Well, you now have a state judiciary supported methodology for free persons to achieve the results they desire, be they liberal diversification or conservative homogeneity.
Posted on 06/29/2003 3:36:08 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
I have a sneaking sympathy for Dick Gephardt. Hitherto the Democratic Party's most reliably unexciting presidential candidate, the former House minority leader went bananas the other day and said if the Supreme Court did something he didn't like he'd sign an executive order overturning it.
Several conservatives did a bit of pro forma huffin' an' a-puffin' about why this makes Gephardt unfit to be president. But, speaking personally, I can't see why rule by Dick-tat would be worse in principle than the present system, whereby the nation's course for the decades ahead is effectively set by executive orders from Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court's eternal swing vote and tiebreaker-in-residence. Poised between opposing ideological quartets, Swingin' Sandra inclines not to black and white but swims in the murky gray in between. The trick for those appearing before the court is to decide the precise degree of murk at which Sandra will jump.
This last week provided some useful guidelines, with Supreme Court rulings on diversity and sodomy. Whatever your position, sodomy is a precisely defined act. It means--Well, let's not get into that, as the choirboy said to the--oh, never mind. My point is that laws ought to be about clearly defined acts and a high court should be concerned with the legal principles at stake in those acts. Whether or not you dig it as a personal philosophy, ''diversity'' makes a poor legal concept. It was not intended to be precisely defined, but instead woozy and fluffy and soft-focus. It makes a fabulous bumper sticker: ''Celebrate Diversity.'' But it makes a poor legal concept to enshrine at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, which is where Swingin' Sandra's vote put it last week.
The correct term is ''racial quotas,'' but that's too bald, too clear. So its proponents came up with the coy evasion of ''affirmative action.'' But over the years that also became tarnished. Hence the invention of ''diversity.'' Who could be against ''diversity''? Who wouldn't want to celebrate it? It's the perfect enlightened vapidity.
But whoever thought it'd fly as a legal concept? Last week, the court had before it two models of University of Michigan diversity: In the first version--the undergraduate school's system--they give you 20 points for being black. You need 150 points to get in. So, by being born black, you're 13 percent of the way there.
Tough for whitey, but he knows the rules. If Albert Gore IV wants to get into the joint, he understands Jesse Jackson XXVII has got a head start and he's gonna have to make up those 20 points somewhere else. Being a scion of the first Android American to run for president is not an approved minority group. Nor is being a Jew or Asian or a Pacific islander from Tuvalu.
Cruel, but it's all there in the fine print. Down the road at the Law School, the same thing goes on in practice, but it's all swathed and swaddled in vague, soothing multiculti mumbo-jumbo and is ''flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight,'' whatever that means. But whatever it means, it's less vulgar than handing out points for pigmentation.
As Swingin' Sandra put it, approvingly, the Law School (like Sandra) ''engages in a highly individualized, holistic review . . . flexible, non-mechanical . . . soft variable . . . nuanced judgment . . . potential to enrich . . .'' Zzzzzzzz.
Which is the point. The court's message is: As long as we don't see how the sausage is made, you're OK. Take your ''soft variables'' into the smoke-filled room. Worse, the court has dignified ''diversity''--a flag of activist convenience, a wily obfuscation--as a compelling state interest, and on its promoters' terms.
''Diversity'' doesn't extend to, say, some dirtpoor piece of fundamentalist white trash. Her presence wouldn't ''enrich'' anyone. ''Diversity'' means ''more blacks.'' That's why traditional African-American colleges are exempt from its strictures: As 100 percent black schools, they're already as diverse as you can get.
As a general rule, the more noisily an institution proclaims its commitment to diversity, the more slumped in homogeneity it gets--at least when it comes to the only diversity that matters, not diversity of race or gender or orientation, but diversity of ideas. Take the New York Times and its star columnist Maureen Dowd. Of all the various aspects of the judgment, the one that took Maureen's fancy was that a black man had had the effrontery to vote against quotas for blacks! Pronouncing Clarence Thomas ''barking mad,'' she declared, ''He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.''
Really? He didn't get into Yale on merit? Only because he was black? How does she know? And, by taking it as read that he's only there to make up the race numbers, doesn't she inadvertently confirm Thomas' point? That the cult of diversity stigmatizes all blacks: No matter how high they soar, the assumption of white liberals like Miss Dowd is that it's because of white liberals making allowances for them. How dare that uppity nigra be so ungrateful to Massa Sulzberger and all the fine ladies up at the big house who got him into the nice Liberal Guilt Academy for the Exotically Disadvantaged! ''It's poignant, really,'' sighs Maureen. ''It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race.''
Here's a game we can all play: It's poignant, really. Maureen knew that she couldn't make a powerful argument if her life depended on it, given the fact that she got into the New York Times thanks to her gender. It makes her crazy that people think she's where she is because the buttoned-down white guys running the Times needed a fluffy-chick quota hire but . . .
American liberals have had great success inventing evasive language to advance their agenda, ever since ''abortion'' became ''choice.'' Only the other week, with the cooperation of foolish, short-sighted Republicans, ''welfare'' morphed into ''tax credit.''
