Posted on 06/29/2003 3:36:08 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
His legal analysis is funny, even though the subject is deadly serious. He didn't mention (you can only pack so much brilliance into one article) that the "sharply divided" (a term liberals use when they lose narrowly) Supreme Court raised the fuzzy concept of "diversity" above explicit statements in the Bill of Rights. Various rights in the Bill of Rights can now be ignored if you invoke the magic word "diversity".
The sharply-divided Supreme Court has given liberals a road map on how to get around any other item in the Constitution they find inconvenient. I could see the Second Ammendment effectively destroyed by the Court choosing a test case with the proper leftist buzzwords for confiscation. And yet they'd point out that the Bill of Rights was still there on paper.
For the past couple of months, the RINO Detroit News has been running full-page "news" articles, and sometimes an entire section, stating the danger to society if affirmative action was struck down. The RAT Detroit Free Press, which is so far left it thinks it's in California, must have been even more panicky.
With all that fearmongering aimed at the general public, which can't influence the Supreme Court, imagine what was discussed at cocktail parties and email chats in DC. I'm sure the Justices picked up the whiff of fear, and knew that not only was life as we know it at risk, but maybe even civil war. Who wants to be blamed for that, when proclaiming Diversity to be a higher good than the Constitution itself.
The more I see of O'Connor, the more I'm convinced she's just a publicity whore.
The official iconoclast, principle be damned.
A week or so ago, I read this Maureen Dowd column and "uppity" is exactly the word that came to mind as the word liberals must think when they read Thomas's opinions.
The official iconoclast, principle be damned.
Agreed. She thinks if she keeps slicing babies in half, people will say that she's Solomon.
Kennedy's open admission that something as ephemeral and transitory as public opinion carries much of the weight in the court's decisions is at least an honest confession. Thirty years ago the high court had to make the most torturous mental contortions imaginable in trying to justify Roe on constitutional grounds, but now this court apparently believes the American people have become sufficiently ignorant of the Constitutional-Republic form of government to accept "emerging" public opinion as a legitimate basis for the court's decisions.
As of last week all state and local legislative bodies are superficial and unnecessary. Congress itself is now nothing more than an expensive debating society and enrichment program for rich politicians. The USSC has in effect appointed itself as the supra-legislative body of the US, and any legislation which conflicts, not with the Constitution but with the court's philosophy of governance and it's evaluation of "emerging" public opinion, is dead on arrival and not worth the paper on which it is written.
What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? Doesn't matter anymore, it only matters how five justices feel about the matter, and of course, on the "emerging" popular opinion of the masses. What about the right to be secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure? Same thing, five enlightened justices will decide the issue based on their own philosophy and on "emerging" popular opinion, and without all the bothersome fuss over Constitutional restraints on government's power. It is certainly simpler that way, but even simpler if we just appointed a dictator for life. Oh wait, no need for that, we have nine of them now.
Some of us have known it for decades, but now it's official. The US government has become in essense just an oligarchy of nine unelected, untouchable, appointed for life, "enlightened ones". Those nine people have far more unchallengeable authority over our lives than King George had over the lives of the Colonials.
In Mexico, they don't even know the meaning of the word "diversity", much less practice it.
This is unfortunate for very different reasons than you espouse.
It seems to me that affirmative action was defined as proactive measures to repair the damage done by generations of cultural and institutionalized discrimination against definable groups. The lexicon took on other phrases, such as "leveling the playing field" to describe the ends justifying the means of affirmative action. The debate centered on the legal and appropriate methods to correct a wrong as quickly as possible to open opportunity and demonstrate success to the next generation.
I opposed affirmative action, but find it ironic often how diversity is scoffed at by conservatives that have clearly not thought out their argument or fail to observe the culture they live in. For example:
Contrast an argument against Black Entertainment Television with the established White Entertainment Television - and then the "diversity" argument against conservative media (talk radio, FNC) and the established liberal media.
As a conservative, I am a big believer of diversity. I can't stand the gender impolitic stereotype "yes men" or Stepford group identity that often characterizes established organizations, and institutions. I am convinced that we are individualistically different, there are differences that can be identified as valuable, and individuals with valuable differences that are missing from your organization should be recruited and admitted until a critical mass that meets the organizational need is met. Being black alone plays an increasingly small role in your valuable and/or unique contribution. What's missing in many organizations, especially those that operate globally, are traits to communicate and compete in the Middle East and Asia. However, where you skin pigmentation or gender gives your company an advantage in these regions, combined with your skill in developing, producing or marketing a product/service, your diversity should definitely be considered.
Just wanted to add my perspective before the issue became too black and white.
Actually enjoyed the article until right here. From hearing other Freepers and from what I've read Lester Maddox was a good man. His views at the time might not be PC today, and ignore the fact that the real story has been rewritten, but he was a good man nonetheless
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.