Affirmative Action is Immoral: Three Radical Activist SCOTUS Justices Root For Racial Discrimination In Oral Arguments, But Six Others Are Skeptical

Last night, Tucker Carlson laid bare the racism and depravity of affirmative action. The case for this systemic racism, no different then Jim Crow,  is currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court. Let us pray this terrible wrong is righted.

Tucker Carlson dissects the roots and ramifications of affirmative action

Watch the whole thing:

The promise of a meritocratic society is that the most capable people will rise to the positions of the greatest authority. In a meritocracy, for example, you would hire heart surgeons because they’re good at heart surgery, not because of how they look or who their parents are. A meritocracy is the only fair way to run a society, and fairness matters to people, always everywhere. Plus, it works well. Fewer people die on the operating table when you do it that way.

For generations, this is how American society ran. If you were smart and you worked hard, you could compete on pretty much an equal footing against anyone else in America. They tell you that was never true, but it was true. It was called the “American Dream.” People moved here from all over the world to partake in that system, but there was a political problem with it. If you’ve got a meritocratic society, it’s pretty hard to play race politics because race plays no role in advancement. Individual initiative is what matters. Group interests are irrelevant in a meritocracy.

Now, that may sound idyllic to you. It may sound like the kind of country you’d want to live in, but for the Democratic Party, it was a disaster. How do you get your voters to the polls if they’re not racially aggrieved? It’s hard.

At the tail end of the civil rights movement, after all the legislation guaranteeing equality under the law had already been passed, Democrats introduced a new concept. They called it “affirmative action.” The idea was to punish or reward Americans based on the color of their skin. Ironically, this was precisely the evil practice that the civil rights movement was designed to abolish. Racial discrimination was unequivocally wrong. That was the whole point of the skirmish on the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the March on Washington.

Oh, but no, said Democrats slyly repainting the slogans on the barn, actually, racial discrimination can be good. It all depends on who’s being discriminated against. That was their argument. That is still their argument more than 50 years later, but even now, after all of this time, most people, if you explain it clearly, don’t really buy it. Wait, I can’t have a job or get into college or get a federal contract because I was born with the wrong skin color? That sounds wrong.

And of course, they’re right. Affirmative action is wrong. It’s totally immoral. It’s completely unfair and now, for the first time in years, the Democratic Party is being forced to defend it in public. The Supreme Court is now considering a case about affirmative action in college admissions at Harvard specifically. Because they understand that their power depends on maintaining the racial spoils system they created, Democrats are defending the indefensible with maximum ferocity. Unfortunately for them, it’s not that easy to do.

Affirmative action is not only the very definition of racism. It’s also highly embarrassing in its particulars. The closer you get to it, the more embarrassing it is. When you elevate people on the basis of their appearance, you tend not to get very impressive people. Why would you? Unless you’re buying sunscreen, skin tone is a totally irrelevant criterion. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor unwittingly made that point today.

Sotomayor openly concedes that she got her job because of affirmative action. She was completely and demonstrably unqualified for the position. Obama chose her because of the way she looked. Now, that may sound deranged, but it actually happened. No one disputes it.

Today we saw the consequences of this. During oral arguments, Sotomayor made a mistake that no first-year law student would ever make. She repeatedly confused the terms “de facto” and “de jure.” Now, if you’re a lawyer, that is an inconceivable mistake. It’s like your local service station confusing gasoline with diesel fuel.

It doesn’t happen because the terms have entirely different meanings. “De facto” means something that’s not in the law but happens anyway. “De jure” means something that is happening that is sanctioned by the law. See the distinction? Of course, you do, and you’re not even a Supreme Court justice. But Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t see it. Watch.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So, even if we have de jure discrimination now or segregation now, Congress can’t look at that because we certainly have de jure segregation. The races are treated very differently in our society in terms of their access to opportunity.

We have racial segregation under the law in America? That’s what Justice Sonia Sotomayor just said. Why is this woman wearing a robe? Even after Justice Alito corrected her, Sotomayor kept saying it was de jure segregation. She said de jure segregation in 2022. Jim Crow is still on the books.

This is the society that affirmative action has created. Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t know what “de jure” means. Ketanji Brown Jackson can’t define what a woman is.

