If your vision or its interpretation is defective, perhaps, but that is not my fault or problem.

I insist on real color-blindness (hyphen properly included), and other proper neutrality by government, not substituting activist BS left-wing politics as legal “argument” or “theory” and legal objectives, which includes reverse discrimination and other hypocritical as well as stupid and often destructive goals.

I’ve even seen some dippy liberal prof claim the Constitution can and should be construed so as to require the federal government (ideally through an activist judge’s ruling) to provide a guaranteed minimum income to everyone, which of course is utter nonsense and shows (in addition to what we already see) how junk politics have replaced real law and rule of law in academia, notably in law schools.

Too bad if the truth hurts or if it’s over others’ heads.

How can people complain about the Supreme court being racist when they gave blessing to separate but equal when in 2004 the State of Michigan went in front of the Supreme court and argued that Separate and unequal was legal, acceptable, and good public policy.

Maybe Mr. Schraub would have some credbility complaining about how people view the decent in Plessy if he did not support the decent in Gratz where members of the Supreme court argued that the government should be able to have different and unequal admissions standards for white and black students.

I wonder if Mr. Schraub would be more likely to support the majority decision in Plessy if the Supreme Court had argued that the government had a compeling interest (the current argument for the pro-discrimination crowd) in keeping the races separate?

In Bakke, Gratz, and Gutter, it was obvious that state actors (public universities) were maintaining separate and unequal admissions programs through the use of quotas, set-asides, and bonus point systems.

Look at the current Supreme Court cases from Seattle and Louisville where the left is arguing that assigning students to schools based upon race is not only legal but good public policy.

It seems that the current view of the left is that racism and segregation is bad when it adversely affects blacks or Hispanics but it is good public policy when it adversely affects whites and Asians.

I found the post interesting and insightful.
Thanks.

If you have to ask… *sigh*

Nobody pays serious attention nor owes respect to Perpetual Victims, Incorporated, and those others with hyper-active imaginations and missing honesty who want liberal politics to be “law” [sic].