Views: 27
Why are the Sanctuary bluebirds crying about their new found voters for 2024? We see it in New York, Illinois, and now Massachusetts. We are spending our money on all these future voters is the battle cry.
I guess the bluebirds thought the plan was to send them in just before the 2024 elections. Not now. And the Progressives are crying cause they have to house and educate the undocumented. What did they think that being a Sanctuary city and state meant?
228
Views: 68
Don’t you just love it when a awesome Federal Judge gives Special Prosecutor Smith a royal Bitch Slapping? He’s in over his head and he knows it.
As Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported, Cannon struck down two of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s sealed filings in her ruling today. Cheney said she came out swinging.
Judge Cannon comes out swinging at special counsel this morning, striking two of prosecutors’ sealed filings and demanding an explanation of “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate” the docs case.
The liberal media has claimed that Cannon revealed that an “out-of-district grand jury” is investigating the classified documents case. But Kelly notes it was Jack Smith who did this in a motion filed just last week.
The Gateway Pundit’s Cristina Laila previously reported that this is not the first time Jack Smith has been smacked down by Cannon. She had previously denied motions to keep the government’s motion government’s motion to keep a list of 84 witnesses under wraps.
208
Views: 22
Tucker Carlson. Part 1. Devon Archer and Part 2. Devon Archer Interviews. Here’s part 1 and 2 of the Devon Archer interviews.
Around 10 minutes into the more than hour-long interview, Archer starts to discuss how he got involved with the Bidens and the origins of their overseas business dealings, including how Burisma got the president of Poland to invite him and Hunter to work on the board of the Ukrainian gas company.
“It sounds like you had a successful business. So how does Hunter Biden get involved and why?” Tucker asks around minute 12:30.
“We had this lunch with a mutual friend… an attorney of Hunter’s had introduced us,” Archer said. “You’re always looking for kind of an edge or advantage, being a boutique. Certainly [managing] $3 Billion was good… but in real estate, it’s kind of a levered number… We were demystified to Washington, and Hunter was in a stage where he was transitioning from lobbying to strategic advising… There are some legal limits to registering when your father is the vice president, so I think that’s what they ran into.”
210
Views: 56
Attorney John Lauro: Trump Is Being Criminalized For Objecting To The Way That 2020 Election Was Handled.
This writer ( Right or Wrong ) has decided that the Trump indictments are nothing but cover for the Biden Cartel possible crimes. I’ve decided, that after today to pretty much ignore these falsehoods. Now if there is something that’s newsworthy I’ll comment on it. But there’s so much news out there that’s news worthy. Enjoy the article below.
Trump attorney John Lauro spoke to FOX News host Bret Baier on Tuesday following the announcement of another indictment against the former president. Lauro said Trump is being criminalized for questioning whether the 2020 election was conducted in a valid way.
Lauro said when this case goes to trial, “we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.”
“It’s not just issues of fraud,” Lauro said of the 2020 election. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in. And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.”
“What Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order,” he added.
“Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible,” he said. “It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.”
Transcript, via FOX News:
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: We need a whiteboard for all of this. It is like planes going into La Guardia with this legal situation.
But the person who’s dealing with this case joins us now. John Lauro is former President Trump’s lead attorney on this specific case. He joins us with his first public reaction.
John, thanks for being here.
JOHN LAURO, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good evening.
BAIER: You heard what the special counsel said. You have read the indictment. Your client’s been talking about it quite a bit today on TRUTH Social.
Your thoughts on this?
LAURO: It’s a terribly tragic day that we find ourselves in, where political speech now has been criminalized, where an existing Justice Department, Merrick Garland, has a boss. His name is Joe Biden.
And Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump and losing currently. And now we have that Justice Department indicting President Trump for actions that he took as the executive — as the chief executive of the United States with respect to public policy matters.
So, now we have the criminalization and the weaponization of public policy and political speech by one political party over another. And it’s not surprising when it comes. It comes on the heels of unbelievable allegations against Mr. Biden and his son, as well as the fact that Donald Trump is leading in the polls right now.