REDDIT COMMUNITY RESPONDS TO ‘BEST THINGS ABOUT AMERICA’ QUERY: ‘GOD BLESS TEDDY ROOSEVELT’

It’s hard to imagine a more damning case against affirmative action than its results, and it’s always going to be that way because the color of your skin is irrelevant. And if we don’t believe that, then everything falls apart. As the arguments went on, the case against affirmative action somehow got stronger. Watch this exchange between Brett Kavanaugh and a state solicitor general.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified from Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the like?

MR. PARK: My understanding is that just like other situations where they might not fit within the particular boxes on the common application that we rely on self-reporting and we would ask, you know, they can volunteer, their particular country of origin.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE SUPREME COURT — DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND IS MORALLY WRONG

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But if they honestly check one of the boxes, which one are they supposed to check?

MR. PARK: I do not know the answer to that question.

Just to remind you, something you already know, but probably never think about, the U.S. government collects data on people’s races. Now, in a society where we’re all equal as citizens under the law, why would they do that? That’s what the Nazis did. So, we’re against keeping track of people on the basis of race, aren’t we? And with so much at stake, how do we determine someone’s race? How long before we’re taking blood tests or measuring the shape of people’s heads? It’s been done before. It happens in other countries to this day. It’s really dark and disgusting.

The question in that exchange was: What box to the Middle Easterners check? Oh, no idea, but of course, everyone knows the answer. If you want to get into a competitive school, the best bet for those Middle Easterners would be to identify as Black. The studies prove it. According to a 2009 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade, selective schools currently boost Black applicants to the point that Whites are penalized 310 points on the SAT for being White. Asians are penalized 450 points for being Asian. Talk about systemic racism!
Asian American groups rally before the Supreme Court to protest affirmative action Video

How is that allowed in this country? Well, good question and if anything, this systemic racism and that’s exactly what it is, it’s racism at the systemic level, has intensified over the past decade in case you have noticed. In 2020, a trial court found that at Harvard skin color was determinative in admissions for more than half of all admitted African-American applicants and roughly one third of Hispanic applicants. How patronizing, by the way, to them. Look at this chart. It shows the average SAT score for admitted students by race at Harvard from 2000 to 2017. It’s almost unbelievable how different the standards are and this is happening, of course, not simply at Harvard, not simply other schools, but all over the entire society.

A few years ago, a senior fellow at AEI called Mark Perry found that Black and Hispanic students were heavily favored for admission into medical schools. Black students who had below average test scores were seven times more likely to be accepted into medical school, compared to White students with similar below average scores and they were nine times more likely when compared to Asian students with similar scores. That’s medical school. In the end, you will have bad doctors, not because African-American students make bad doctors, but because the process of picking people on the basis of irrelevant criteria like their skin tone is insane.

It has nothing to do with medicine at all. In fact, the practice itself discredits the medical schools that engage in it because it’s so anti-science. This should make you uneasy, but wait, it gets worse.

Here’s an exchange from today. Clarence Thomas asked the solicitor general what the educational benefits of affirmative action might be. Here’s the response.

RYAN PARK: So, the most concrete possible scenario is stock trading and there are studies that find that racially diverse groups of people making trading decisions perform at a higher level, make more efficient trading decisions and the mechanism there is that it reduces groupthink and people have longer and more sustained disagreement and that leads to a more efficient outcome.

JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation too.

Three Activist SCOTUS Justices Root For Racial Discrimination In Oral Arguments, But Six Others Are Skeptical

By: Asra Q. Nomani, The Federalist, November 02, 2022

‘We did not fight a civil war about oboe players,’ Chief Justice John Roberts said, shooting down Harvard’s attorney during oral arguments on Monday.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Monday morning, I swept through the marbled halls of the Supreme Court of the United States, off First Street NE here in the nation’s capital, to enter the highest room of jurisprudence in the land. The sound of my footsteps muffled atop thick carpeting, the blinds on the massive windows mostly drawn and the room packed with rows upon rows of chairs, slowly filling.

