The quota queen

“Amendment XIV Section 1. 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.” – 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

You probably thought that our Constitution was the “supreme law of the land.” I know that I did. So I guess that makes both of us pretty naive. There is a supreme law of the land, and the U.S. Supreme Court has just established what it is in the Michigan affirmative action case (Grutter vs Bollinger). No, the supreme law of our land is not our Constitution, not its first 10 or subsequent amendments, not the laws passed by Congress or various state legislatures – not even case law decided by the courts. No, the United States Supreme Court, which exists by virtue of the Constitution, has just ruled that supreme law of the land is a “compelling state interest.”

That puts us on a level playing field with history’s tyrants, dictators and mass murderers, each of whom believed he had a “state interest” in compelling the citizenry to do his whim. What made America different from the rest of the world was that the government was charged in the Constitution with protecting the rights granted to individuals by God from intrusion or harm. Not the rights of government, but the rights of individuals. Indeed, to secure these rights is why the Constitution came into being. It grew, in part, from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

The 14th Amendment was passed by a cumbersome process requiring both Congress and many state legislatures to agree that equal protection was a good idea, even for former slaves who were now free men and women. Where does the 14th Amendment say that blacks are entitled to more protection, better protection, or protection more frequently than whites, women, Asians, or any of the world’s other minorities?

Despite taxpayer supported education to the tune of thousands of dollars per child every year in this country, and compulsory education requirements in every state, why is it that minorities are viewed as unable to attain the same educational standards held out for whites? And why is it that a higher standard of achievement beyond that for whites is demanded of Asians? Who are these racial psychopaths setting the educational bars the rest of us must jump over, according to our skin color?

Perhaps we should ask Sandra Day O’Connor. She is widely viewed as the swing vote that prevented the court from ending America’s racial divide. This is hardly surprising: Ms. O’Connor is herself a product of affirmative action. Her biography is instructive:

“O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. She received a law degree from Stanford University in 1952. In 1965, she became an assistant attorney general of Arizona. In 1969, she was appointed to an unexpired term in the Arizona Senate. She won election to the state Senate in 1970, was re-elected in 1972, and was Senate majority leader in 1973. O’Connor was elected a judge of a Maricopa County trial court in 1974. In 1979, the governor appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the state (World Book Encyclopedia).”

Ms. O’Connor is a politician, not a jurist. Like all good politicians, she was in the right place at the right time. One could hardly argue that she was a distinguished jurist; she simply did not have the experience to make that judgment. But by 1981, Ronald Reagan had promised to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He kept his word.

The Michigan affirmative action decision is a political one, not a legal one. Yet the effect of the Supreme Court’s decisions are legal, as well as political. Thus we see that equal protection applies only to those with the currently favored skin color, and perhaps in the near future the litmus test for equal protection will be the sex acts one favors.

Based on this decision, whatever the state has a compelling interest in, it can do. What was written in the Constitution is only a rough guide. It changes according to the needs of today’s favored groups. Thus if the state of Oregon is a little short of cash, will it develop a “compelling state interest” in paying its bills? If so, what is to stop it from confiscating my property and using the proceeds to pay those bills? Future earnings from a law-school education are no different in principle than present holdings in land. What is to stop the state – and the court – from providing an exception to the Constitution for whatever is deemed at the moment to be a “compelling state interest”?

Beyond destroying the rule of law, Ms. O’Connor has guaranteed that America will be embroiled in race issues for the remainder of yours and my lives, and probably forever. The minorities who have had the bar lowered for them their entire lives have now come to expect this and other entitlements because of their skin color. One cannot read Clarence Thomas’ dissent without an outpouring of sorrow for blacks who have worked hard and achieved much – as many have. They will never be given credit for it.

This decision is not the way to make America color blind. Destroying the rule of law is an impeachable offense for the judiciary, and Ms. O’Connor should be so honored.