The Scalia – Sotomayor Thunderdome

posted at 8:01 pm on April 22, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Ed already brought you up to date on the SCOTUS decision regarding the Michigan referendum that ended affirmative action in college admissions, so if you happened to miss the story, read that first. It was one of the more raucous decisions in a while, with plenty of twists and turns in terms of who went with the majority or the dissent and what they said. But the Washington Examiner dug a bit deeper later in the day, finding what amounted to a bit of a slug-fest in the footnotes between Sonia Sotomayor and Antonin Scalia.

The scuffle erupted over Sotomayor’s not so thinly veiled inference that the hateful majority of voters in Michigan must be a bunch of blazing cat fur racists. Going one step further, she even invoked Jim Crow laws in her comments. Scalia was not exactly charitable in his response.

“As Justice Harlan observed over a century ago, ‘[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’” Scalia concluded, quoting the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. “The people of Michigan wish the same for their governing charter. It would be shameful for us to stand in their way.”

And then, the Parthian shot: “And doubly shameful to equate ‘the majority’ behind [the constitutional amendment] with ‘the majority’ responsible for Jim Crow,” he added in a final footnote, citing the first two pages of Sotomayor’s dissent.

I realize that such comments aren’t exactly on par with a WWE wrestler jumping out of the ring to grab a folding chair, but by the standards of Supreme Court written opinions, it’s not far off. Still, reading Sotomayor’s comments leaves us with some unsettling questions.

First of all, allow me to say that I’m as thrilled as the next guy to finally have a Wise Latina on the court and all, but is this really the level of discourse we can expect to see enshrined in the official records of our nation’s highest court for the next several decades? Invoking Jim Crow here should be a serious red flag for any observer, and even one of the other liberal justices bailed out on her on that one. I assume Justice Sotomayor was actually present in the Court when the arguments were being made and was aware of the substance of the referendum in question. We’re not talking about voting rights for minorities here, nor freedom of speech or religion. This was about college admissions. (Which, to be brutally honest, isn’t a constitutionally assured right for anyone.)

And the action in question, rather than restricting certain people from any activity along those lines, actually spoke to ensuring that everyone would have an equal opportunity at an education in taxpayer funded educational institutions regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. And yet, Sotomayor managed to squeeze this gem into her own footnotes.

“I of course do not mean to suggest that Michigan’s voters acted with anything like the invidious intent of those who historically stymied the rights of racial minorities,” she countered. “But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society.”

But if we are to assume that what she wrote there is true, then we must also assume that minority students are less able to qualify for college acceptance on their own merits. I would certainly hope that’s not what she is suggesting. Also, it’s not as if there aren’t already numerous advantages available based on demographics alone, such as the wide variety of scholarships available only to minorities. (One of the huge barriers to college access is surely the ability to afford the tuition as well as having the grades required.) Yet I don’t hear anyone objecting to those. Then again, if somebody were to suggest a European Heritage Scholarship Fund it would be instructive to see the reactions.

Scalia’s rather dismissive reaction is not surprising here. What may come as a shock is the structure of Sotomayor’s arguments. This isn’t an instance of two people coming from opposing ideological backgrounds taking a different interpretation of some statute… that’s to be expected and even desired to ensure a robust debate on the merits of each case. But this dissent was more a case of other justices reading it and simply saying, “Um… what?”


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

right2bright on April 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM

https://twitter.com/_CFJ_/status/458840676092768256

Axe on April 23, 2014 at 8:24 AM

right2bright

The GOP establishment uses the same tactic and so do you.

Wigglesworth on April 23, 2014 at 8:40 AM

I don’t believe Justice Sotomayor is a racist (or, at the very least, a racist “by default”); rather, I think she is like a number of apologists who fail to heed the underlying creed of the very philosophy they purport to espouse… that being that everyone gets a fair hearing based on his/her abilities and merits… not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. I read something like this, or listen to that asshat Holder and people like them and wonder “What the hell do they want?!” (And yes, it’s a rhetorical question… I think the answer is quite clear.)

dpduq on April 23, 2014 at 8:46 AM

It IS shame that Sotomayor has such race on the brain. In interpreting the Constitution here, her main point is “race matters”? It’s disgusting.

