REPARATIONS REVISITED

A Sideways Comment on Sotomayor’s Pride in her Affirmative Action Judgeship

“Your Interference is Doing Him Positive Injury.” Frederick Douglass

added May 8, 2010 — If Barack Hussein Obama, or his new Supreme Court, bring up Reparations . . . ask Obama to be the first to open his check book. You see, Obama’s Luo tribe ancestors converted to Islam in order to avoid slavery. Muslims are prohibited from enslaving other Muslims.

The slave trade in East African included Ethiopia, Tanzania, Somalia, and Kenya. The great slave markets of Momabasa and Zanzibar captured or purchased blacks from the African interior, sold them, and shipped them off. In fact, Obama’s ancestors most likely profitted directly from enslaving Michelle Robertson Obama’s great-great-. . . grandparents.

*    *    *

There are two landmark reverse discrimination cases that are pertinent to the reparations discussion. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978 and Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S.Ct. 2325 (2003).

 competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin

 In Bakke, the opinion was that the state had a legitimate interest in cultivating diversity and overcoming racial discrimination. The “competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin” was a complete nonsequitur, which is highly likely of Justice Blackmun’s creation, given the creative logic of his Roe v. Wade decision.

 Even though the state’s court ordered an injunction against any use of race in the medical school’s admission policies, the Supreme Court overturned it.

does the very existence of a racially-based admissions program taint the reputation of all minority professionals in that field?

 One may ask, does the state truly have a substantial, legitimate interest in setting aside limited medical school admissions for lower scoring minorities? If one minority student turns in an exceptional score, does that cancel out one of the ‘set asides?’ In challenging disciplines such as the medical profession, where life and death decisions are made, does the very existence of a racially-based lowering of admission standards taint the perceived reputation of all minority professionals in the field?

 In Grutter, Sandra Day O’Connor approved, in part, of the Michigan Law School admissions set-asides, admitting though that the stigma and injury of slavery and one-hundred years of ‘Jim Crow’ and civil rights violation that followed will eventually be a thing of the past, and suggested that racial distribution of law school seats should be illegal in twenty-five years (2028).  

 [They] bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered – Powell, J.

 Justice Powell was cited from the Bakke case. He concluded that the state had no legitimate interest in correcting society’s history of discrimination because that burden would be born by third-parties “who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered.”

 Clarence Thomas condemned racially engineered admissions. He cited Frederick Douglass speaking almost 150 years ago.

 “What I as for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice . . .                  If the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall . . . All I ask is, give him a chance to               stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . Your interference is doing him positive injury.”

Update June 22, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_voting_rights

The U.S. Supreme Court rules on civil rights law concerning the black vote. While Sec. 5 of the law was considered unconstitutional, the issue was not addressed in the court’s holding.

Clarence Thomas made it clear, as Sandra Day O’Connor intimated in the Grutter case, that the days of discrimination and Jim Crow were over. He wrote in dissent, “

Justice Clarence Thomas, alone among his colleagues, said he would have resolved the case and held that the provision, known as Section 5, is unconstitutional.

“The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains,” Thomas said.

An informative article by Roger Hedgecock on WorldNetDaily http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101760

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: