Some sequels are years in the making. After all, 13 years elapsed between the 2010 premiere of James Cameron’s Avatar and the recent release of Avatar: The Way of Water. In contrast, it took only four days for the subjects of yesterday’s blog, the three non-hypocritical Supreme Court justices–Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch–to write the next chapter in their high court saga. The justices joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the two other Trump appointees in the decisions to end affirmative action at Harvard University (6-2) and the University of North Carolina (6-3) Both cases were the result of challenges by a non-profit corporation Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. to the use of racial identity as a factor in college admissions.
You might ask, why would anyone think it hypocritical for these justices to take that position? Clarence Thomas repeatedly voiced his belief affirmative action was unconstitutional. And, post-Dobbs, no reasonable person would assume the three Trump appointees would defer to legal precedence in the decision in Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) which outlawed racial “quotas,” but ruled “affirmative action” was constitutional.
My first inkling something was afoot came when the Huffington Post led with the news the decision did NOT apply to United States military academies. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to this call-out in her dissenting opinion, questioning why diversity in one field is constitution while not in others.
Racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom.
But she missed the even more ludicrous rationale for Robert’s justification of the military academy exemption. Buried in a footnote to his opinion, the Chief Justice added:
No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.
Is that the standard the Chief Justice really wants to apply to Supreme Court decisions? A high court decision affects only those who bring the issue before the judiciary? If so, one could argue the landmark case Brown, et. al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) only pertained to the local school board, or more narrowly, only required the school district to afford Olivia Brown and the other plaintiffs access to an integrated educational experience. Or in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) was the only resident of Dallas County, Texas who had a constitutional right to an abortion.
Talk about hypocrisy. In a decision by which the conservative members of the Court decry the unequal treatment of individuals based on racial or ethnic identity they have no problem endorsing unequal treatment of educational institutions. Again, no one should be surprised at this conservative hypocrisy. Exceptional conservativism has become the stock in trade of Republican officials. One need only look to the ruby red state of Florida. On April 4, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 543 into law, a bill which (according to the Tallahassee Democrat) “allows people in Florida to carry concealed weapons and firearms without background checks, training or a concealed license.” It is now legal to carry any weapon allowed under state law (including assault rifles) in most public places, e.g., grocery stores, movie theaters and outdoor festivals. There are, of course, exceptions including:
Section 790.053 Open carrying of weapons.–
Subsection (12) (a) A license issued under this section does not
authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a
concealed weapon or concealed firearm into:
8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
While the geese are being slaughtered going about their daily activities, the ganders can feel safe as they conduct business within their sheltered nest.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP
Put minorities – except, of course women, in the “military. Keep those privileged white “business” owners and execs on that golf course – to wheel and deal outside surveillance range, thus avoiding the tax consequences and public approbation associated with stock manipulations, money laundering, extorsion, embezzlement, and countries of refuge should they be “outed”. Bastds are begging for justice.
Your two recent posts have been even more excellent than usual and your posts are always insightful and thought provoking. I knew about the regulation of guns not being allowed in the legislature, but not having read the whole decision, I appreciated your pointing out the hypocrasy of not including the military in arrirmative action. Thank you