And (why I don’t know!) I caught a little of CBS evening news w/ Scott Pelley last night, and he cited stats in other states that have jettisoned racial quotas in college entrance such as California, where the % of blacks entering college there has gone down from 6% to 4%.

To me, that’s yet another example of liberal bias at the MSM and CBS in particular. The real question to me is, what happened to the % of blacks GRADUATING from college in CA? If entrance went from 6% to 4%, but graduation rates went up, I call that a success. It would show those extra 2% shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place.

LashRambo on April 23, 2014 at 8:57 AM

First of all, allow me to say that I’m as thrilled as the next guy to finally have a Wise Latina on the court and all..

Sure, with that snark you come off ecstatic about it…
/

Also, it’s not as if there aren’t already numerous advantages available based on demographics alone, such as the wide variety of scholarships available only to minorities….Yet I don’t hear anyone objecting to those.

The thread is young, Jazz.

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM

dpduq on April 23, 2014 at 8:46 AM

She cites racism in others as her primary rationale for her decision; but seeing bad motives in others and ignoring them in yourself is tricky business. Apparently she’s quite at home looking down on others, thinking ill of them, of questioning their motives and dismissing them as bigots. But herself, supporting affirmative action for people who look like she does, favoring them over whites and Asians, apparently her motives are as pure as the driven snow.

LashRambo on April 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM

They all think people of color only refers to blacks. They seem to forget that Asians, and Hispanics also qualify for that distinction. Juan Williams was on Bret’s show yesterday discussing this and clearly was shocked to hear that. He ended up by saying AA was only for and needed by blacks.

Kissmygrits on April 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM

This was about college admissions. (Which, to be brutally honest, isn’t a constitutionally assured right for anyone.)

Since tax dollars (unconstitutionally) subsidize college costs, some might make an argument with you over that point.

Solution:
Privatize all universities.
Better:
Privatize all schools.

itsnotaboutme on April 23, 2014 at 9:05 AM

her ski color is pretty much the same as Scalia’s. what race is she?

avi natan on April 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM

The scuffle erupted over Sotomayor’s not so thinly veiled inference that the hateful majority of voters in Michigan must be a bunch of blazing cat fur racists.

Obama nominated a leftist radical and even Republicans in the Senate approved her. What else would be expected other than an emotional leftist radical woman voting her emotional “I’m a Latino and you’re a racist” conscience? I’m really getting sick of race hustlers.

cajunpatriot on April 23, 2014 at 9:34 AM

this dissent was more a case of other justices reading it and simply saying, “Um… what?”

Larry Tribe was right. The “wise latina” just isn’t very bright. Unfortunately, like the leftist, race-obsessed pinhead who appointed her, we’re stuck with the dumnmy.

AZCoyote on April 23, 2014 at 9:36 AM

But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society.

That is not true. It assumes that granting admission to an unqualified applicant actually produces an advantage.

Imagine two high school seniors applying to colleges, with exactly identical qualifications other than race. They’re good at math and science, and the guidance counselors tell them they ought to be engineering majors. So they apply to some of the top engineering schools.

The white kid gets turned down by MIT, Stanford, and Caltech, because he’s not smart enough to cut it at any of those elite schools. Instead, he goes to the University of Michigan, and earns an engineering degree that still carries a lot of prestige.

In order to give the black kid an “advantage”, Affirmative Action officers at MIT accept his application, even though based on their grades and test results, neither of the two are smart enough. They even give him a scholarship to make up for the higher tuition costs there, so that his costs to attend MIT and Michigan (which also accepted him) are the same, so he matriculates at MIT. When he gets there, he crashes and burns. He flunks out and now has thousands of dollars of student loan debt to repay, once he manages to get a job.

