10/02/2019
The Party of Justice Roger Taney is Still Alive
Despite a common belief that the Civil War, Reconstruction Amendments and the Civil Rights Act have brought us closer to a “colorblind” constitution where all persons residing within the jurisdiction of the United States enjoy equal protection of the laws, apparently there are still Democrats in America who hold to the Orwellian idea, that “some [persons] are more equal than others.”
Just today, a US District court judge ruled that Harvard University may discriminate against Asian students in order to promote diversity.
Wow!
Judge Allison D. Burroughs, an Obama appointee, ruling in the great tradition of her esteemed predecessor, Roger Taney, found in her own personal and private interpretation of the “living constitution” jurisprudence that stands in direct contradiction to the words of the Constitution that the rest of us read.
For Democrats, constitutions are living things. And the little electron clouds of words that make them up, are uncertain and ambiguous things. For progressive giants like Judge Burroughs, hard, inflexible words really don’t exist. Such non-postmodern ideas place unnecessary and burdensome restraints upon those who are wiser than the law.
This is what the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) actually reads: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruled that these words apply also to the national government.
Now in my Lilliputian intellect, as I grope through the grand byzantine corridors of Judge Burroughs mind—“equal protection of the laws” really just means that separate is equal, and that different rules and standards for different peoples are constitutional so long as the law is enforced with that understanding. That’s what makes it equal protection, right? And, of course that is exactly what Plessy v. Ferguson ruled in 1896, back in the halcyon days of doughface Democrat Grover Cleveland and Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson when the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party was the K*K.
Oh, how the Democrats yearn for the good old days.
Now, today, according to the Democrat Judge Burroughs, a ruling against one flavor of humanity, or maybe two, or, gee whiz, who knows how many, is not really the same as ruling that one flavor is better than another. The really important Democrat principle to grasp here is the one that Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens and Edmund Ruffin firmly held, and that is that merit doesn’t matter, it is skin color that is central to personhood—and that the central idea of a progressive living constitution is that a ruling class (almost certain white) gets to select who is over whom. That is what makes it progressive. That's what makes it fair!
And who can argue?
Pharaohs and Caesars and Czars and Kaisers and Princes all agree— law is whatever the power broker say it is. Mere words are puny frames upon which to hang the robust progressive power of the state. How else can we march together into the Brave New World?
Now to seemingly genuflect before the grandeur of such enlightened sensibility, I admit that if Harvard wants to discriminate against party A to the benefit of Party B, I think they should be able to do that, sorta, on their own dime. But I’ll be damned if I am obliged as an American to subsidize the loans that feed this execrable racist crap.
Let me make it clear as a white male, and I know I speak for the vast majority of white folk and I believe for Americans: if I should wake up tomorrow and every single student at Harvard is Asian or Black or Jewish or Hispanic or White or Female or Homosexual or Transgender, and every one of those students is the very best Harvard can recruit, I want nothing but the best at Harvard, especially if it is state action that compels me to subsidize that institution. Any other standard is racist or sexist or Confederate or Nazi—it’s just repackage Klan-thought: racist, despicable anti-American bu****it that the Democrats and Progressives have been spewing since Jefferson Davis was sworn-in in Montgomery, Alabama in 1861.
There is growing talk under the breath of civil war. With every increasing intrusion by the Democrats into the lives, liberty and happiness of Americans, the whispers become louder. As every interpretation, every institution, every law is abused and deconstructed, as facts and words dissolve into meaningless sludge to be abused by lawless judges and deep-state operatives—we grow closer to a terrible possibility. We once fought a civil war against these same damned Democrat racists 160 years ago. If we have to fight another one, to prove that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom”, to demonstrate once and for all “that all men are created equal”—
Bring it on!
