'This Is Not A Normal Court' - Biden Slams Color-Blind SCOTUS' Decision To End Affirmative Action

Update (1300ET): It didn't take long for The White House to come out swinging against the racists on the Supreme Court who dared to disallow race-based decision-making on college admissions.

"The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions," the president raged "and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision."

Biden added that equal opportunity "is not everywhere across this country."

College and universities "should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experience," he adds - seemingly telling them to ignore SCOTUS' ruling. As Charlie Kirk noted, he appears to be openly calling on universities to defy the ruling by lumping race into the new catch-all term: "adversity".

As Noah Rothman noted, "Did President just make make institutionalized racial discrimination against Asian-Americans a campaign platform?"

"The truth is," Biden repeats three times, "we all know it -- discrimination still exists in America."

Indeed - and SCOTUS just ruled against that discrimination being used against smart white kids wanting to get into the Ivy League.

Of course, the DoJ stepped in with AG Garland saying that he "will use legal tools to promote student diversity."

He concluded that "we need to remember diversity is our strength."

And then as he was leaving, a reporter shouted out "is this a rogue court?" to which he replied pensively, "this is not normal."

That sounds very 'insurrectiony' to us.

Watch the full address below:

Not divisive at all...

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to consider race in university admissions.

In Thursday's 6-3 decision (along ideological lines), the justices rejected arguments by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina that their admissions programs are warranted to ensure campus diversity.

The high court majority effectively overturned a 2003 decision, known as Grutter v. Bollinger, that had reaffirmed the right of universities to consider race as one of many admissions factors.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said that ruling “is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.”

As The Wall Street Journal reports, the ruling will force a reworking of admissions criteria throughout American higher education, where for decades the pursuit of diversity has been an article of faith.

Specifically, The 14th Amendment ensures that individuals receive equal protection of the laws from state agencies including public universities, a standard that also applies to most private colleges that receive federal funding.

In general, the court has permitted racial preferences only to remedy specific acts of illegal discrimination, not compensate for general social injustices said to stem from historical practices.

The result of 'affirmative action' in admissions is nowhere more obvious than in the following chart (ironically sourced from VOX.com)

Some more context here: 

Does it really need SCOTUS to decide this? Of course, race should not be considered!

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“And the Equal Protection Clause, we have accordingly held, applies ‘without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality’—it is ‘universal in [its] application.'”

The court's three liberals dissented. Society "is not, and has never been, colorblind," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"The Court ignores the dangerous consequences of an America where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the People."

The dissenters exclaimed that the court's conservative majority was "entrenching racial inequality in education."

"Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits," wrote Sotomayor.

"In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."

But she was not done with her lambasting of the conservative majority's common sense interpretation of color-blindness being constitutional: 

With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all" by legal fiat.

But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

No one benefits from ignorance.

Although formal race- linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better.

The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. 

Justice Thomas (black) and Justice Jackson (black) - we note this since, like pronouns, it appears to define people clearer for our liberal readers - disagree vehemently on the 'opportunity' and 'systemic racism' in America. Read this short excerpt for a taste of the bitterness: 

[Justice Jackson claims] the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth... locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.

Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victim- hood. If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too. What it cannot do is use the applicant's skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for “black” he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.

Accordingly, Justice Jackson's race-infused world view falls flat at each step.

Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals' skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.

Justice Jackson then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts" and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. 

Brace for the snowflakes to unleash their hatred of this color-blind ruling...

...because not accepting race-based decision-making is, umm, racist?