Yesterday’s Argument in Schuette v. BAMN

by George Leef

On The Corner, Hans von Spakovsky discusses the oral arguments Tuesday in the Court’s big affirmative action case, Schuette v. BAMN. One point that stands out is the way Justice Sotomayor aggressively interjected herself into proceedings, acting as though she were an advocate for the race-preferences industry.

The simple truth about this case is that the people who wanted to end racial preferences in Michigan followed the law and got the measure on the ballot. The opponents had enormous advantages in money and organization (almost every big institution, business, labor, political, religious came out against Prop. 2) and nevertheless lost 58 to 42 in a Democratic year. Nothing would impede that huge coalition if it wanted to repeal that amendment or supersede it with new language saying that it’s fine for state officials to choose among people on the basis of race. But they suspect they would lose again, and therefore went looking for sympathetic judges who would squelch the voice of the people. 

The way the statists are spinning the case, it’s David versus Goliath, with the poor “minority interests” in the role of David. Actually, it’s the other way around.