Sadly, the voters of Michigan cannot prevent MIT from destroying this young man’s opportunity at a good education in the name of “helping” him, but at least they’re doing what they can by preventing U of M from “helping” students to flunk out there instead of graduating from a less-competitive school.

The Monster on April 23, 2014 at 9:39 AM

I don’t believe Justice Sotomayor is a racist (or, at the very least, a racist “by default”); rather, I think she is like a number of apologists who fail to heed the underlying creed of the very philosophy they purport to espouse… that being that everyone gets a fair hearing based on his/her abilities and merits… not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. I read something like this, or listen to that asshat Holder and people like them and wonder “What the hell do they want?!” (And yes, it’s a rhetorical question… I think the answer is quite clear.)

dpduq on April 23, 2014 at 8:46 AM

her ruling in the new haven firefighter case Ricci v. DeStefano contradicts your feelings on her.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0603/sotomayor-on-tape-what-she-said-in-firefighter-race-case/%28page%29/2

“The state is commanded, Judge Sotomayor, to not use the race of its citizens in a decision ever, unless it has the basis identified by the Supreme Court,” Torre said.

“But that is going too far, counsel,” Sotomayor replied, “because the law also says you can’t have a racially neutral policy that adversely affects minorities unless there is a business necessity.


you see, if its neutral and minorities fail then its racist and can’t be used.
this ruling alone is why she never should have been confirmed.

dmacleo on April 23, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Sure, with that snark you come off ecstatic about it…

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM

When someone has that level of hubris (she basically labeled herself with that moniker), the snark is deserved, don’t you think?

GWB on April 23, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Sure, with that snark you come off ecstatic about it…

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM

When someone has that level of hubris (she basically labeled herself with that moniker), the snark is deserved, don’t you think?

GWB on April 23, 2014 at 9:42 AM

As it wasn’t hubris, no.
An expression of humility and pride was cynically twisted by opponents into something it wasn’t.
But perhaps some feel it’s hubristic to share and be proud of a truly American dream story.
I suppose they also find Mitch McConnell arrogant if he’s proud of being a Kentuckian…or Scalia reverent of his faith.

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Hispanic is not a race.

Hat Trick on April 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM

This was about college admissions. (Which, to be brutally honest, isn’t a constitutionally assured right for anyone.)

LOLOLOLOLOL. That’s so cute that Jazz thinks something someone wants isn’t actually a right. Ghey marriage anyone?

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 10:24 AM

The problem for race baiters is that it is 2014. I believe the public has decided to move on and has determined that racism against any group is not acceptable in a country where we all have equal opportunity to succeed. The argument from racists like Sharpton and Sotomeyor that we must make amends for past racism is thankfully no longer accepted.

Ellis on April 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM

This isn’t an instance of two people coming from opposing ideological backgrounds taking a different interpretation of some statute

I am surprised to see this statement frankly.

Leftwing jurisprudence is completely ends oriented.

Hispanics/blacks are a client group for the left, and in order to bribe them into voting for Democrats, the latter have to give them things.

In this case offering them racial discrimination against whites/Asians is exactly such a pay off.

There is *nothing* else driving Sotomayor’s vote. But this is also the case in almost every other single decision/vote from a leftwing judge.

Sotomayor’s abilities appear to be much more modest then most such judges, but in this case her deceptions are less persuasive then the others which is not a difference in scope…

18-1 on April 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM

There is a “blazing cat fur racist” involved here and it is Sotomayor. This tirade from her came despite the fact that two liberal justices (one fanatically so) signed n with the majority in this decision.Only a blind person can’t see that Hispanics, as a general rule,, neither like nor trust people they consider ‘Anglos’. Another cogent reason for reconsidering the folly of Amnesty.

MaiDee on April 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM

then we must also assume that minority students are less able to qualify for college acceptance on their own merits

.

Isn’t that what they are in fact implying?

Tater Salad on April 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM

…allow me to say that I’m as thrilled as the next guy to finally have a Wise Latina on the court and all, but is this really the level of discourse we can expect to see enshrined in the official records of our nation’s highest court for the next several decades?

