The Schuette Decision

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The ruling this week by the Supreme Court - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, has been widely misunderstood, as evidenced by the histrionics of the demagogic liberal wing of the body politic. The media sycophants of the left have perpetuated the myth that the ruling has somehow abolished Affirmative Action throughout the nation.

As can be expected when dealing with such ideologues, the facts are actually quite clear, concise and unambiguous; to admit that fact by the imbecilic left would serve only to thwart their attempts to diminish the authority of the Supreme Court when cases prove unpopular. The evidence of such vocal contempt has subsequently been expressed by the attorney who tried the case before court.

To wit:

The high court’s 6-2 decision (the decision notes that Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case) Tuesday upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution in 2006 that forbids the state's public colleges to make race, gender, ethnicity or national origin a factor in college admissions.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Justice Kennedy’s opinion is quite clear. The justices did not rule on affirmative action, but rather on the right of a state, in this instance Michigan, to put such decisions before the electorate. That is all that was decided.

Justice Sotomayor immediately derided the decision in her 58-page dissent, a somewhat rambling dissertation on the need for racial preferences, which again, was NOT the point of the suit brought before the court.

Now consider the comments made by the losing litigator in the case.

The lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan’s affirmative action ban repeated Sunday that the high court’s decision was “racist. “This is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of state’s rights,” civil rights attorney Shanta Driver protested. “This decision cannot stand. The old Jim Crow is now the new Jim Crow.”

A fine example of judicial respect; the American people should be appalled by such comments, especially given their level of ignorance.