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
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.