Upholding Affirmative Action Ban and Judicial Activism

The recent Supreme Court decision to uphold Michigan’s ban on affirmative action  received praise from some and condemnation from others.  It also fanned the flames of racism, which seems to always happen just when most people hoped they would cease to flicker and finally fade away.

The assertion by the left-leaning ACLU’s attorney, Mark Rosenbaum, that students of color are not allowed on the same playing field, is simply outrageous.  In addition to falsely accusing Michiganders of being racists, he demeans people of color that are fully capable of being accepted into colleges with challenging admissions standards on their own merit.  The Democrat party, its supporters and certainly the sitting President, constantly cry out for a level playing field, equal pay and equal opportunity.  Doesn’t this ban guarantee exactly what they claim to seek?

Hopefully, history’s view of this decision will reveal our country is currently far more divided between liberal and conservative ideologies and the role of the judiciary than on racial matters. Liberals seem to want equal outcomes, often through litigation, while conservatives demand equal opportunities, preferably through adherence to existing laws and protected freedoms.

Justice Sotomayor’s 58 page dissent and Justice Kagan’s decision to recuse herself deserve much more attention.  Sotomayor exposes her activist nature, which is consistent with some of her rulings and actions prior to her taking a seat on the high court.  Kagan’s willingness to sit this one out, but refusal to recuse herself in the Affordable Care Act case exemplifies the politicization of the SCOTUS.  We foolishly continue to allow nine unelected citizens legislate and rule over us, as they or their party of preference sees fit.  Perhaps it’s time to include the judicial branch in all future discussions on term limits.