[Ken H]

There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional.

I don't think Justice O'Connor's opinion says that race preferences will necessarily be unconstitutional 25 years from now. She was just voicing an expectation.

O'Connor wrote:

The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Pp. 21—31

IOW, if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

[Sandy]

if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

Exactly. And even if we are diverse enough in 25 years, there's nothing in this opinion that prevents another compelling government interest from being tarted up as justification for discrimination.

[Congressman Billybob]

Justice O'Connor did not choose to put in that 25-year limit. She was compelled to do so by prior SC cases that made it clear that such remedies are NOT constitutional UNLESS they have a deadline to end. Even to argue that the law school's AA was constitutional, she HAD to put a deadline on it.

Billybob

P.S. I read all 13 of the opinions in both cases, before I went on radio to talk about them, and before I wrote the UPI article. I've got hard reasons, not guesswork, for what I wrote about this pair of decisions.

[garbanzo]

IOW, if we are still not diverse enough in 25 years, the 14th Amendment will just have to wait a little longer.

It waited one hundred years already. The whole reason we have court-enforced affirmative action, and court-approved voting districts and the like is because many governments refused to uphold the Constitution until the courts twisted their arms. Various state and local governments did everything they could to avoid having to give equal rights and the sheer lawlessness of the behavior opened the door to the expansive domain of the federal courts.

So if you're looking to blame someone for overbearing courts - blame the politicos from the 50s and 60s who refused to obey the law.

[lepton]

The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Pp. 21—31

...but as Brit Hume pointed out, the interest she appeared to be referring to was "diversity", not Affirmative Action. Seriously weird.