I've been reading the more intresting sections of Joan Biskupic's biography of Antonin Scalia and the chapter focused on race related cases prompted ever-more realizations of the multi-faceted stupidity and fallacies of liberal jurisprudence when it comes to dispirate impact and racial preferences. Biskupic writes,
1. "some critics argued, he was abandoning the core responcibility of courts in America because the neutral rules he advocated could not bring about racial equality."
The "responcbility of courts in America" i thought was to go by the Constuinency not by what they would like the Law to be? So to liberal judges there job as judges in cases relating to race is to help "bring about racial equality", thats the Courts rule in this nation apparently according to them. Forget that racial exact equality will never be achieved if not by force, is achieving "racial equality" what the Founders said the Courts had to do? Is it our founding document? No.
2. In the book's "Dilemmas of Race" chapter a lawyer arguing for racial perference infront of the Supreme Court is questioned by Scalia who asks for the lawyer to provide a legal basis for the practise of nati-white discrimination he was arguing for. The liberal lawyer responds, "Segregation is harmful. Intergration...has benefits."
Isn't it funny how liberal jurists talk about "segragation" as if black Americans are constantly trying to integrate socially, culturally, georgraphically, etc. with white Americans and white Americans refuse. It's completely unreal. Blacks and whites are, segragated by there own will. Why is it the Supreme Court's business or duty or domaine to act in order to bridge gaps between racial groups or to create diverse enviorments. They can try to do that as private citizens if they love diversity but not as Jurists. Let's be frank, whites and blacks watch different TV, different movies, they dance differently, they eat different food at different places, they watch different amounts of TV, they play and watch different sports, they live in different neigborhoods, sit at different lunch tables, etc. All with little variation usually. But lets remember that this by whites and blacks choise. Whites don't force African Americans to be the biggest demographic for TV shows like "Molesha" and "Sista, Sista".
3. In the famous Michigan affirmtive action case in the early Bush years, you will remember the nation learned that the Michigan Unviersity point system accorded a applicant more points for being black than the points tsudents received for being a honor student a all state athelete and the editor of the school paper.
And why did they side with Michigan because they said creating a "diverse student body" was not just a plus in Michigans view but a essential need of Michigan to be adequete school. This is the claim that racial diversity is "essential" to a Unvieristy being excellent. Because if only 2 black girls are in a Algebra class how can the students in that class adequetly learn Algebra, right? Sure......
My conclusion is once again, that we don't have a Constuition so long as the left controls or neutralizes the Conservatives from actually following the Constuition. I don't know why so few conservatives have the gusto or balls to just say that liberals don't give a damn for our founding document. I mean, Brown v. Board of Education is simply unconstuitionial, so is Sotomayor's descion in the Ricci case. Like Scalia once remarked, "The Jurist that looks away from the Constuition invetiably looks into himself for their ruling." And with Sonya Sotomayor and Charles Ogletree, looking into one's self for a ruling means judging cases by your racial prejudice against white people as we see in boths records. Sotomayor had no true judicial philosphy, she didn't always ignore the Constuition as a Apellate judge i'm sure. But when it came to those important issues, when cases dealt with issues of race, Sotomayor let her race do her jurisprudence. Her jurisprudence on issues like dispirate impact and anti-white legal discrimination, Sotomayor could care less about judicial precedent or the Constuition, she just wanted to stick her finger in the eye of the Gringo every chance she got.
No comments:
Post a Comment