Though JUSTICE JACKSON seems to think that her race- based theory can somehow benefit everyone, it is an immutable fact that “every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race.” […] Indeed, JUSTICE JACKSON seems to have no response—no explanation at all—for the people who will shoulder that burden. How, for example, would JUSTICE JACKSON explain the need for race-based preferences to the Chinese student who has worked hard his whole life, only to be denied college admission in part because of his skin color? If such a burden would seem difficult to impose on a bright-eyed young person, that’s because it should be. History has taught us to abhor theories that call for elites to pick racial winners and losers in the name of sociological experimentation.
I read a portion of Jackson's dissent and it was a non-stop appeal to emotion and racial drivel. Just like a typical Sotomayor dissent, the Constitution is an afterthought.
Extra - Federalist: "Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent Is An Argument For Institutional Racism." - "Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson hardly feigned interest in adjudicating the constitutionality of affirmative action in her dissent today."
2 comments:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will likely outlive Clarence Thomas by 30 years:
"Justice Thomas' prolonged attack responds to a dissent I did not write in order to assail an admissions program that is not the one UNC has crafted. He does not dispute any historical or present fact about the origins and continued existence of race-based disparity (nor could he)...
Justice Thomas' opinion also demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC’s...
Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here."
Cristian Farias:
The only way I can explain Clarence Thomas getting personal with Ketanji Brown Jackson's views on race is that, for the first time in 30-plus years, a Black woman is threatening his place as the only African American who can speak to what it means to be Black in American law.
Jamelle Bouie:
As expected, the court has inverted the 14th. An amendment written explicitly to directly ameliorate the conditions of race hierarchy becomes in conservative hands an amendment that says it’s illegal to try to directly ameliorate the conditions of race hierarchy.
Mark Joseph Stern:
Yet Chief Justice Roberts also holds that universities MAY consider an applicant's "discussion of how race affected his or her life" so long as they are "treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
Chris Hayes:
Slicing the salami very very very thin indeed.
Orin Kerr:
I suspect that a lot of admissions committees will interpret this as establishing a not-particularly-restrictive standard that allows considerable room to consider diversity in the admissions process.
Post a Comment