But one purpose of a court of last resort should be to reject the seduction of euphemism, to demand plain language and clear meaning.
''Diversity'' narrows the mind, it pigeonholes us into identity-group stereotypes, some approved, some not, but all so limiting that Maureen Dowd's ''diversity'' can't even grapple with the concept of a ''black conservative.'' Indeed, a ''diverse'' culture can't even be honest about its racist past.
Lester Maddox, Georgia's last segregationist governor and a white restaurateur who closed his business rather than be forced to serve blacks, died last week, and neither ABC, CBS nor NBC could bring themselves to tell viewers that this man was (gasp!) a Democrat. Imagine that: a racist Democrat.
Oh, come on, nobody's that diverse.
Good point. You can rule by the dictatorship of "one" or the tyranny of the oligarchy of judges/politicians, and both suck. A few more apathetic election cycles and we'll all just be praying for benevolent, good-natured dictators at the helm. Back to pasture, sheep.
Well, you now have a state judiciary supported methodology for free persons to achieve the results they desire, be they liberal diversification or conservative homogeneity.
Agghh!!! I'm sooo jealous..... you lucky lucky girls....
Do you know he lurks?
But the state first was in the business of discriminating against constitutionally "suspect classifications," then in proscribing legitimate methods for "leveling the playing field."
The issue we've faced since Bakke is once legitimizing the principle of a second wrong to achieve a right, how to repeal constitutionally suspect methods in proportion to gains and changes?
It had been my hope that the court would empower the citizenry to achieve this goal based on trust given demonstrated progress and demographic changes.
Apparently, at least O'Connor believes the Jim Crow generation must die off before that is completely possible.
There is a real animus against colorblind admissions policies among the "college administrators class" that do these horrible things in the middle of the night to otherwise talented and qualified applicants of the wrong skin color.
So in my view, there should be no second wrong allowed. And it should be ended as soon as possible. The Supreme Court should have outlawed the use of race just as that California proposition. That is what should have happened. Then liberty would have worked its remedy as it should have in the first place when the anti Black discrimination was outlawed.
You grant to much to O'Connor. She had a gifted law clerk nammed Eugene Volokh, [see volokhconspiracy.com] who is crystal clear on all of this. But she is following the influence of the chattering class because hse is essentially a politician not a legal philosopher. An all together disgraceful appointment. Almost as bad as Souter.
I agree, but as you point out, there is no legal barrier to outlaw the use of race through legislation. California's ban was not ruled unconstitutional, UM's use of race as a plus factor was upheld.
It would have been expedient for the SCOTUS to apply a race-blind standard to the decisions of free people, but we as free people are still in the position to win that debate. I don't see that as problematic except there will be a limited number of asian and white, predominantly male, persons discriminated against by the race based diversity regime. To be honest, it goes into the "life's not fair, we're working on it - want to help?" column for me.
L
Actually, it's scarier than that. All you have to invoke are the magic words "Compelling state interest"...
I think there is a compeling state interest in abridging the free speech of someone wanting to yell fire in a crowded theater.
I think there is a compelling state interest in abridging the private ownership of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Am I wrong?
The question is, what recourse do we have against a statist judiciary finding an intrusive number of compelling state interests?
Well, I would not trust you to be in power over me. You are very cavalier with my equal protection rights under the US Constitution. You are very much an essential part of the problem that this country now faces. Constitutional protections of basic rights should not be put in the hands of the ballot box. Why you would do so, intentionally it seems, causes me to wonder what your true motives are.
"optimistically conservative", indeed. you may be optimistic, but I know it is not about conserving or preserving the constitution. What then? "expedient" "not problematic" You use this language as if you were discussing a business deal OR covering a wholly different agenda.
That's almost funny, in that it implies you would trust someone to be in power over you. Perhaps you could name the politician you do trust with such power today?
You are very cavalier with my equal protection rights under the US Constitution.
No more than I am with my own. Certainly no more than those that imposed slavery, sexism and Jim Crow Segregation were cavalier with the equal protection of others. Or perhaps you construe my lack of gloom and doom over a SCOTUS decision which did nothing to worsen, and little to better the existing AA/Diversity situation comparable to being a slave holder or segregationist?
Constitutional protections of basic rights should not be put in the hands of the ballot box.
Yes, let's do away with that aspect of our republic and the legislative branch of representative government so that legislation in matters touching on the bill of rights can come from the bench - instead of strict interpretation.
Why you would do so, intentionally it seems, causes me to wonder what your true motives are.
When the judiciary, without the opportunity for appeal, makes a ruling I disagree with, my options are to work against the ruling within a moral consensus, work legislatively to change the law or constitutional interpretation, work electorally to change the legislative and executive climate, and/or impeach the justices. So tell me, what in my previous response implies a choice of action that would lead you to question my motives?
You are very much an essential part of the problem that this country now faces.
I'll try to remember that the next time I'm putting my life on the line protecting our constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Until then, forgive my lack of panic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.