- Text smaller
- Text bigger
In a 6-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court made a sensible decision last week, upholding a voter initiative in Michigan that banned the use of racial preferences (racial discrimination) in the admissions process of state universities.
The court did not consider the issue of what is euphemistically called “affirmative action,” in which individuals are judged by the color of their skin and ethnicity rather than equally on their merits. It merely determined that, in America, we still live under the rule of law and the will of the people.
It brings to mind another politically polarizing case – the way California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, was approved by the state’s voters but overturned by the stroke of a pen by one homosexual activist federal judge.
In many ways, the parallels between the two cases are striking, though they deal with entirely different issues. The key question is the same: Do we still live in a country governed by the rule of law and the will of the people, or, do we live in a society governed by largely unaccountable judges?
Already, the left is apoplectic about the ruling for obvious reasons. They don’t want to see power returned to the people. They prefer oligarchy and the rule of the elite vs. a self-governing citizenry.
Appearing on CNN, John Jay College Law School professor Gloria Browne-Marshall sees the popular will threatening the privilege system “progressives” have established to divide the public into competing interest groups.
“Now, we’re in a situation in which, if the majority rules, how is that going to affect any minority group?” Browne-Marshall asked. “I mean, it’s opened a Pandora’s Box on a majority ruling on the rights of minorities via the amendment of the state constitution.”
CNN anchor Carol Costello quickly caught on: “I can really see what you’re talking about now,” she said with a pronounced sigh. “That voters could, I don’t know, they could vote down so many other things that they don’t particularly like, right?”
Imagine! Voters voting down thinks they don’t like! The fiends! Only the anointed elite should have the power to determine what’s good for the people.
Browne-Marshall blamed women for the miscarriage of justice. She said she was she was “disappointed” in them.
“It seems as though there is this conflict now between this majority – 51 percent are women who are white – and people of color, and we’re all trying to squeeze through this same little crack in the opportunity door,” she said. “And the Supreme Court is basically saying, ‘Well, minorities have to step back.'”
Is that a legal analysis or a purely political analysis?
It was political, indeed. You know what was on their minds?
They don’t want to see the Proposition 8 vote upheld by the very same logic and legal reasoning used to uphold Michigan’s initiative.
But isn’t that what the law is all about?
Aren’t we supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law and will of the people?
Or is it only when the law of the land suits the will of the anointed elite, those high priests wearing black robes?
Is the will of the people just a slogan we use when the people get it right in the eyes of the oligarchs?
“Progressives” love to talk about democracy. But they only like democracy when they can successfully manipulate votes to their liking. When they can’t, they appeal to the higher authority of judges willing to rewrite the laws and overturn the will of legislatures and even popular votes.
That’s why the Supreme Court’s Michigan case has the left pulling its hair out.
We can only imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled similarly in the Proposition 8 case.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact email@example.com.