinois in that obscure New Year's Eve San Francisco Bowl game after both teams had fired their head coaches.

Coaching is a tough business.

Since this is an Affirmative Action/race-related post, it's worth mentioning in passing that the sports media has yet to raise the question of whether race was a factor in Minnesota's dismissal of coach Smith.

When Tubby Smith jumped from Kentucky to take the Minnesota job (Smith left one of the elite coaching gigs in basketball to helm a middle-rung basketball program), there was no shortage of media outrage over Kentucky's racially-tinged mistreatment of their coach.

Remember, Smith didn't get fired at Kentucky. He left to take a different job (albeit a lesser one) when the natives in the Bluegrass state started getting restless over their team's near decade of declining on-court performance. But the media worked tirelessly to inform us all about the legacy of slavery and racism in Kentucky, and to remind everybody that legendary Kentucky basketball coach Adolpf Rupp was an outspoken racist who refused to have black players on his teams.

Everybody in the media knew that Tubby got a raw deal at Kentucky because those toothless, meth-head crackers in "Kane-Tuck" hated him for being black (even though they'd loved him a decade earlier, when he coached the Wildcats to the 1998 NCAA Championship).

If anything, though, Tubby's sudden firing at Minnesota (after doing a pretty nice job in his 6 seasons there) seems like more of a raw deal than the treatment he got at basketball-crazed Kentucky. After all, Kentucky fans expect a Championship every year. And with coach Smith's 10 years of diminishing returns in Lexington, it's a wonder that Wildcat Nation wasn't on his case earlier.

So why was it that the media hyped up the race angle when Tubby left Kentucky (you know the drill, set amidst the lingering shadow of Kentucky's troubling racial past), but now that he's been unceremoniously kicked to the curb at Minnesota, there's no such talk about race?

Maybe the media is so wrapped up in covering the story of the white supremacist who murdered the prison warden in Colorado (finally, a REAL crime committed by a REAL white supremacist!!!) that they don't have time to cast aspersions on Minnesota fir firing Tubby Smith.

Henry Canaday said...

Those Sixth Circuit Democrats finally pulled off the liberal hat trick: finding the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

AA isn't truly overturned unless Ivy+t25 privates are affected under the ruling.

I wonder if fisher v. texas will go that far. Some say it could affect admissions at private schools because it could affect any school private or public that receives any federal funds and top privates receive a truckload of research money from public/federal funds.

However, i'm not too convinced. I think at best, AA could be struck down for public schools nationwide but kept for ivies+t25's.

Truth said...

THE END IS NIGH!

Matthew said...

Funny the contradictory cases they have taken up.

In one, the Left will be demanding they allow gays to marry under the notion that the 14th Amendment demands "equal protection," never mind that the 14th A. didn't even give women the right to vote.

In the other, Leftists will be demanding that the 14th Amendment not only allows racial discrimination (against one group of people only, of course; never mind that the 14th A. was entirely about racial equality) but prohibits the voters from doing anything to end it.

If the Left wins in both cases then we will truly be able to say that we live in a tyranny and that our Supreme Rulers are completely full of shit.

pat said...

Hunter gatherers were free. Slavery began with the Neolithic Revolution. That's quite aways back.

For most of that time in many of the empires, communities and tribes that practiced slavery there were those who considered it immoral. That was the opinion of Wang Mang in first century China and Saint Patrick later and further west. But slavery persisted.

Ben Franklin and other 'Founding Fathers' created an anti-slavery society and still supported slavery in the new nation's constitution.

So history tells us that people can live with an evil practice almost indefinitely. I have no doubt that eventually civilization will reject racial preferences as being immoral but that may be a century or more off.

Albertosaurus

Whiskey said...

The Who? Whom is embedded in America. It has always been here. It is part and parcel of the struggle between the elite, very cohesive, "we are the light, you are the damned," Puritans, and the only group still around that opposes them, the "Borderers" or "White Trash" or Hillbillies or Appalachian types etc.

Mid-Atlantic folks got absorbed into the Puritans. See Bill Gates, Seattle, and all that coffee. Aristocrats got downsized into NASCAR Nation.

This is the Viking "gift" to Western Civilization. Faulkner was right.

peterike said...

American justice as is:

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedoms because that is according to my principles."

From Children of Dune

Anonymous said...

The Who? Whom is embedded in America. It has always been here. It is part and parcel of the struggle between the elite, very cohesive, "we are the light, you are the damned," Puritans, and the only group still around that opposes them, the "Borderers" or "White Trash" or Hillbillies or Appalachian types etc.

Do you get paid for this? It wasn't the Puritans who wanted to break open the borders to import third worlders. It was another elite, very cohesive, "we are the light, you are the damned," group that conceived and wrote the 1965 Immigration Act. And this group, not the Puritans, has been the dominant group in the US for the past 40 plus years.

I have heard about projection before, but this is getting ridiculous. I am seeing more and more people trying to push this evil Puritan meme. Blaming the Puritans is similar to how people have been brainwashed into calling the 1965 Immigration Act 'Teddy Kennedy's' Act. It is pathetic and insulting given that it lets off the hook a lot of the folks who actually engineered it.

I suspect that the multiculti, diversity thing is starting to become a liability, and that a fall guy needs to be found to take the blame before the yokels start to reach for the pitchforks.

Svigor said...

The Who? Whom is embedded in America. It has always been here. It is part and parcel of the struggle between the elite, very cohesive, "we are the light, you are the damned," Puritans, and the only group still around that opposes them, the "Borderers" or "White Trash" or Hillbillies or Appalachian types etc.

Mid-Atlantic folks got absorbed into the Puritans. See Bill Gates, Seattle, and all that coffee. Aristocrats got downsized into NASCAR Nation.

This is the Viking "gift" to Western Civilization. Faulkner was right.


Judaism is "who-whom?" as a religion.

Anonymous said...

I hope the Supremes have read the new and improved 14th amendment:

Some animals are more equal than others.

Mr. Connerly never got Snowball's memo. But then, two-legged types never do.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

The Who? Whom is embedded in America. It has always been here. It is part and parcel of the struggle between the elite, very cohesive, "we are the light, you are the damned," Puritans, and the only group still around that opposes them, the "Borderers" or "White Trash" or Hillbillies or Appalachian types etc."

So, Whiskey - are those the same puritans who dominate Harvard and Wall Street? The same puritans who dominate Hollywood?

Who are the "puritans" on the Supreme Court?

You are completely full of shit, Whiskey.