The definition of irony, California style
I’m a day late on this one, but California’s Supreme Court has made a ruling on the affirmative action ban found in the state constitution. In a 6-1 decision, the court found that the ban on affirmative action is constitutionally sound and will not be struck down. Here’s an article explaining the decision in layman’s terms.
The decision itself is sound, and the winning side was ably argued (as always) by the Pacific Legal Foundation. What I found most striking, however, was the rationale of Justice Carlos Moreno, the lone dissenter. According to the L.A. Times:
In a dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno contended that Proposition 209 was unconstitutional because it was explicitly race-conscious and established “a steep hurdle” for those seeking preferences for race and sex.
“This unique burden on the ability of women and racial minorities to achieve beneficial legislation in their interest is what violates the political structure doctrine, and thus the Constitution,” Moreno wrote.
So an amendment that disallows preferential legislation that is explicitly race-conscious and would impose steep hurdles on members of a certain race is unconstitutional because it is explicitly race-conscious and imposes steep hurdles on members of a certain race?
Nor is any mention made of why it would ever be a good thing to give insular groups the ability to pass legislation that is beneficial to them without similar benefit to the rest of society. Inequality should not be imposed on a community, regardless of whether it stems from the wishes of the majority or the minority.
Affirmative action is unnecessary and destructive, and the survival of Prop. 209 is good news for California.