And now we have what essentially is a regurgitation of the allegations in the January 6 report, which was highly political. It really reads no differently. So it’s really an astounding document, because, for the first time in American history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent, who wields the power of the criminal justice system, for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.
This is unprecedented. It affects not just Donald Trump. It affects every American, who now realizes that the First Amendment is under assault. It’s under attack by the Biden administration. We now have a political incumbent who is attacking Americans for their beliefs, attacking Americans for their speech, and attacking Americans for their politics.
This has never happened in the history of our country, and it’s playing out right now.
BAIER: Yes, John, let me read from the indictment, and you can respond to this specifically.
It says: “The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So, more — for more than two months following the Election Day, November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.”
LAURO: I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false.
What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by executive-level — people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures.
He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said: Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify, and, that way, we know ultimately who won the election.
And that’s the only thing that President Trump suggested. There’s nothing unlawful about that. He was entitled to do that, as the chief executive officer carrying out the laws, and nothing about that was obstructive.
It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He’s not being charged with that. There’s no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence. Just the opposite. He’s being indicted for free speech.
He’s being indicted for objecting to the way that the 2020 election was carried out. And any American that takes that view should be equally concerned, are they next? Because the reality is that, if a president can be indicted for free speech, then anybody can be indicted.
So, when this case goes to trial, we’re going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single American that believes in the First Amendment and believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to Congress.
And that’s exactly what people were doing. You had these alternate electors that said to the Congress: We have serious doubts about what happened in the 2020 election. We’re bringing these grievances to you. Listen to us.
That’s being criminalized now. Don’t forget, we had an extraordinary set…
BAIER: Yes.
LAURO: … of circumstances in 2020.
We had the COVID virus. We had laws being changed in the middle of the game. And Donald Trump had every responsibility and every right to raise these issues.
BAIER: To your point about what he believed, I talked to the former president a few weeks ago at his place in New Jersey about other things, but the 2020 election came up.
BAIER: You lost the 2020 election.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Bret, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots, you take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents.
BAIER: There were recounts in all of the swing states. There was not significant, widespread fraud.
TRUMP: Bret, we’re trying to get recounts, real recounts…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: … number of votes cast.
BAIER: There were investigations. Widespread corruption, there was not a sense of that.
There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, by your lawyers, some in front of judges — judges that you appointed…
TRUMP: Bret, are you ready? Look at Wisconsin.
BAIER: … that came out with no evidence.
TRUMP: Wisconsin is — Bret, Wisconsin has practically admitted it was rigged. Other states are doing the same right now. And it’s continued on. It was a rigged election.
BAIER: There have been reviews of every potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states, and they found fewer than 475 cases. It was not affected.
TRUMP: You know why? Because they didn’t look at the right things, Bret.
BAIER: OK. Are you going to…
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: My point in showing that is that he is pushing back on June 20 on that front.
John, when it says that he knew that the election was lost and it quotes people that they have interviewed, what’s the pushback to that?
LAURO: Very easy and very simple. It’s not just issues of fraud. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in.
And what President Trump was raising when he asked Vice President Pence to send it back to the state legislatures was to give the legislature in each state of those contested states one last chance to make a determination, because the reality is that the state legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility ability for qualifying electors.
So, what Mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order. There was nothing illegal about that. And he was required to take steps as president of the United States to ensure that that election was held in a valid way.
All of that now is being criminalized. The one thing I will say, though, in 2020, Mr. Trump’s campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas, and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.
It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January 6 in a way that can be exercised in federal court.
BAIER: What you’re talking about, the states, the states did that. Each individual state certified the elections. They were signed by the governors, many of them Republican governors, and many of them Republican secretaries of state, that signed off and certified those election results before they came to Washington, D.C., and we had what was January 6.
LAURO: Right.
BAIER: So, what you’re talking about was done. It was certified.
LAURO: No. No, I’m sorry, but — but you’re missing what Professor Eastman’s advice was.
Professor Eastman said that the state legislatures had not opined and weighed in on the changes that had been done in those various states. And…
BAIER: But each one of those states since that time — now we’re talking about two years later — has not reopened those cases.
