Now it's Justice Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.  This could not have come soon enough.  Almost immediately, there will likely be cases before the court regarding the handling of absentee mail-in ballot deadlines.  And there will almost surely be a major post-election case or two that could decide the election outcome similar to the Bush-Gore mess in 2000.  During her confirmation hearings, Democrats tried to get Barrett to recuse herself from such cases.  She adamantly refused. 

Democrats do not want to be constrained by the written law.  They want what they want and will concoct any spurious argument for it.  Unfortunately, there are three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer — who have shown they are willing to rubber-stamp virtually any progressive motion regardless of the law.  In their minds, they are the law.  Chief Justice John Roberts is a wild card who can flop either way.  But with ACB on the court, Roberts will not have the deciding vote and so will likely join the conservative majority in reading the law as written if for no other reason than to salvage his reputation.  None of this portends well for Democrat cheating.

During Barrett's confirmation, the Democrats focused on their concern for Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Their feeling was that with Barrett on the Court, both could be overturned.  Perhaps.  But there is another issue where the Democrats truly need to worry.  That has to do with the open discrimination practiced against whites and Asians in admissions to universities.  The claim is made that diversity of the student body is more important than the law.  Not surprisingly, many liberal judges buy into this fallacious argument.

Currently, Harvard and Yale are in federal court defending themselves against charges of their discriminatory admissions policies.  Whatever way these cases turn out, they are destined for the Supreme Court.  As William McGurn reports, "the last Supreme Court involving race and college admissions was Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).  In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled the university's use of race in admissions was constitutional. Anthony Kennedy sides with the liberals to cast the deciding vote." 

With both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy now gone, and with Amy Barrett on the Court, Harvard and Yale could face a 6-3 decision against them.  That would be a nightmare for progressives and the race industry.  Such a ruling would affect universities nationwide and would also be grounds for suing government agencies and corporations that likewise practice racial discrimination, claiming diversity as a defense. 

As much as progressives might pine for it, diversity is not in the Constitution or written law.  Nor should it be.  Having an originalist like ACB involved in deciding such cases could be the long overdue death knell for affirmative action–type racial discrimination. 

Image: VWEAA.

Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.  This could not have come soon enough.  Almost immediately, there will likely be cases before the court regarding the handling of absentee mail-in ballot deadlines.  And there will almost surely be a major post-election case or two that could decide the election outcome similar to the Bush-Gore mess in 2000.  During her confirmation hearings, Democrats tried to get Barrett to recuse herself from such cases.  She adamantly refused. 

Democrats do not want to be constrained by the written law.  They want what they want and will concoct any spurious argument for it.  Unfortunately, there are three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer — who have shown they are willing to rubber-stamp virtually any progressive motion regardless of the law.  In their minds, they are the law.  Chief Justice John Roberts is a wild card who can flop either way.  But with ACB on the court, Roberts will not have the deciding vote and so will likely join the conservative majority in reading the law as written if for no other reason than to salvage his reputation.  None of this portends well for Democrat cheating.

During Barrett's confirmation, the Democrats focused on their concern for Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Their feeling was that with Barrett on the Court, both could be overturned.  Perhaps.  But there is another issue where the Democrats truly need to worry.  That has to do with the open discrimination practiced against whites and Asians in admissions to universities.  The claim is made that diversity of the student body is more important than the law.  Not surprisingly, many liberal judges buy into this fallacious argument.

Currently, Harvard and Yale are in federal court defending themselves against charges of their discriminatory admissions policies.  Whatever way these cases turn out, they are destined for the Supreme Court.  As William McGurn reports, "the last Supreme Court involving race and college admissions was Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).  In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled the university's use of race in admissions was constitutional. Anthony Kennedy sides with the liberals to cast the deciding vote." 

With both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy now gone, and with Amy Barrett on the Court, Harvard and Yale could face a 6-3 decision against them.  That would be a nightmare for progressives and the race industry.  Such a ruling would affect universities nationwide and would also be grounds for suing government agencies and corporations that likewise practice racial discrimination, claiming diversity as a defense. 

As much as progressives might pine for it, diversity is not in the Constitution or written law.  Nor should it be.  Having an originalist like ACB involved in deciding such cases could be the long overdue death knell for affirmative action–type racial discrimination. 

Image: VWEAA.