Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free The wretched refuse of your teeming shore Send these the homeless tempest-tost to me I lift my lamp beside the golden door! Throughout American history, Constitutional amendments have been passed to benefit the public and move the country forward. But the Roberts Supreme Court has once again removed Constitutional rights that have been accepted as established law for 50 years and turned the country backwards half a century. Just some various thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday overturning Affirmative Action, because…hey, why not? If you can be cruel to others and take the country backwards half a century, it seems a pretty basic Republican Party thing to do these days and really a waste of your GOP birthright not to do so when you have the authority. Trump yesterday proudly took credit for appointing three of the Justices who helped overturn Affirmative Action. What he forgot to mention and left out was that he also appointed those three Justices who helped overturn Roe. Which helped the GOP get pummeled in the 2020 election that Republicans thought would bring them a Red Wave – and the anger against which has only been growing as Republicans have been tripling down. It seems very likely that Trump’s “bravado” here may have a similar and compounding effect, most especially on young voters impacted by the ruling who are the hardest constituency to get to the polls. Usually, As has been known for a while, Justices who swore under oath during their confirmation hearings that, oh, my, yes, they absolutely really believed in settled law and precedent didn't actually mean it. It's one thing to overturn existing law when something in society has changed conditions, it's another thing entirely to do so when nothing has changed but you overturn the law just because you can. The one good thing in all this, overturning Constitutional Rights like Roe and Affirmative Action. is that at least we now know for absolute certain that conservatives are not against activist judges at all. They just don't like activist judges they disagree with. A lot of right-wing analysts have been pointing to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor writing in her majority opinion 20 years ago sustaining Affirmative Action that it should only be in place for 25 years. Except that’s not even remotely what she wrote. It was just her assumption that in 25 years society would have changed enough that Affirmative Action would probably not be needed anymore. What she actually wrote was -- “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved.” That's her making a personal guess, not a legal deadline. Sadly, her expectation was much too optimistic and has not yet come to pass. When asked his reaction to the Court decision, Mike Pence said that Affirmative Action was needed 50 years ago, but not today. However, if that was actually true, it would be because Affirmative Action keeps making that "needed" difference. By the way, if the Supreme Court had decided yesterday’s ruling 50 years ago, it would have made Affirmative Action illegal when Pence says it was, in fact, "needed." I love that Mike Pence (former governor of the state which was the home to the Ku Klux Klan and former vice-president of the United States and poster boy for the color white) pointed specifically to him being the father of three college-graduate children as evidence that the need for Affirmative Action is over. Sometimes, the level of cluelessness mixes with self-delusion in a way that’s almost magical. Most of the attention of yesterday SCOTUS decision was understandably on race. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that Affirmative Action also covers gender -- and even more to the point, statistics show that white women have actually benefitted the most. And now, that protection is gone. (You can read about that here.) So, for all the young voters – and parents of prospective college students – who now have been given yet another reason to be outraged at Republicans and Trump (with his bravado on helping make this ruling possible), that energized base has been increased. It's a noble goal for society to be colorblind, which was one of the stated aims of the majority in making this decision. However, it's only notable if, in making that your goal, you work towards making it a reality. However, what this Roberts Court has been doing -- perhaps starting with dismantling the Voting Rights Act -- is to undermine efforts to block prejudice. And that makes the Court's majority opinion empty and meaningless. The Court's majority also made itself something of a disingenuous joke, referencing Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Justice on the Supreme Court, as a hallmark behind supporting its decision. But Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonja Sotomayor would not have it, and wrote a blistering response, pointing out -- among other things -- that when Thurgood Marshall was an attorney, he was actually the person who litigated Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark decision that made racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. I saw a social media post yesterday that embedded a right-wing podcast where the guest was explaining what getting rid of Affirmative Action was a good thing, because “Being too tolerant hurt America.” I thought of arguing this, but then realized it started from a double-false premise, which I pointed out. One, that being tolerant is a bad thing. As opposed to intolerant. And two, that America is "too" tolerant. Full prisons, gun massacres and shootings, racial & gender prejudice, and more would argue otherwise. Just a quick note to Clarence Thomas, for when he next gets around to reading this website -- Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard decision because she had a conflict of interest. See! The concept of recusing oneself actually can be done!! Cool, hunh? And finally, as I noted yesterday – It is not shocking that a party that doesn't want to teach Black history or Critical Race Theory and wants to ban books on race if it makes even one kid uncomfortable thinks it's a good thing for equality to get rid of Affirmative Action because racism is no longer a problem.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
|