Just what does ‘equality’ mean?

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear an appeal of an affirmative-action case, further casting doubt on whether the Constitution really means what it says in language that prohibits race-based anything.

Without comment or dissent, the justices denied an appeal arguing the University of Washington Law School acted unconstitutionally and illegally when it considered the race of applicants under its former admissions policy.

Three white students brought the original suit after they were denied admission to the law school in 1997 – a decision based at least partially on the fact that they weren’t minority applicants. A federal judge and an appeals court upheld Wash U’s decision.

Is it proper for the nation’s highest court to just dismiss out of hand a case that obviously had merit, principle, and the Constitution on its side?

In a word, no.

In part, the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (my emphasis).”

Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibits any and all forms of discrimination. Granted, the laws were passed to protect minorities from chronic discrimination that was still occurring in many parts of the country. But the law does not say, “For minorities only.” It is for everyone, regardless of race, color, creed or ethnicity.

Therefore, by denying three white students who otherwise were extremely qualified to enter law school for any reason having to do with their race, school officials were blatantly in violation of the laws of our land and the Constitution itself.

Simple, right? Well, not when you factor in the most likely motivating factor behind the court’s refusal to even hear the case – ideology.

Federal judges, including those on the nation’s highest court, have for years used ideology rather than constitutional supremacy to decide (or, by those decisions, create) a number of controversial issues. And why? Because the process of naming justices to the federal bench focuses on opinions about laws and constitutional provisions, rather than the limitations our founding document is supposed to place on federal and state governments.

If you doubt that, take a look at a congressional confirmation hearing for a judicial nominee sometime.

They are not asked whether they will follow the Constitution to the letter; they are asked how they feel about pet peeve issues by senators who are far less knowledgeable about the Constitution than they are their social calendars. The opinions on issues are what gets a nominee approved or rejected, not whether the nominee is imminently qualified as a constitutional scholar and jurist.

Nominees who make it take their opinions with them to their new federal court assignment, emboldened by a congressional vetting process that doesn’t give a damn about constitutional parameters.

Over the course of time, this has led to federal court rulings that say it is OK if white people get crapped on by others so that minorities can receive appointments, get jobs or go to schools they may not be qualified for. In other words, to give whites exactly the treatment minorities were given years ago.

Well, I’ve got news for those of you who approve of this decision. If it was wrong for whites to treat minorities this way – and it was, make no mistake – it is just as wrong for whites to be treated this way.

In fact, I believe it is more wrong now, given that we have gone to the trouble of passing laws specifically prohibiting this kind of treatment of anybody by anybody.

These three white students were hosed by the Supreme Court’s cowardly rejection of their case, no doubt.

But over the long haul, we’ll come to see the court’s decision as just another nail in the coffin of post-modern America, the nation that bragged about being the world’s “melting pot” but wasn’t smart enough to define the term “equality.”