Breaking: Supreme Court upholds MI ban on affirmative action in college admissions

posted at 10:34 am on April 22, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

What government enacts, it can repeal, says the Supreme Court in upholding the Michigan referendum that ended affirmative action in college admissions. In a stunning 6-2 decision, Justice Steven Breyer joined the conservative jurists in ruling that while the Constitution allows states to use affirmative action for admissions, it does not require states to do so:

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling Tuesday that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices say that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

Breyer’s concurrence agrees that the political process has to be the final arbiter of whether to use such systems as the policy to produce diversity in admissions:

breyer-affaction

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Schuette v BAMN [not Clarence Thomas, as I first wrote].  Justices Antonin Scalia and Thomas in concurrence also held that the people of a state can rationally choose how to approach diversity and compliance with constitutional requirements through the normal legislative and/or referendum process:

Unlike the injuries in Mulkey, Hunter, and Seattle, the question here is not how to address or prevent injury caused on account of race but whether voters may determine whether a policy of race-based preferences should be continued. By approving Proposal 2 and there- by adding §26 to their State Constitution, Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power, bypassing public officials they deemed not responsive to their concerns about a policy of granting race-based preferences. The mandate for segregated schools, Brown v. Board of Education, 347S. 483, and scores of other examples teach that individual liberty has constitutional protection. But this Nation’s constitutional system also embraces the right of citizens to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process, as Michigan voters have done here. These precepts are not inconsistent with the well-established principle that when hurt or in- jury is inflicted on racial minorities by the encouragement or com- mand of laws or other state action, the Constitution requires redress by the courts. Such circumstances were present in Mulkey, Hunter, and Seattle, but they are not present here.  Pp. 11–18.

Scalia and Thomas also argued that in order to overturn the referendum and the will of the electorate, the result would have to have been motivated by discrimination, which in this case it “plainly” was not:

The question here, as in every case in which neutral state action is said to deny equal protection on account of race, is whether the challenged action reflects a racially discriminatory purpose.  It plainly does not. Pp. 1–18.

The big news here is the split, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting. A 5-4 or 5-3 decision would have produced an avalanche of bitter criticism, and even this still might. But Breyer’s concurrence will absorb a lot of that reaction, probably more than Thomas’ authorship of the opinion. We’ll see.

Update: The Washington Post quotes Anthony Kennedy:

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences because they deemed them unwise.

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

Update: Misread the opinion citations; Kennedy authored the main opinion, Scalia and Thomas wrote a concurrence. I’ve fixed it above.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

The “wise Latina” dissented?

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM

I am heartened to see that Fred Flintstones vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

Pelosi delende est on April 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result.

LOL

Good Lt on April 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM

So is this going to be BIG or will the MSM ignore it in their reporting?

freedomfirst on April 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Brock is gonna put on his marchin’ slippers and fire up the base!

Key West Reader on April 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM

BREAKING: Supreme Court is Racist!

/MSNBC

DethMetalCookieMonst on April 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Judging someone by the color of their skin is RAAAACCCISSST!!!!!
Typical Lib: “Well it IS except for affirmative action… ohh and voting for black presidents.”

Free Indeed on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

:-)

pambi on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Good, now it’s time to put this up for referendum in other states…

ninjapirate on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Sotomayor’s dissent is hilarious!

Zetterson on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Two scotards ruled for mandatory discrimination against Caucasians? I find that amazing.

Buddahpundit on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Per the other thread about upcoming SCOTUS cases, shouldn’t somebody be prosecuted for spreading the lie that Sotomayor is wise?

NotCoach on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Does this mean Obama has to step down as President?

sentinelrules on April 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Did they just put voter rights/state rights ahead of civil rights by this decision? Wonder how that will impact other cases of this sort?

I’ve wondered how this one would go. Efforts to prevent “discrimination” can go to such extremes that it becomes discrimination, and I think that’s what the voters of MI were seeing.

lineholder on April 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Cool. Can we get rid of Affirmative Action across the board now?

dforston on April 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Racist Latina spends 58 pages having a meltdown to explain why racist laws that give her preferential treatment based on her ethnicity should be forced upon voters who have clearly rejected them.

What a shock.