I said when she was nominated and confirmed that Sotomayor was not qualified and was nominated because she was politically useful and ideologically reliable. She had done no work and written no opinions that offered new ideas or insights. In fact, her opinions were typified by focus on irrelevant trivialities and details.

I seriously doubt she will contribute any opinions of lasting significance. She will just be a placeholder for the Left and “progressive” ideology on the court.

Obama might have nominated someone with less political utility but better able to articulate expansive views of federal power and diminished views of personal rights and liberties. That would have advanced his ideological agendas in the long run, but his personal political agenda took precedence, for which we should ultimately be grateful.

novaculus on April 23, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The statute says, ‘there shall be NO discrimination’ …and was ratified by-the-people … yet this lefty moron thinks it’s tantamount to a Jim Crow law… um, what?

RedManBlueState on April 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM

The “Wise Latina” went back to an island with these comments.

Tater Salad on April 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM

An expression of humility and pride was cynically twisted by opponents into something it wasn’t.

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH … *breathe* … HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GWB on April 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I’m sure they’ll mend fences over a big plate of burritos and salsa….ok,ok, let me have it. Seriously she’s just not that phucking bright. She was an ideological pick. Numbnuts could have picked Colbert or Stewart and got the same result.

msupertas on April 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM

When you choose not to vote because the particular presidential candidate isn’t who you wanted, you get worse than 4 more years of Obama, you get Sotamayor and Kagan…….for life.

wmichaels1 on April 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM

wmichaels1 on April 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Must admit…am moving in your direction.

msupertas on April 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM

As it wasn’t hubris, no.
An expression of humility and pride was cynically twisted by opponents into something it wasn’t.
But perhaps some feel it’s hubristic to share and be proud of a truly American dream story.
I suppose they also find Mitch McConnell arrogant if he’s proud of being a Kentuckian…or Scalia reverent of his faith.

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Did Scalia get to the SC because of his faith? Or was it his performance in lower courts? Sotomayor (like Øbama) can’t say that they got where they are because of their performance, but rather, simply because of their race. That is the direct product of racism.

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις), means extreme pride or self-confidence. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

When you have to tell people how “wise” you are, and by extension, linked to your self identification as a Latina, it sure as hell is hubris. And she sure buried the possibility of anyone (other than other race mongers) else saying it.

DimsdalePiranha on April 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM

GWB on April 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

For the same reason I defended Richard Murdouck after his abortion comments were mischaracterized, I defend Sotomayor.

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 12:17 PM

The Wise Latina referencing the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment in her argument supporting Affirmative Action laws which require unequal protection, is pathological.

WestTexasBirdDog on April 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Did Scalia get to the SC because of his faith? Or was it his performance in lower courts? Sotomayor can’t say that they got where they are because of their performance, but rather, simply because of their race. That is the direct product of racism.

DimsdalePiranha on April 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Absurd…as well as fully incorrect.
Sotomayor is by some measures the most experienced justice (17 years served on lower courts)..and by any broader measure, equally experienced.
What would lead you to suggest otherwise?
Just ridiculous.
And fyi, so you don’t spout this silliness beyond today, your use of Scalia to counter Sotomayor’s experince…he served just 4 years in lower courts prior to his nomination.
(Sotomayor served 17 years.)

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM

As long noticed by conservatives, the self-described “wise Latina” is nothing more than a garden-variety liberal racist.

What a surprise.

Jaibones on April 23, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everybody just got up and walked out in disgust while the racist jurist bangs on about her racism she insists be kept alive forever and ever, and leave her talking to herself in an empty chamber reading her jackass 58 pages of dissent? What a positive statement of tolerance and inclusion that would be.

bour3 on April 23, 2014 at 12:42 PM

We’re looking at a couple decades of a dumbf**k Latina.

PD Quig on April 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Hey dumbass, longevity does not equate competance. You see it everyday in govt. workers, of which she is one.

msupertas on April 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM

21m
Attorney General Eric Holder praises Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in affirmative action case as ‘courageous and very personal’ – @DevlinBarrett
end of alert

Racist jackasses stick together.

