The Bernoulli Effect

You are in good company when it comes to your assessment of using race or gender as the key factor in choosing a Supreme Court Justice:

Justice Thomas wrote in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 353 (U.S., 2003):
The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all. "Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation's understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society."

Justice Thomas also wrote in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 240-241 (U.S., 1995):
These [affirmative action] programs not only raise grave constitutional questions, they also undermine the moral basis of the equal protection principle. Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation's understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society.... But there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called "benign" discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government's use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a BADGE OF INFERIORITY and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are "entitled" to preferences (emphasis added).

Justice Stevens wrote in Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 525 (U.S., 1980):
Under our Constitution, the government may never act to the detriment of a person solely because of that person's race. The color of a person's skin and the country of his origin are immutable facts that bear no relation to ability, disadvantage, moral culpability, or any other characteristics of constitutionally permissible interest to government. "Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."

Now a few of my words, and only a few. How insulting and demeaning is it to a Supreme Court candidate to be appointed to the most important judiciary position in the world not because of your stellar record, but because your parents were from Mexico? Not because of your countless well reasoned arguments, but because you are black? Not because of your keen insight into the Constitution and why it was written and what it means, but because you are a woman?

The fact is that many blacks, Hispanics, women, and other minorities achieve massive success in life with no help from anyone at all, having never been selected or promoted because of their minority status. What the liberal obsession with choosing candidates on the basis of race has done, though, is cause everyone to assume that any high achieving minority only reached their accomplishments by way of favor given based on their being a minority. THIS is the badge of inferiority that Thomas speaks about.

In the slightly paraphrased words of the great Frederick Douglas, "What do Blacks want you to do with us? Do nothing. If the core of the apple is rotten and it falls from the tree, let it fall."

For those of you a little light on your history, both Justice Thomas and Mr. Douglas are black, and both are brilliant. They know first hand what it means to spend your life working your fingers to the bone to achieve excellence and have people assume that your accomplishments and accolades are the result of nothing more than a preference given based on your race.

Okay, that was a little more than a few words...

Oh, and many thanks for the shout-out.

Greetings! I am a long-time friend of Jim Voigt and a regular contributor on Accountability Is King.

I cannot claim knowledge of the law as the both of you can, but (as Jim well knows) I am never short on opinion.

I think that the major difference between a conservative and a liberal when it comes to racism is this: the liberal philosophy is that minorities are automatically disadvantaged and require special circumstances; in contrast, the conservative philosophy is that race and gender bear no relevance on an individual's ability to achieve.

What is worse is what liberals say about conservative minorities. When Dr. Rice was going through her confirmation hearings, I heard one ranking member of the ACLU say on television that "she isn't even really black". I wonder what would happen to a conservative group that would make such a comment!

Jim: Again, thanks for the thoughful comment.

Stevens: "Under our Constitution, the government may never act to the detriment of a person solely because of that person's race."

It's interesting to note that there are some pretty arbitrary definitions of "detriment"--and all those definitions have been established by the post-MLK Leftists and civil rights activists. But the real detrimental effects could, and almost certainly do, arise from the policies of those who are wrapping themselves in the cloak of "defending" the rights of minorities.

The Bad: Thanks for stopping by. And I cannot claim any special knowledge of the law--I'm not a lawyer. I do spend a lot of effort trying to have at least some order to my train of thought, but even then the results are pretty spotty!

There aren't many circumstances in politics that make my blood boil faster than those kinds of comments you cite by the NAACP jerk. They're just rephrehensible, disgusting and inexcusable.