Affirmative Action - Unequal Protection

The Conning Tower ^ | Jan. 26, 2003 | Trentino

[Davis]

Ann Coulter is a favorite of ours. We've cited her for her wit and lucidity quite a few times, and we've published an appreciation of her. She has outdone herself in her column this week shredding the legal arguments underlying what the PC dissemblers dubbed "affirmative action" and have for thirty years tried to convince us was socially desirable and legally permissible because it was...well...affirmative, hence not negative.

Miss Coulter correctly asks what the big deal is about the University of Michigan cases now before Supreme Court. Isn't it plain that favoring some races--blacks, Latinos chiefly--is not equal treatment? Doesn't it offend the 14th Amendment equal protection provision?

...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...more

[Davis]

Appreciating Ann
http://www.atrentino.com/AppreciatingAnn.html

Cartoon
http://www.atrentino.com/CartoonFootball.html

[leadpenny]

Bump!

A couple of university administrators were on C-SPAN last week and they agreed that this case will be a narrow on. According to them, U of M is one of the few universities that flat-out gives points for skin color.

[leadpenny]

narrow one.

[hrhdave]

Yes, it should be a narrow decision because the cases present a narrow issue. The University of Michigan awards more points for being black than it does for being smart. So the holding in the case is going to be confined to ussues of racial preference--which the Supreme Court has already held violate the law and the Constitution.

They can dress up the decision with frothy language to salve the feelings of the Liberal Left, talk about their good intentions, but I strongly doubt they are going to let U of M's practices stand.

Whatever the Court says, watch the weaselly college administrators try to weasel around the law as they're doing in California after the passage of Prop. 209.

[Davis]

bump!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Equal protection is not the issue. Money, votes and power is. The Republic is rapidly fading to a memory.

[hrhdave]

>>The Republic is rapidly fading to a memory.<<

How poetic, how false!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I know all the reports are false. It really is not happening. There are no preferences all are treated equally before the law. We are not being inundated with mexicans, and even if we were, it would make no difference. We are not being taxed out of our homes to pay for the lifestyles of the rich and perverted office holders. We are not really in a deperession but merely a correction. Reports of murders of the living and about to be born are obviously not true.It is all a figment of our fevered imaginations.

[hrhdave]

No, friend, that wouldn't be my argument. I'm not a pollyanna. I'm a Conservative, and I can see this country as it us. And I'm old but I have a good memory.

I can remember the Whiskey Rebellion and the Panic of 1817. I can recall the invasion of poor Irish starting in 1849 and the Italians and Swedes and Russians, even recall the time we took in Texas and California with their alien populaions. I renember the Know Nothing Party and the Whigs and the Civil War. The Republic survived. It survives to this day. Rumors of its death are false.