In some respects the Left’s reaction to Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College is more disturbing, if less hysterical, than its response to the elimination of Roe v. Wade. The near complete disregard for Constitution and the principles it represents being displayed is stunning, and a warning. Robert Kennedy, Jr., who may be a wacko regarding vaccinations but who is as about as representative of the current state of the Democratic Party and Woke World as an individual can be, was usefully specific, tweeting,

“Regarding the Supreme Court banning affirmative action in higher ed — I know many Americans feel that purely race-based decisions are unfair. However, this feeling misses important context. The effects of racist policies going back centuries are now self-perpetuating. Affirmative action understands this and uses race-based policies to undo the effects of racist policies. ‘Color-blind’ admissions tend to favor those who are already in the circle of privilege. It favors those who grew up in affluent, educated households. Wouldn’t you like to invite in those who have been left out in the cold?”

And there it is. “It’s  okay, in fact the right thing to do, to deliberately violate the Constitution and ignore U.S. law if it serves ‘the greater good’ and our judgment regarding the needs of social justice.” That has become the entire operating philosophy of the Democrats. It can be seen as one that would open the door to unlimited totalitarian abuses. This is why the First, Second and Sixth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process and the entire Constitution itself are under sustained attack to undermine it in the eyes of an ignorant public we allowed to grow to adulthood without ever being adequately educated about the importance of the Founding documents. Bobby Jr. explains: if Constitutional restrictions favor the “wrong” people, then to hell with the Constitution. The direct line from his reasoning to government censorship of speech should be obvious (but since the news media won’t draw that line, or is too inept to do so clearly, it won’t be to the dim Americans who need to see it most.

RFKJ’s last argument, “Wouldn’t you like to invite in those who have been left out in the cold?” is a another classic hide-the-ball, bury-the-lede, “its isn’t what it is” con. He is really asking the tribal interests that support his party, “Wouldn’t you like to have a fist on the scales giving your race/ethnicity/sex a permanent advantage in everything you do?

We should be grateful to Kennedy for being comparatively honest. President Biden, who hasn’t read the decision, had the gall to say, “This isn’t a normal Court,” again darkly suggesting malign intent—from its enforcement of the Constitution, its duty. Journalists and pundits are giving us a vivid picture of what we can expect in the upcoming election campaign with deceptive, misleading or written-for-morons headlines like:

• “With Supreme Court Decision, College Admissions Could Become More Subjective. “That’s the Times’ brilliant analysis: as if using race as a significant determinant made admissions objective. The headline buries the lede; what the story is about is how colleges will now cheat, continuing to use race illegally.

• “The Supreme Court’s Decision on Affirmative Action Must Not Be the Final Word.” That’s Time, framing the SCOTUS decision as “characteristic of an  imperial Court, as Professor Mark Lemley has termed the current conservative super-majority. This is a Court that boldly arrogates power to itself. In the SSFA cases, the Court effectively overturned long-standing precedent—in particular, the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger upholding consideration of race and ethnicity as one factor in a flexibly designed admissions program.” That last part is a lie, for Grutter made it crystal clear that affirmative action was getting a short leash to breach the Constitution as an exception to its principles and show the ends justified the mean. The end, in contrast, meant that Asians as well as whites are being handicapped because of their race. Time’s screed embraces a suddenly popular bit of Camelot nostalgia divorced from context:

  “In its ruling, the Court majority also ignored the democratic imperative that underlies Title VI. Introducing Title VI 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy famously stated that “simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.”

Got that? A decision that held that held that private and public institutions are discriminating on the basis of race—which they are, and openly so—ignores a dead President’s exhortation against racial discrimination! Confused yet?

• “The Supreme Court’s ultimate ‘judicial activism’: striking down affirmative action in college admissions.” That’s this ethics villain, given space in the Los Angeles Times to gaslight its readers. ‘Ooooh, he’s a law school dean, he must know what he’s talking about!’ How can declaring a policy that violates Equal Protection, the Thirteenth Amendment and the civil rights laws that all forbid discrimination on the basis of race illegal and unconstitutional be “judicial activism”? Simple: any time progressive schemes that violate the Constitution are foiled, it’s “judicial activism.” Or just fascists being fascists.

There are plenty more, ranging from shameless fear-mongering [“The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Breaking History and Our Future” in Slate. translation: “ARRRRRGH!!!! WE’RE DOOOOMED!”] to “duh!” [“State affirmative action bans helped White, Asian students, hurt others” in the Washington Post: yes, when you stop discrimination in favor of one race that disadvantaged other races, that would seem to be the likely result…].

 

 

lll