Thomas: Racial preferences unconstitutional (Thomas dissents)

Atlanta Journal- Constitution ^ | 6.23.03

[mhking]

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the court and an opponent of affirmative action programs, disagreed with the court's decision Monday to uphold a University of Michigan law school program that seeks to boost minority enrollment.

He agreed with the court's finding that a similar undergraduate program is unconstitutional.

"Because I wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School," Thomas said, dissenting, in part, from the 5-4 decision upholding the law school's program.

"The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination," he said.

In its majority opinion, the high court said the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

But Thomas disagreed, and accused the law school of maintaining "an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results."

"Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy," he said.

Thomas agreed with the court's 6-3 conclusion that a similar undergraduate program at the University of Michigan is unconstitutional. He said a state's use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[Mr. Mojo]

I just saw some U of Mich. student's speech today, and she exclaimed (I paraphrase), "I'm happy to report that race still matters in America today." Uhhh, come again? Wasn't it ML King who wanted all people to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin? (And I agree with him). But unforunately, far from becoming more colorblind, we've become color obsessed. Sickening.

[mhking]

But unforunately, far from becoming more colorblind, we've become color obsessed.

Yeah. And it's getting more sickening as time goes on...

Mind you, because I've got the "nerve" to question it, I'm supposed to be the "bad guy?"

[ApesForEvolution]

The Constitution is pretty simple, really. Thomas gets it.

[Mr. Mojo]

Yep, you're one of the the "bad guys" alright. ...And so is Judge Thomas, Ward Connerly, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, etc.

You're in good company :)

[snopercod]

From Apellate Judge Alex Kozinski via [this post]:

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

[FairOpinion]

I am proud of Thomas. The other SC justices should be ashamed of themselves for selling out the Constitution to political correctness.

[rudypoot]

"I just saw some U of Mich. student's speech today, and she exclaimed (I paraphrase), "I'm happy to report that race still matters in America today."

I saw the same news clip and my jaw about hit the floor. That lady was happy about it too. Appearence >> content.

[TheDon]

It is ironic that to be for affirmative action is to be racist, in that you believe blacks cannot make it on their own.

[Steven W.]

Further - that gal's comment was recorded after the first decision was released and before the second. Meaning the point at which liberals thought they'd won right before they lost.

[Revolting cat!]

But unforunately, far from becoming more colorblind, we've become color obsessed.

Exactly, and unfortunately, that goes for many here. "Racism" has become a synonym for "bad" and much of the Right has fallen for the ruse. But then, I'm just another "fascist"!

[David Isaac]

Am I wrong? It was Reagan who nominated O'Connor? And it was Bush who nominated Souter, correct?

If it was not for our friends, would we need enemies?

[Mark]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone needing to list race on any form, just ALL put "Black"- millions of people claiming someone way back when- who would try to "deny them their roots"?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Because this was a split decision today it will come to the Supreme Court again in the future.

Let us look on the bright side, we did win the most important of the two cases today, the undergraduate program being rule unconstitutional.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

This is an outrage. The Supreme Court majority are racist trash. White people cannot achieve anymore based upon merit? If you are white in America, you have been slapped in the face. This is the most racist piece of unconstitutional garbage delivered by the Supreme Court in modern times. White people should boycott all universities pushing preferences for non-whites. To hell with the racist Supreme Court.

[duk]

I saw an article of T.V. last night about India's IIT. A tech college that is next to impossible to enter because of the high standards required in the entrance exam. These young adults spend years preparing for the test. Once in, their ticket is punched for life. They are highly sought after by the worlds businesses because of their education and motivation.

This is what our colleges need to promote, the smarter you are the better the college you can get into. The highest score gets into class. Those are the only points that a future employer wants to see.

[FITZ]

Bump for Thomas.

[freekitty]

"I just saw some U of Mich. student's speech today, and she exclaimed (I paraphrase), "I'm happy to report that race still matters in America today."

Certain races still do matter in America; but {exclusion) racism of all others matter more. That's what this student should have said.

[SouthCarolinaKit]

The biggest problem the black community has is it's allowance of kids' not doing work, not studying, and
acting like being smart is being too much like whitey.
None of that will be reduces as long as they're allowed to
skate along on their skin color. Why should they work?
The system says their doing so doesn't matter. This is one more example of unintended consequences. Racial quotas
have destroyed minorities' work ethic and unless something is done, the spiral down will continue. Only Justice Thomas seems to consistently understand and try to correct the damage done by the liberals on the court!