Overreacting to the Supreme Court

I'm trying to go through the recent Affirmative Action case opinions, so I can summarize. Surprisingly, I'm leaning more toward the dissent than I expected, but I haven't finished reading it yet.

For those who haven't read much detail, as Kennedy said, the decision was not about affirmative action, it's more complex than that. Basically the question is whether banning affirmative action at the state level, powers were taken from the schools' trustees and it became more difficult for minorities to enact advantageous (or outlaw disadvantageous) policies.

Anyway, in this article, The Nation's Patricia Williams is, predictably, upset. Here's what I take issue with.

The bottom line? What is expressly permissible as a matter of the US Constitution is now forbidden in Michigan. Not only that, it has removed affirmative action in Michigan from the democratic process.

First, there is a long list of things permissible by the US Constitution that are forbidden by states. Basically, all state legislation does is restrict your freedoms that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have. States say you can't drive faster than 65 mph, where does it say that in the Constitution? States won't allow you to drink, that's something that is "permissible as a matter of the US Constitution."

Not only that, but even easier to contest, it hasn't been removed from the democratic process. If anything, it's more a part of the democratic process. It was voted in by a majority of Michigan voters. Before the vote, it was decided by trustees appointed by the governor. Used to be, direct elections were considered more democratic. I guess Patricia would like to repeal the 17th Amendment and let her legislature (or possibly the trustees to Michigan's schools) choose the US Senators.

Finally, she says

But consider another scenario. You have one place to fill and two applicants—a white kid from Grosse Pointe, and a black kid who has risen from the ashes of Detroit’s segregated, postindustrial dystopia to achieve the same scores. Put on the blindfold! We don’t see color here. According to Section 26, it’s unlawful to weigh the black kid’s distinct experiences because that would constitute either an act of discrimination against the majority white population or a grant of preferential treatment for minorities.

No Conservative I know believes a kid's experiences shouldn't be weighed, just not the color of his skin. I believe it wrong to assume that because someone's black, they've had a harder time than every white person. Granted, in most circumstances, that's true, but not everyone. Experiences should be weighed, not skin color.

Reproductive Rights?

The Left has been extraordinary at coming up with positive sounding names for their causes--affirmative action, pro-choice, social security, the affordable care act.

In this Rolling Stone article, Lauren Rankin discusses some of the "attacks on reproductive rights."

First off, I don't think we should call issues dealing with abortion reproductive rights. These people are fighting for the right to not reproduce. Who believes that when I assert my gun rights, I'm talking about my right to not own a gun? It's a bizarre manipulation.

Of course, she never presents the other side of the argument, but I'm most interested in issue 4-"Louisiana bill would keep brain-dead pregnant women on life support against family's wishes."

"This bill essentially turns brain-dead pregnant women into incubators against their will, compounding the trauma that their families are likely experiencing."

Well, I don't dispute that the women would essentially be incubators, but I'm not sure it's against their will. I doubt most women say what they would want to happen if they faced this decision. Rankin goes on to say that in Louisiana, the law would not "[supersede] pregnant women's 'do not resuscitate' orders..., [it] would still override the family's wishes." Well, then whose rights are being attacked? These clearly aren't reproductive rights. These are the family's control over someone else's rights. What if the woman wanted her baby to come to term? Oh, well, says Rankin, the family's rights to abort allow the fetus to die naturally supersede anything else. It seems that Rankin thinks that not only the mother has the right to abort, but the family does, too.