New Haven Firefighter Case: No Clear Line in the Sand for a Color Blind Constitutiion/Society

The main significance of the New Haven firfighter case is that it clearly shows leftists, and the mainstream media, for the racists they are. See yesterday's entry. Simply as legal precedent, the case is not that significant--EXCEPT as at least keeping leftists somewhat at bay in terms of turning our society into one where your rights are alsmost totally determined by your race and ethnic origin, and sometimes your sex, rather than yourself as an individual--an individual who, for the most part in this country, is of MIXED RACE and/or etnic origin. In other words, at least "white" people discriminated against still have the option of filing a lawsuit, and obtaining possible relief, even though "race" can still be a factor in government decisions and government influenced private decisions.


Yes, thisis yet another example of this blog being exactgly right, IN FORESIGHT. No, it was not hard to be right on this one, but this blog is the only place where you consistently see these "obvious" predictions actually made, IN FORESIIGHT. What did I telll you about this decision, before it happened? I told you the decision would be AMBIGUOUS, although most likely te white firefighters would win. That is exactly what happened.


As stated in yesterday's entry, the Constitution is colr blind. Nowhere does it mention "white" people, and since the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, it does not provide any reference to "slaves", except for abolishing slavery. It never did mention "black" people. But the Supreme Court has never followed the Constitution. First, it did not follow it by allowing states to put blacks in a "second class" status (segregation, and other laws assigning a race "label", and assigning "rights" based on race--just as modern leftists want to do). Well, the Supreme Court went right past "color blind", and the words of the Constituion, to start allowing people to be "assigned" on the basis of race to "remedy" past discrimination (busing, and general "class actioin" QUOTA rules, for example).


Thus, even in the absence of "past discrimination", the New Haven case did NOT decide to aplly the color blind language od the Constitution to require that our society be color bliind. Rather, the case was decided on narrow, statutory grounds without deciding the "Constitutional" question. That leaves the law in effect as it was: that race cannot be too BLATANT a factor in government decisions, but that you can use race (be a racist) so long as you DECEIVE on what you are really doing--so long as you disguise what you are doing to an extent that the courts can say race was not a "determinative" factor. This makes no logical sense, but it is the "compromise" the "moderates" have tried to use. The "compromise" is designed to avoid apllying the words of the Constitution to make us color blind, while at the same time avoiding endorsement of the leftist idea that it is okay to assign "rights" based on the GROUP you belong to, instead of on your rifhts as an individual. As is often the case with the "moderate" positon, it is a position that is untenable ni the long run. Eight justices essentially agree on that (the dissent, and the four members of the "conservative" bloc in the majority The only one who is in favor of this "compromise" is Anthony Kennedy, representing "moderate" Republicanism (as a philosophy).


That is what Anton Scalia said in his concurring opinion: that the Court would ultimately have to face the Constitutional issue of whether the Constitution is color blind. The court did not face that issue in the New Haven decision, and that made the decision only of limited importance (as statedm more of importance in keeping the liberal, "group rights" position at bay for awhile, rather than announcing a bold adopting of "color blind" as the princiiple of our Constitution).


Yes, Dan, I do admit this is the one area where John McCain would PROBABLY have been better than President Obama. Obama's Court nominee, Sotomayor, was one of the judges REVERSED by the Supreme Court in the New Haven decision. She is a racist (by the definition of that term I gave you in yesterday's entry). Further, she considered the issue so unimportnat that it was not even worth a full opinion. Even the dissent was uncomfortable with the summary manner in which the New Haven "white" firfighters had been treated all of the way up to the Supreme Court (summary judgnment--no trial--in the trial court, and then a summary dismissal of their appeal in the appellate court on which Sotomayor sat).


But President Bush appointed Sotomayor to the Federal bench. Apparently, he also endorsed her appointment to the Supreme Court. David Souter was appointed by President (41) Bush, and was one of the four justices who would have denied the firefighters their rights. He has been one of the MOST liberal of the justices, and he is the one being replaced by Sotomayor. Therefore, I have no confidence in what John McCain would have done. But there was a CHANCE he would have done better than Obama. There was no chance that Obama would do better than Sotomayor.


The point is that we are on the verge of having extreme leftism imposed upon us BOTH by the judiciaary and our elected politicians (President and Congress). The real significance of the New Haven decision is that it shows that leftists have not QUITE taken over the judiciary. But it also shows how CLOSE we are to that day.


Yes, I am saying that the only hope now is a catastropic FAILURE of leftism all of the way down the line--a failure that discredits leftism for a generation or ore. That is the real reason I did not support John McCain (aside from the face he insulted me, and did not really seek my support). I wanted leftism to have its chance in an UNAMBIGUOUS way--where failure could not be blamed on John McCain. Although Republicans will be blamed anyway, I don't thinnk it will work. That does not mean that we should tamely let our country be ruined (health care, Cap and Trade, immigratin amnesty, etc.). But leftists are basically getting their Big Government. It cannot work in the end, and the blame needs to be clear.


Will the FEderal judiciary keep imposing leftism, even after it has FAILED? Ah, that is a good question, and depends a lot on how many Supreme Court (and other) appointments Obama has a chance to make.


It would be nice if the New Haven case represented a decisive blow for a color blind Constitution/society--the way the Constitutioin READS. Unfortunately, it did not.