At what point do we tell the racist Latina to grow up? Or can we simply have her impeached now for making it clear that she’s a biased and bigoted racist who cannot judge fairly?

northdallasthirty on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Of course Sotomayor objected. The best and the brightest should be on the highest bench. She is not one of them.

jmtham156 on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

So is this going to be BIG or will the MSM ignore it in their reporting?

freedomfirst on April 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM

No, we’ll just be treated to a bunch of over-the-top screeching from the left’s propaganda organs about what an “Uncle Tom” Clarence Thomas has become, and how he should be grateful for Affirmative Racism Action, because he’d be nowhere without help from The Man.

Or they’ll call John Roberts a racist for hiding behind Thomas.

Either way, you’re all racissssss.

CurtZHP on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

Heh! Sounds like a temper tantrum to me.

lineholder on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

“Activist Justices!”

Love,

libfreeordie

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result.

I’m guessing what she said was some version of “Where would I be if not for Affirmative Action?”

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM

voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power, bypassing public officials they deemed not responsive to their concerns

We need a lot more (bypassing).

docflash on April 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM

So the affirmative action Justice dissented. Color me shocked.

HumpBot Salvation on April 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM

WOW

jake-the-goose on April 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

She also sighed heavily and tapped her foot repeatedly.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM

After a President is elected – and re-elected – on Affirmative Action, what’s left to accomplish? It reached completion.

budfox on April 22, 2014 at 10:49 AM

It’s sad that people breath a sigh of relief whenever a group of 9 people manage to barely agree to something that’s common sense.

gwelf on April 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Nice to know the two dissenters are 110% FOR institutionalized, mandated discrimination against whites because they happened to be born white.

And those racists are allowed lifetime tenure, with a guaranteed lecture circuit and cushy government pension when they retire. Swell.

Meople on April 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Good- I hope it spreads to other states. If it happens in Michigan, there’s hope, right?

ImmigrantsWife on April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

I was living in Michigan for this referendum. Glad to see my vote was upheld. It is no small wonder that Sotomayor threw a SCOTUS temper tantrum. This is one of those issues that make the left’s collective head pop.

Imagine minorities having to face college admissions with equal weight to factors that matter instead of getting a free ride to acceptance based on pigmentation (but only if you’re black or Hispanic).

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Racist Latina spends 58 pages having a meltdown to explain why racist laws that give her preferential treatment based on her ethnicity should be forced upon voters who have clearly rejected them.

What a shock.

At what point do we tell the racist Latina to grow up? Or can we simply have her impeached now for making it clear that she’s a biased and bigoted racist who cannot judge fairly?

northdallasthirty on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Eh, it’s not that big of a deal. If Elizabeth “Lieawatha” Warren can be an affirmative action hire at Harvard then pretty much anyone can claim minority status. =) I’ve got high cheek bones too! I must be a Cherokee!

gwelf on April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

And those California voters that chose to uphold traditional marriage? Yeah, not so much.

ButterflyDragon on April 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM

I’m guessing what she said was some version of “Where would I be if not for Affirmative Action?”

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Hey, it’s a good question. The woman clearly isn’t smart enough to be sitting on the SCOTUS without society holding her and all Hispanic women to lower standards. After all, the white men had to actually work to get through law school and pass the bar. They are not wise Latinas.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Imagine minorities having to face college admissions with equal weight to factors that matter instead of getting a free ride to acceptance based on pigmentation (but only if you’re black or Hispanic).

Now let’s get started on reparations for the 40-50 years of institutionalized discrimination…

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Excellent news…

mnjg on April 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Interesting that they did not defend California’s right to ban gay marriage.

astonerii on April 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM

LOL – Sotomayor is such a wise latina bebé grande.

KS Rex on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Now let’s get started on reparations for the 40-50 years of institutionalized discrimination…

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM

I’ll start the Detroit chapter of the NAAPWP.

NotCoach on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

I still find it very amusing that a federal judge can find a peoples vote to “change” their constitution to be unconstitutional. maybe it’s just me but isn’t that the height of arrogance?

jainphx on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

And shockingly when she finished reading she realized it was the first time she had read the 58 page opinion.

HonestLib on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Kagan abstained? Why?

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Finally some good news. Wish we could apply this towards Presidents of the US

neyney on April 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

What decisions like this reflect are that Obama has failed once again with him nomination of Sotomayor and Kagan; both are utterly useless in crafting a coherent argument for liberal positions.

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I hope that within my lifetime Institutionalized Racism, otherwise known as Affirmative Action, will finally be extinct in our country.