Murphy9 on April 23, 2014 at 12:59 PM

The real problem is that inner city schools can’t prepare their students for elite colleges. I believe this is related to teacher union kickbacks to democrats and union teacher protection. It is almost impossible to fire a bad teacher or suspend a misbehaved child. Principles have no say in management. Inner city school education is just secondary. As a substitute teach in Toledo, Ohio, I spent 80 percent of my teaching time just disciplining students. Were is the family in support of the school? Were is the full force of the principle, e.g., school management? When will the black community wake up to this? It’s ok to be a democrat, just stand up and demand something of your party on the inner city level that will benefit your children’s children so that someone down your gene pool will have the smarts to get into Michigan State. Demand you children behave in school, be there for them, and support their teachers. Ensure the homework is done, stop negative behavior around them, insist that education is the way our. All people are smart, they just need a proper direction with family support.

You know you can get involved too and change the system. It’s not that hard. Just get volunteer. Join the party, any party, and let them know your views. You may need to yell, but many will yell with you.

Show you children this, ask them if I’m right. What should they do? Make them write a life plan called goals. Written goals will result in a new and different life for them. Written goals are the rudder of life, make them have them now. Love them, I know you do, just show them.

SgtPete on April 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Hang on a minute. Isn’t Sonia Sotomayor supposed to use three names?
Isn’t that the accepted protocol for all Supreme Court Justicettes?

Sandra Day Somebody
Ruth Bader Whatshername

Oh, wait…that Elena Kagan person. Is she a female?

Galtian on April 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM

When I read her response..please note that when you say “but” it pretty much negates what you’ve previously stated.

But like earlier chapters of political restructuring, the Michigan amendment at issue in this case changed the rules of the political process to the disadvantage of minority members of our society.”

She’s an unwise Latina viewing law through an emotional lens. I’m a woman and I’m disgusted by her emotional response. Law should always be seen as black and white(nothing to do with peoples color btw). Right and wrong.

Wileygrl3 on April 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM

The real problem is that inner city schools can’t prepare their students for elite colleges. I believe this is related to teacher union kickbacks to democrats and union teacher protection. It is almost impossible to fire a bad teacher or suspend a misbehaved child. Principles have no say in management. Inner city school education is just secondary. As a substitute teach in Toledo, Ohio, I spent 80 percent of my teaching time just disciplining students. Were is the family in support of the school? Were is the full force of the principle, e.g., school management? When will the black community wake up to this? It’s ok to be a democrat, just stand up and demand something of your party on the inner city level that will benefit your children’s children so that someone down your gene pool will have the smarts to get into Michigan State. Demand you children behave in school, be there for them, and support their teachers. Ensure the homework is done, stop negative behavior around them, insist that education is the way our. All people are smart, they just need a proper direction with family support.

You know you can get involved too and change the system. It’s not that hard. Just get volunteer. Join the party, any party, and let them know your views. You may need to yell, but many will yell with you.

Show you children this, ask them if I’m right. What should they do? Make them write a life plan called goals. Written goals will result in a new and different life for them. Written goals are the rudder of life, make them have them now. Love them, I know you do, just show them.

SgtPete on April 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

If you really were a “substitute teach”(er), and this is representative of your command of the language, then it’s easy to understand how your students turned out less than optimally.

The Monster on April 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM

BREAKING: Wise Latino announces that she is where she is today due to everything but qualifications. Demands unequal standards continue since Latinos inferior.

Hening on April 23, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I am surprised a life of achievement in the face of difficulty seems to have taught Ms. Justice noting. Not so sure about the wisdom part?

StevC on April 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM

As it wasn’t hubris, no.
An expression of humility and pride was cynically twisted by opponents into something it wasn’t.
But perhaps some feel it’s hubristic to share and be proud of a truly American dream story.
I suppose they also find Mitch McConnell arrogant if he’s proud of being a Kentuckian…or Scalia reverent of his faith.
verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

I’m sure you great things about Sarah Palin who has done much more

Doyle Hargrave on April 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM

The commies have penetrated SCOTUS. Once Sotomayor & Kagen feel comfortable with their tenure the Constitution will be under attack.

