Affirmative Action

Laib, Steve A41 at MDBESF.MDBE.COM
Thu Feb 29 11:21:00 MST 1996


Robert A. Ostrea wrote:


>I agree that the proposition will overwhelmingly pass, especially if OJ is
>acquitted in the civil suit against him before the elections in November.
>However, I don't believe there is ANYTHING in the Constitution that
>prohibits a state policy which requires that everyone be treated equally?
>You're the attorney, am I wrong?  CCRI merely states that no one shall be
>discriminated nor given preferential treatment based on their race, sex,
>creed, religion, etc...  It simply re-affirms the Constitution, IMO.  Is
>there any other provisions in CCRI that would be questioned by the Court?
>If so, wouldn't just THAT portion of the provision be stricken down, rather
>than the entire CCRI?

You ARE right,  But just because you or I know the constitution,
 it does not mean that some politically motivated judge won't rule
on the bill in such manner as to gut it, despite what the constitution
says.  Consider that school bussing, affirmative action and quotas
were justified by constitutional arguments.  The same for providing
welfare to illegal aliens, and despite the fact that the "born in the
United States" clause on citizenship was intended only to cover
people in slavery in the 1860's and their children, the judges have
been consistently saying otherwise.

The basic ideal operating here is that a good lawyer can justify
any position form the same law if they skew the facts or the rationale
sufficiently.  That's what the liberal types have been doing.  What
this results in, in most cases, is that the judges justify the opposite
position of what was intended, gut the bill of anything they don't like
and then leave the rest of the law, now emasculated, intact.  It puts
a law with no effect or teeth on the books.

What we  should expect on this bill is a Lonnie Guinniere type
argument that "minorities need to be given special rights because
of past discrimination" and so the law cannot be constitutional on that
basis.  The court will then remove any provision which requires equal
treatments as discriminatory, and leave us with a useless shell.
That's why we need to change the courts, as well as the legislature
and the laws.

Steve Laib
Atty. and Philosopher



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list