The Democrat party supported Institutionalized Racism against blacks a long time ago and then it was outlawed. Currently we have Institutionalized Racism against whites and asians, which the Democrat party also supports. Sad and pathetic. Just one of the many, many, many reasons why I could never vote for any Democrat.

visions on April 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I’ve wondered how this one would go. Efforts to prevent “discrimination” can go to such extremes that it becomes discrimination, and I think that’s what the voters of MI were seeing.

lineholder on April 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM

What the referendum really boiled down to was the idea that the minority status of an applicant should be a factor just like GPA, extracurricular activities, or SAT score. The old system had set aside quotas for blacks and Hispanics.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Two scotards ruled for mandatory discrimination against Caucasians? I find that amazing.

Buddahpundit on April 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Affirmative action is actually much more so discriminatory towards Asians than Caucasians, a fact that gets conveniently glossed over by the libidiots

That’s why their attempt to revive AA in CA misfired so badly– the Asians revolted

It’s a wedge we should have been exploiting for years to bring the Asian-American vote back to the conservative fold, but we blew it, like so many other opportunities…

And LOL at the affirmative action queen of the SCOTUS throwing a temper tantrum– her lack of insight into the fact that she was only appointed as a token based on her race/gender is laughable

thurman on April 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM

The Democrat party supported Institutionalized Racism against blacks a long time ago and then it was outlawed. Currently we have Institutionalized Racism against whites and asians, which the Democrat party also supports. Sad and pathetic. Just one of the many, many, many reasons why I could never vote for any Democrat.

Hope you didn’t support Nixon.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Kagan abstained? Why?

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Because Kagan served as Solicitor General when these cases first entered the legal system, and submitted briefs related to them.

NotCoach on April 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Left handed lesbian Lithuanian Americans hardest hit.

Galtian on April 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

What decisions like this reflect are that Obama has failed once again with him nomination of Sotomayor and Kagan; both are utterly useless in crafting a coherent argument for liberal positions.

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Well, this is one of the many problems with “affirmative action” — its effects last generations. But what do you mean “coherent argument”? There are none.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for Schuette v BAMN, which may give a glimpse into Chief Justice John Roberts’ concerns for the reception of the opinion.

Thomas didn’t write an opinion in this case, and there was no majority opinion. The plurality opinion was by Justice Kennedy (joined by Roberts and Alito). Scalia wrote an opinion that Thomas joined. And Breyer wrote his own opinion.

J.S.K. on April 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Hope you didn’t support Nixon.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I wasn’t alive back then but point taken. Nixon was very Progressive. He did the whole Left-wing price control thing as well, among other things.

visions on April 22, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

This is what happens when a wise Latina woman owes her rise to affirmative action.

Ukiah on April 22, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Because Detroit is such a sterling example of affirmative action’s success.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Maybe I’m stating the obvious here but has there been a vote in which the women on the court have split? If not it can not be put down simply to the fact all are liberal. The liberals do not always vote in lock step.

Rocks on April 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM

“Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.”

A concept which needs to be shouted from the rooftops, far and wide, so that every single judge in this nation hears and heeds it.

NavyMustang on April 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Yepper, it will help them to rally the “disaffected”.

climbnjump on April 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM

She was probably busy trying to get a new user name during the open registration last week.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/30/nyt-say-that-planned-parenthood-attack-ad-on-romney-might-be-a-bit-unfair/comment-page-1/#comment-5875019

RINO in Name Only on April 22, 2014 at 11:12 AM

YEAH!

gophergirl on April 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Well, this is one of the many problems with “affirmative action” — its effects last generations. But what do you mean “coherent argument”? There are none.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Well said. His failure, in the nomination process, is a conservatives dream. Kagan and Sotomayor will be out on a ideological limb for their entire existence on the court.

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I’m shocked that the SCOTUS actually got a decision right for once. I still basically have no confidence in them after their Obamacare vote fiasco. They totally blew that one.

Bob Davis on April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combi

No surprise that the court’s race pimp dissented. She is after all, “a wise Latino woman”!

cajunpatriot on April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Because Kagan served as Solicitor General when these cases first entered the legal system, and submitted briefs related to them.

NotCoach on April 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Thanks. Right. I forgot. Her former position means she doesn’t take part in several Court decisions. And she didn’t really “abstain”; she recused herself.

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

That’s why the SCOTUS vote tally is kinda a big deal. Kagen recused herself for some reason (probably prior involvement in the case).