A daughter of India who grew up in Morgantown, West Virginia, little could I know that over the next four-and-a-half-hours I would ride an emotional rollercoaster as three so-called “liberal” justices and four attorneys overlooked, erased, and tried to gaslight the truth of Asian Americans who face discrimination — or as the ideologues call it, “systemic racism” — in admissions to Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

If not for fierce questioning from the court’s six conservative justices and the arguments of two attorneys for the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, Asian Americans would have been erased in the courtroom that day — much as they have been nationwide by “equity warriors” for whom we are an inconvenient minority. Instead, this is my prediction for the rulings, expected next year: a 6-2 victory by Asian American families and students over Harvard and a 6-3 win over the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In 332 pages of court transcripts, “diversity” was referenced 202 times, most of the time by the universities’ lawyers and the three justices that supported them, with “Asian” mentioned only 81 times. The universities’ lawyers, the sympathetic U.S. solicitor general, and the three like-minded justices spoke many times about supporting “students of color,” “minorities” and “diversity” but most often excluded Asian Americans. Ironically, the three liberal justices waxed eloquently about “diversity” without once noting the obvious: There wasn’t an Asian American justice beside them.

In the most defining moment of the day, Harvard’s attorney, Seth Waxman, tried to downplay “race” as a “determinative factor” in admissions to Harvard, noting that it was just like, “you know,” being “an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Ratcliffe orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.”

Chief Justice John Roberts shot that comparison down immediately.

“Yeah. We did not fight a civil war about oboe players,” he said firmly.

“I—,” Waxman tried to interrupt.

Roberts continued, undeterred. “We did fight a Civil War to eliminate racial discrimination, and that’s why it’s a matter of — of considerable concern.”

Across the country, parents listening to the proceedings laughed and cheered. The day before, many of those parents, with names like Jack Ouyang, Wai Wah Chin, Eva Guo, Suparna Dutta, Yuyan Zhou, and Harry Jackson, stood on the steps of the Supreme Court at an “Equal Education Rights for All” rally with signs promoting simple ideas. “Stop Anti-Asian Discrimination.” “Diversity ≠ Skin Color.” Together, over the past years, we had become accidental activists in the war on merit and Asian American students.

Since late August, parents had been meeting at 9 p.m. on Thursday nights over Zoom to ready for the rally, trading messages through the week on WeChat, Telegram, and Signal. CNN and Fox News featured their voices in their coverage of the case. Chinese-language newspapers put news of the rally on their front pages.

But inside the Supreme Court, to the lawyers for the universities and the three justices who supported them, it felt as if we were invisible.

‘Gas lighters’

I’d first visited the nation’s capital decades ago as an 18-year-old intern in the summer of 1983, but this was my first time in the Supreme Court hearing room. It is about the size of a soccer field. At 57, I had to be a witness for the approximately 22 million Asian Americans living in the United States, about one of every 15 people, most hailing from 19 countries and the fastest-growing racial group in the U.S., according to Pew Research Center.

In response to a K-12 education system that has largely failed black and Hispanic students, officials at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have allegedly rigged their admissions processes with “race-conscious” standards that discriminate against Asian American students to boost the number of black, Hispanic, and other “underrepresented minorities,” known today as “URMs.”

I brought two books into the Supreme Court with me: the big red book, “Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement,” and the yearbook for the class of 2021 from my son’s alma mater, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, in Alexandria, Virginia, a magnet school known as “TJ,” where about 70 percent of the students are Asian American.

The yearbook theme was simple, “We know exactly how you feel.” Unfortunately, activists for the tenets of critical race theory don’t even pretend to want to know how we feel, and I witnessed this tone-deaf callousness from the three activist justices: Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. In my notebook, I penned their three names under “Gas Lighters.”

These three justices infused their questions, comments, and analysis with the politics and worldview of critical race theory, the ideology that teaches that society’s injustices must be corrected through the lens of race. Kagan wondered whether “people who have been kicked in the teeth by our society for centuries” can get a “thumb on the scale” instead of “white men.” She spoke about “our color blindness, whatever that means, because our society is not color blind in its effects.” Sotomayor punctuated many a question with “correct?” For example, she said schools are working to examine the “whole” student as “equals” — “correct?”

Quickly, Kagan found a kindred spirit in the country’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, who spoke so sing-song it took a careful ear to recognize the disturbing worldview of critical race theory in her words. To the plaintiff’s argument on the “color-blind interpretation of the Constitution,” she said, “There’s nothing in history to support that.”

Under “Fierce Against Racism,” I wrote four names: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. Under “Sympathetic” to the plaintiffs, I penned two names: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

5 1 vote

Article Rating

7 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

VMS

1 year ago

I hope that the prediction in the above article is true and that the Supreme Court votes 6-3 and 6-2 in the cases to eliminate race as a factor in college admissions. If this does not happen, the US is screwed for another 50 years because good colleges can admit less qualified or unqualified individuals just because they are black, over those that have excellent credentials.

