I am well aware that the Supreme Court has constructed an intricate web of rationalizations to justify favoring one race over another in college admissions. At the end of the day the reality remains the same, the leftist vision of society as one made up of blocks of races, sexes, creeds, and classes is one that trumps the Constitution.
When asked whether alternatives to affirmative action would work, she replied making two mistakes. First, as a Justice she takes off her robes and presumes herself to be a sociologist or an anthropologist, and tells us that other solutions that might be devised by a legislature, will not work. What the hell does a Supreme Court justice know about that?
Second, the accumulated set of rationalizations for affirmative action gives her cover to assume that government has the right to favor one race over another in college admissions. Let's examine just one of those rationalizations.
She says that legacies have a "slight advantage" in gaining admission. That is not a race-based discrimination. Why is that discrimination, nonracial and perfectly legitimate, held up as a justification for a race-based discrimination? Is she saying that one wrong justifies another? Or is she as a leftist saying, your legacies are white and rich and my value system favors the nonwhite therefore I'm going to put my robes back on and order you to discriminate in favor of the racial colors that I most admire.
Affirmative action even carries a hint of alliteration with Animal Farm