RdLake on April 23, 2014 at 5:43 PM

First of all, allow me to say that I’m as thrilled as the next guy to finally have a Wise Latina on the court and all…

We have yet to see one. Latina she may be, but wise?

Besides, not just college, but SCOTUS should not be an affirmative admissions group.

INC on April 23, 2014 at 7:55 PM

People who claim to be wise, usually aren’t. That includes a certain Supreme Court justice who is a little too full of herself to be impartial.

zoyclem on April 24, 2014 at 7:22 AM

Absurd…as well as fully incorrect.
Sotomayor is by some measures the most experienced justice (17 years served on lower courts)..and by any broader measure, equally experienced.
What would lead you to suggest otherwise?
Just ridiculous.
And fyi, so you don’t spout this silliness beyond today, your use of Scalia to counter Sotomayor’s experince…he served just 4 years in lower courts prior to his nomination.
(Sotomayor served 17 years.)

verbaluce on April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Quantity vs. quality. Sotomayor got where she is due to racism, makes decisions based on racism, and therefore is, a racist. She has made that tacit admission in her painfully illogical oral dissent. This particular dissent is so egregious that even liberals are stunned by her overt racism. She is an absolute proponent of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”; in her alleged “wise” mind, so called minorities can’t make it on their qualifications.

Perhaps she is speaking from personal experience.

DimsdalePiranha on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

But if we are to assume that what she wrote there is true, then we must also assume that minority students are less able to qualify for college acceptance on their own merits.

Indeed, and I think that is exactly what most liberals (and probably most people including blacks) actually believe but can’t admit. “Affirmative Action” (i.e. racial discrimination against whites and often Asians to benefit select minorities) is really just a charity, a head patting patronizing that is considered the only way ever to get anything close to proportional representation at universities. But it is unfair, unjust and not even very productive (http://bit.ly/QIaALi , http://cs.pn/Jz7ru9 ) The nonsense must end.

The SCOTUS ruling was the only Constitutionally possible one, the only decent one, and the one that was even widely expected. Sotomayor’s off-point rant was just a demonstration that a very second rate legal mind has made to the highest court thanks to our reprehensible community organizer in chief.

Chessplayer on April 24, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Look no further than their attacks on Justice Thomas to see what they really think about affirmative action. They agree that it’s a handout. And once given the handout, you are expected to follow certain rules. The master expects you to follow orders.

noop123 on April 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM

“Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence,” Sotomayor concluded. “For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.”

Sounds to me as if she’s saying that state courts — and, by extension, state legislators and the people who elect them — are incompetent at best, if not outright racist, to protect minority privilege.

Paul_in_NJ on April 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM

They all think people of color only refers to blacks. They seem to forget that Asians, and Hispanics also qualify for that distinction. Juan Williams was on Bret’s show yesterday discussing this and clearly was shocked to hear that. He ended up by saying AA was only for and needed by blacks.

Kissmygrits on April 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Juan needs to get out more but he has a point. When did Affirmative Action preferences which were originally justified to remedy historic discrimination against Black Americans morph into preferences for everyone but Whites and in some cases Asians?

Now we even give preferences to immigrants, legal and otherwise, and to foreign students here on education visas. The only qualification is being not of White European (WE) descent and even WE Spaniards probably qualify based on their surname.

Nomas on April 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Sotomayer is showing her racism and it’s blatant. It’s good that it’s being shown up now and she’s being slapped down for it.

Duna on April 24, 2014 at 9:47 PM

When you choose not to vote because the particular presidential candidate isn’t who you wanted, you get worse than 4 more years of Obama, you get Sotamayor and Kagan…….for life.

wmichaels1 on April 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM

I guess it’s time for the newest Royal RomneyBot Regiment to present itself, what with the open registrations and all.

Dunadan on April 25, 2014 at 12:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2