The result of not eradicating affirmative action is that many of these less qualified students will somehow end up in the workplace and screw everything up, and at the other end of the spectrum, not perform the job as well as an otherwise academically qualified guy (or gal) except for the fact they are Asian.

5

Larry Estavan

1 year ago

You won’t believe how bad this is getting –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYmWaVUugfI

1

Snowedin

1 year ago

Affirmative Action has done nothing but let unqualified people of color into schools because of their ethnicity and not scholarly abilities. All this has been doing is destroying the quality of the educated in America by lowering the standards.

4

Walter Sieruk

1 year ago

Be Joe Biden best defined by being compared to Hitler or Vladimir Lenin it’s only a matter of conjecture.
Nevertheless, whichever dictator “Big Brother Biden” is more fitting to describe Joe Biden, he is, in essence, a tyrant. Biden even has political prisoners from the January 6, 2021, pro-Trump patriot rally.
It’s a Biden gulag for those patriots who are treated just as terrible as in the old Soviet political prisons or the twenty-first century political prisons in Red China under the dictatorship of Xi Jinping.
Therefore, it’s no wonder that Joe Biden has policies that always favor Communist China because must admire that system of tyranny and strives to use it as a model for the American government.
Biden in that spite and malice- filled rant that he called a “speech” condemned “political violence.” Biden was speaking .as disingenuous as he always is. For his being against political violence, he a double standard. of allowing violent actions of Marxist of Communist organizations and violent jihadists engaging in Islamic terrorism get off the hook, “scot -free.”
To elaborate on this statement, when he spoke about “political violence” Biden was speaking about the mayhem that occurred on January 6, 2021, Biden even said that, and slanderously called the American patriots” insurrectionists” who had been framed in that leftist set up, but he said nothing about the most extreme horrendous political violence carried out, repeatedly in different cities by the violent lawless criminal and malicious and even, at times, murderous Marxist, of Antifa and BLM.
Furthermore, Biden didn’t condemn the extreme political /religious violence, many times over, by Muslim terrorists. As one of the major characters in Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini had, rightly, declared, “All Islam is politics.” [1]
In addition, Biden completely failed to condemn all violence, not only “political violence.”
For the horrible reality is the there is much non-political violence ranging from bands of Criminal gangs, as the most heinous and evil MS-13 to domestic home violence.
That speech delivered by Joe Biden was terrible and so is he.

-1

D

ed

1 year ago

Ketanji doesn’t know what a woman is but she can identify “racism” in a second…

3

factofthematter

1 year ago

The first time I ran into “Affirmative Action” was 1969 when I responded to a ConEd open recruitment.
I tested one of the highest scores on their test battery.
When they called me in to discuss my scores, I was told that because I was ‘white’ and ‘smarter than average’, they could not hire me due to “AA” requirements of the “government”.
I have watched this great Republic swirl down the drain ever since and can honestly say that it is no surprise that the country is in the condition it is in, being controlled by the aberrant and the abominations.

1

D

Created4el

1 year ago

When I was in high school, the school bussed in so many busses full of black students in the name of racial integration. For the majority of the blacks, 99.99%, they essentially got their own classes because they were so underprepared for anything but the most basic classes. In other words, the “integration” was only on paper. There is so much talk about how slavery of the black community continues to affect them which is really odd considering that even in a time of much discrimination, crime wasn’t as rampant as it is today to the point where there are many blacks whose incomes far exceed that of Americans of Asian ancestry. So, if the discussion is about the poverty of blacks because of slavery and racism, there was a particular time in our history when Americans of Japanese ancestry were stripped to the point of having nothing thanks to the racism during WWII. Some will argue that this was due to national security but Americans of Japanese ancestry weren’t summarily rounded up in the very militarily strategic place called Hawaii. And after having lost everything, like other minorities, the racism was still systemic in the 60s. Asian actors couldn’t get acting jobs because Hollywood would rather have white people wearing Asian-face play those parts. Fast forward to today when people are attacked for being Asians, these attacks are ignored because the perps are black people… the same kind of violence I exist experienced in high school. And when the real systemic racism is finally being exposed, Democrats ignore it because they like the racism. So, we experienced government sanctioned racism for our whole existence in this country and despite our efforts to overcome the obstacles purposely put in place to keep us oppressed, we step up our game and to reward us, they raise the bar even further. This is evil and it must stop!

0