Affirmative Action is Affirmative Oppression. Justice Sotomayor, a self-admitted member of some type of minority who benefitted solely because of that aspect of her birth, seems to position herself as some kind of avenging angel against cancelling a series of Supreme Court blunders that gave preferential treatment to some Americans while punishing other Americans for no fault of their own. She opposes the elimination of race in selecting humans.
It’s difficult for some people to understand or admit that Justice must flow foreword and back. In the case of Justice Sotomayor if she benefitted wrongly she must make amends.
No one can be punished unless they cause injury. Alternately, being a member of a group is insufficient as a basis for rewards paid for by a different, innocent group. Affirmative Action is precisely that type of injustice. Sotomayor does not address the innocence of individuals who nevertheless have been burdened despite their innocence.
Putting black children in a bus and shipping them out of their neighborhood is an affirmative action program mandated by a court that went far outside the Constitutional prohibition of using race to overcome racism. Bussing to achieve racial integration was a result of Brown v Board of Education. Bussing was a massive farce because there is no way to integrate one black person with one white person.
A mixed race child is sort of an integration but it’s not the result of an integration law. Bussing is an integration law that can’t work. It failed because it was based on some kind of wrong analysis and wrong conclusions about race. .
Supreme court justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg are well-meaning people. No doubt they want to make sure their decisions are correct.
But it’s impossible to integrate people.
Why? Because there is no such thing in existence as an integrated person.
Neither Sotomayer nor Ginsberg seem able to grasp that.
Unable to understand reality, at least unable to understand what they seem to be trying to do, which is to create by law an entity that cannot be.
Since it cannot be it cannot be created by a law. Such a law is impossible to enforce.
Sotomayer claims there is much racial inequality. True. She want’s to fix racial inequality. Good. A lot of people do but not by commanding others or by accepting commands from authorities like the Supreme Court. Such commands run into the use of oppression to cure oppression.
That’s the wrong way to fix: “the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce the most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.” Those are Sotomayor’s words that she wrote in her dissenting opinion in Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action. She needs to stay in the real world. Those words show she want’s something that never was and cannot be.
Can black people and white people live and work together? Certainly. Can they be forced to like each other. Perhaps but probably not.
The idea that the different races are unequal is a particularly false and nasty conclusion to articulate.
What’s true is races are different. Making people the same is as impossible as making fingerprints the same.
Impossible things are not rendered possible by the thoughts and conclusions of Justices Sotomayer and Ginsberg no matter how well intentioned they are.
In a particularly grating dissonant response to Sotomayers dissent by a black professor, she noted that “Justice Sotomayor’s view is defensible only if two things are true: first, if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and second, if racial minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior.”
She then admitted her own idea was false. She wrote: “Although neither of these things is empirically true, the plurality rests its decision on wishful thinking.”
Sotomayor justifies Affirmative Action, i.e., preference because of her birth as a member of a Latino minority because she benefitted from her minority classification but it’s was an unfair, unjust and completely undeserved benefit that was taken from someone else who deserved it more.
Sotomayor should be able to be objective and fair because of her elevated position as a Supreme Court Justice but she acts and speaks as a minority. If she was in the country of her ancestors, Spain, she would be a majority and entitled to no minority benefits as she collected in America. How unfair was that?
Same for the reasoning abilities of Justice Ginsburg who should be at least sensitive to the fundamental unfairness of using race, gender or culture, attributes which have nothing to do with achievement, attributes that are accidental conditions of birth, attributes which have nothing to do with an individual’s entitlement to take from others by force of law and use the benefits so obtained and reason that’s fair.