Nevertheless, look for the rat-eared wonder to be out there likening this decision to a return to the days of segregation. That the 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education was undone by this single decision. And, of couse, that blacks and Hispanics need affirmative action since they clearly are unable to compete without set asides.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Oops, my last comment was on response to this question, which I forgot to quote:

Kagan abstained? Why?

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

She was probably busy trying to get a new user name during the open registration last week.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/30/nyt-say-that-planned-parenthood-attack-ad-on-romney-might-be-a-bit-unfair/comment-page-1/#comment-5875019

RINO in Name Only on April 22, 2014 at 11:12 AM

RINO in Name Only on April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

What government enacts, it can repeal, says the Supreme Court

Sooo, states created their requirements for marriage; the gheys are getting those requirements changed and/or ignored; the states can again in the future change and/or ignore its previous changes.

How’s that 6-2 majority feeling Gheystapo?

#gheythread

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

So basically, SCTUS just said the states are now allowed to stop being racist.

Interesting twist when you really think about it….

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Good- I hope it spreads to other states. If it happens in Michigan, there’s hope, right?

ImmigrantsWife on April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

AZ already has it.

Of course, we’re well known raaaaacists, so what else would you expect?

AZCoyote on April 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

And for this she will be feted on MSNBC. She owes her spot to a sort of affirmative action, so I guess I can understand why she’s so in favor of it.

changer1701 on April 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined

Now that I would agree is torture!

Buckshots on April 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Looks like the ‘plantation’ has shrunk by a few acres.

Let the wailing commence.

trigon on April 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Thanks. Right. I forgot. Her former position means she doesn’t take part in several Court decisions. And she didn’t really “abstain”; she recused herself.

Lolo on April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Technically, her former position only means that she has to decide if she should recuse herself. She could have weighed in if she didn’t see the conflict.

It’s the reverse of that corrupt gay judge in California who overturned the gay marriage referendum based on his personal hatred of Christians and the fact that he and his boyfriend had the “right” to be married. Of course he kept all of that a secret until he ruled. The left was out there defending the ruling in that case, I’m sure they will out there hating on the SCOTUS over this one.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Eh, it’s not that big of a deal. If Elizabeth “Lieawatha” Warren can be an affirmative action hire at Harvard then pretty much anyone can claim minority status. =) I’ve got high cheek bones too! I must be a Cherokee!

gwelf on April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

We’re all descended from the same African woman of 600,000 years ago; I’ve got one drop in me somewhere.

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Does this mean Obama has to step down as President?

sentinelrules on April 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Well, I guess “the girls” won’t be attending Michigan State in the upcoming years.

VegasRick on April 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.
This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.
faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

+1, very insightful … they are desperate for a squirrel to distract from the o-care fiasco. Their fumbling of the alleged “gender pay gap” isn’t getting enough traction, so this ruling is a windfall. Expect a speech or two from the 2nd-ranking affirmative action beneficiary (Holder) within one day, and a “major policy speech” from obummer himself later this week.

KS Rex on April 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

LOL. Right, because laws prohibiting race-based discrimination are clearly . . . raaaaaacist!

AZCoyote on April 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Interesting that they did not defend California’s right to ban not recognize gay marriage.

astonerii on April 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Everyone stop spreading the liberal lie that states are trying to ban “gay marriage”.

DethMetalCookieMonst on April 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Just curious, but did the law established in MI preclude use of weighted scoring models that put so much emphasis on minority status that it would achieve the same outcome as quota?

My general impression is that the people of MI will have to watch this one like a hawk.

lineholder on April 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

At Last – Etta James

Do you hear that? It’s the sound of the end of discrimination. :)

Sandbags are falling off the feet of great students everywhere.

thatsafactjack on April 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Well, I guess “the girls” won’t be attending Michigan State in the upcoming years.

VegasRick on April 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

They’ll go to Haaaaahvaaaaahd – where affirmative action is THE primary factor.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Racist Latina spends 58 pages having a meltdown to explain why racist laws that give her preferential treatment based on her ethnicity should be forced upon voters who have clearly rejected them.

What a shock.

At what point do we tell the racist Latina to grow up? Or can we simply have her impeached now for making it clear that she’s a biased and bigoted racist who cannot judge fairly?

northdallasthirty on April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

this.

loubkk on April 22, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

Sounds like somebody’s upset that the Affirmative Action Gravy Train that got her to where she is no longer makes stops in MI.

