From the Wall Street Journal:
A splintered Supreme Court on Tuesday voted 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution.
The case came from Michigan, which in 2006 passed a voter initiative ending racial preferences. A federal appeals court had struck down the measure, finding that it served to disadvantage minorities in the political process.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, said the case wasn’t about resolving the debate over affirmative action, but rather “who may resolve it.” He wrote the Constitution doesn’t forbid voters from ending the practice, which was instituted by officials at the University of Michigan and other state agencies.
The decision is here. The decision does not outlaw affirmative action. It simply says that the people of a state can decide that they do not choose to use it.
I applaud the court for validating the right of the people to make public policy. It’s an unfortunate exception from the what too many federal judges do today; that is, act against the will of the people. Think of their rogue actions in the area of family law and traditional marriage, for example.
I await the predictable screeching and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.
As you watch the screeching mobs of union thugs converging on the Michigan state capitol today, keep this story in mind. Remember those Chrysler workers caught smoking dope and drinking on their lunch breaks back in September, 2010? If not, here’s the story, presented for your viewing pleasure, from Detroit tv station WJBK.
Now, an arbitrator has forced Chrysler to give these losers their jobs back. From Mediaite:
In 2010, the American automobile manufacturer Chrysler released several of its employes for negligent behavior after they were caught on camera drinking and possibly smoking marijuana during their lunch break. After many months of a union-backed arbitration process, however, Chrylser was forced to rehire the workers.
Unions give cover to the mediocre, and in this case worthless, employees that the excellent don’t need. No wonder they’ve required government coercion to extort money from the latter group of workers. Why should outstanding employees pay protection money to the union when they aren’t going to get high and/or drunk on their breaks? The answer is obvious, and also obvious is the reason that the opponents of Freedom to Work laws, which don’t prevent anyone from joining a union, are so enraged when these laws pass.
One thing that’s a tad confusion, though. I thought liberals were “pro choice?”