They have not — some of them have had audits, but they have not reopened the 2020 election from that point of view. And some of them are Republican legislatures.
LAURO: Yes. And it’s never been presented to the states.
Now what we’re going to have is not just a civil trial, but a criminal trial for Mr. Trump exercising his right to speech. So there may be disagreement about what happened, but the bottom line is, we’re now treating this as a criminal case, rather than, as we’re doing, Bret…
BAIER: Yes.
LAURO: … talking about this in the context of politics and free speech. And — and…
BAIER: Yes. Well, let’s talk about legal for just a second, John.
LAURO: Yes.
BAIER: And you are specifically running point on this case.
And according to our legal analysts…
LAURO: Oh…
BAIER: Is that true?
LAURO: Along with Todd Blanche.
BAIER: Yes.
LAURO: Yes, we’re co-counsel on it, definitely.
BAIER: On the other cases, is it legally somebody else, like, for the documents case? Are you also on that?
LAURO: I’m not on that team. I’m concentrating on the First Amendment issues. I’m concentrating on this case, which is a direct attack on our constitutional principles, only this one.
BAIER: Will you run point in Georgia, if an indictment comes down in Georgia?
LAURO: No. No.
BAIER: Somebody else.
LAURO: Absolutely. There are other groups working on that.
Obviously, there’s coordination around the country. And all of this is being done in the middle of an election season where Donald Trump is winning. So, you have a series of criminal cases that are being brought and serially brought out on a regular basis now, with only one objective in mind, and that’s to interfere in this election cycle, which is now under way.
BAIER: What about the stories that these campaign funds are now paying for legal fees and it’s — and you’re running out of cash in that front?
LAURO: Well, I’m not involved in that.
But the bottom line is, the way that they’re trying to take out Donald Trump is through the legal process. So, he’s being forced to spend money on legal defense which should be spent on the discussion of critical ideas and critical issues. People want to hear the issues. They don’t want to relitigate 2020.
And that’s exactly what the special counsel — I should say Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland and the Biden administration had to sign off on this indictment. And what they have really done is invited now a relitigation of 2020, but this time in a criminal court, which is unprecedented.
No sitting president has ever been criminally charged for his views, for taking a position. And, by the way, is there any doubt there’s two systems of justice in the United States? Was Hillary Clinton prosecuted for the Russian hoax? Were those individuals who said, don’t worry about the Biden — the Biden laptop, because it’s just Russian disinformation, are they being prosecuted?
No. Only one person in America is being prosecuted for his political beliefs. And that should send a chill, a warning to every single American who one day wants to get up and say, this is what I believe in. I disagree with the Biden administration, but these are the beliefs I have, because every person who does that now is subject to a potential criminal case.
BAIER: Last thing.
According to this indictment, they believe that that argument would empower every losing politician to do what former President Trump did, and by using what they call in this indictment false information to stir up people, that the system then breaks down.
It’s — I’m paraphrasing, but, essentially, that’s what it says in this indictment.
LAURO: So, what they’re saying is, politicians may use hyperbolic speech or excessive speech in some way and stir up people, and we’re going to criminalize that.
Good luck in the United States, if that’s where we’re heading. Good luck, because the reality is that everything that Mr. Trump requested to be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. Those lawyers are going to come in and testify.
Nothing was done in a way that wasn’t constitutionally permissible. It’s all politics. It’s all politics. And if we’re criminalizing politics, what’s going to happen when the Republicans are next in office? Think about the pressure that’s going to be put on a Republican president to go after and indict sitting Democrats now in Congress or in statehouses for their political views.
And then we have this vicious circle once the criminal justice system has been politicized.
218
Views: 45
Alvin Bragg Suffers Major Court Loss in Bogus Trump Case. The affirmative action NY DA went fishing. He tried to get Melania Trumps e-mails. What an Ass.
Prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had issued the subpoenas seeking emails from Melania Trump and other documents as part of Mr. Bragg’s case against the former president over alleged falsification of business records.
But those subpoenas were quashed by New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who said in a ruling (pdf) attached to a July 27 court filing that the subpoenas were far too broad in scope.