Oh, and she’s a self-aggrandizing sore loser to boot.

Maddie on April 22, 2014 at 11:24 AM

In the mind of a liberal. If I treat a black or Hispanic person differently then I’m a racist; yet if I don’t treat them differently on an admissions test, then I’m a racist?

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

And lose more whites than they already have?

mnjg on April 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

More good news for MI. Meet Carl Levin’s replacement even if Gary Peters doesn’t know it.

LANSING, MI — Republican Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land pokes fun at the so called “war on women” in her first television ad released on Tuesday.

The 30-second ad — titled “Really?” — responds to attacks about women’s issues from Democrats.

In the ad, Land says that Peters wants people to think she is waging a “war on women.”

“Really? Think about that for a moment,” says Land, who is Michigan’s former Secretary of State.

The ad cuts to music while Land takes a sip of coffee and checks her watch. “As a woman, I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters,” Land says

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM

LOL. Right, because laws prohibiting race-based discrimination are clearly . . . raaaaaacist!

AZCoyote on April 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Exactly!
Dontcha know the only way to NOT be racist is to judge everyone by the color of their skin.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Sandbags are falling off the feet of great students everywhere.

thatsafactjack on April 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

and this! (deserves repeating)

loubkk on April 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Well, I guess “the girls” won’t be attending Michigan State in the upcoming years.

VegasRick on April 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

LOL. As if those pampered princesses would deign to attend a lowly state school.

No, like the rest of the 1%, they’ll be using their legacy points (thanks Mom and Dad!) to get into an Ivy.

AZCoyote on April 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Interesting that they did not defend California’s right to ban gay marriage.

astonerii on April 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Yes, they seemed to be too swept up in having gay marriage to pay attention to the real issues in the case. Given they had already made the Windsor decision, I think they easily could have sold to the public making the right decision on the Prop 8 case.

thuja on April 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Lib heads exploding on the politico thread

Heh

cmsinaz on April 22, 2014 at 11:28 AM

In the mind of a liberal. If I treat a black or Hispanic person differently then I’m a racist; yet if I don’t treat them differently on an admissions test, then I’m a racist?

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Clearly, you’re a racist just for talking about how to treat people of different skin color…..

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM

In the mind of a liberal. If I treat a black or Hispanic person differently then I’m a racist; yet if I don’t treat them differently on an admissions test, then I’m a racist?

Tater Salad on April 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Look, man, it’s simple. Are you white? Then you’re racist.

vlad martel on April 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Does this mean Obama has to step down as President?

sentinelrules on April 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM

HA!

workingclass artist on April 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM

You are going to see more and more of this sort of thing. And the Democrats (and their minions like MSNBC) insistence on over-playing the race card is only going to accelerate the entire process.

My collie says:

The election of Barack Obama may truly be the watershed event that allows us to transcend racial politics in America. If it does come to pass, however, it will be for exactly the OPPOSITE reason that the Democrats would have had everyone believe in 2008. It will be because of the backlash against the current administration — which epitomizes racism. The net result will be the end of Affirmative Action. The bitter irony that racists like Sotomayor are tasting for the first time in generations is absolutely delicious.

CyberCipher on April 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Great point butterfly

cmsinaz on April 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Obama and the Dems are happy to have this ruling.

This simply puts racism front and center as an issue.

faraway on April 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Make this an issue and people may just notice that affirmative action is racist.

thuja on April 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Affirmative action is out and RACISM! No one should get special privileges just because their ANCESTORS were discriminated against!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Lefties 5 minutes ago: The Constitution is an instrument of oppression and white privilege and heteronormative patriarchy!

Lefties 5 minutes from now: The Constitution demands affirmative action! And gay marriage!

gwelf on April 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Nevertheless, look for the rat-eared wonder to be out there likening this decision to a return to the days of segregation. That the 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education was undone by this single decision. And, of couse, that blacks and Hispanics need affirmative action since they clearly are unable to compete without set asides.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

I doubt he’ll do it too loudly. The Michigan referendum passed in 2006, with 58% of the vote, despite it being a democratic landslide election, and despite the fact that just about every member of the Michigan political establishment opposed it, and despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that some judge forced the petition to explicitly say to voters that it would result in banning some affirmative action programs.

Support for affirmative action is very soft outside of the extreme left.

RINO in Name Only on April 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5