The requests for Melania Trump’s emails, and other documents “would yield significantly more responsive records than necessary,” the judge wrote in his ruling, which was issued on July 7 but made public when attached to a July 27 filing that included a letter from prosecutors to Judge Merchan, seeking clarification on an unrelated matter.
Bragg was also requesting President Trump’s testimony in the completely fraudulent E. Jean Carroll case. Carroll, a woman Trump has never met, accused President Trump of raping her in a department store he never enters to shop at sometime in the 1990s, but she’s not sure of the date. Of course, New York Democrats allowed this junk lawsuit to proceed.
174
Views: 34
Stop the Presses. Thanks to Jack Smith, Trump trial in Florida will be after the elections. First I figured that with the judges ruling that Smith had to reveal his 84 witnesses, I would think that Trumps attorneys would want to depose them. How long would that take?
I was involved in a case where three people were deposed. Took six months. Now with the new charges, Smith will have to reveal his witness list, and I’m sure there will be deposition hearings for them.
Finally with the new charges, I’m sure Trumps new lawyers will ask for more time to prepare. So I doubt that this case will be not heard in May like the judge said.
168
Views: 18
Biden Administration Refuses to Provide Robert Kennedy, Jr. with Secret Service Protection. Robert Kennedy, Jr. announced Friday on Twitter that the Biden Administration has still not provided his campaign with Secret Service protection. Robert says after several requests they have received no response after 88 days!
123
Views: 9
Thanks Joe Biden. Confidence in U.S., U.K. Governments Lowest in G7.
For decades, much has been made of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. But in 2022, the national governments of both nations shared a somewhat less special accomplishment: earning the least confidence from their constituents of any G7 member country.
When Gallup first measured national confidence in governments around the world nearly two decades ago, both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were well into their terms in office. The governments they led retained extensive confidence domestically — far more so than for almost all the rest of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).
Fast forward to 2022, and the tables have turned. Roughly one in three adults in the U.K. (33%) and U.S. (31%) say they have confidence in their national governments: putting them at the bottom of the G7 countries.
As governments on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled, other administrations in G7 nations have solidified their positions among their electorates. In Europe, confidence in Italy’s government has almost doubled since 2019 (from 22% to 41% in 2022). Similarly, confidence in the French government has increased steadily since French President Emmanuel Macron came to power: rising from 37% in 2017 to 46% in 2022. In Olaf Scholz’s first full year as chancellor of Germany, he has continued Angela Merkel’s trend of high German confidence (61%) in government — the highest confidence level in the G7.
Even though confidence in the Canadian government has slipped from its highs under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a majority (51%) nevertheless retain faith in it. In Japan, which ranked last among G7 countries between 2007 and 2012, confidence in government has since more than doubled to 43% in 2022.
The U.S. has seen a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in the national government over the past couple of years. In 2020, almost half (46%) of U.S. adults expressed faith in their government, likely boosted by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But after President Joe Biden took office, confidence in government slipped to 40% in 2021 and again to 31% in 2022. This is on par with the lowest rates of confidence measured in the U.S. government since Gallup started tracking it globally in 2006 — with the other lows measured in 2013, 2016 and 2018 under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Declining domestic confidence in the U.S. government has occurred alongside declining approval ratings on the world stage. Median global approval of U.S. leadership slipped to 41% in 2022, down from 45% in 2021 during Biden’s first year in office.
Across the Atlantic, Britons’ confidence in their national government has been relatively low since 2019. But as is true for the U.S., confidence in the U.K. also reached a near-record low in 2022, on par with its level in 2008 during the financial crash (32%).
The U.K. political system has been rocked by several major events in recent years, including Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal and frequent turnover among its prime ministers. Since 2019, the U.K. has had four prime ministers in as many years.
For countries across the globe, leadership approval and confidence in government are highly related.
The same relationship is present in the U.K., where since 2006, confidence in the government has been far higher among those who approve of the U.K.’s leadership. But this changed dramatically in 2022, as the Partygate scandal intensified and numerous stories of alleged governmental wrongdoing dominated the headlines.
In 2022, confidence in the government collapsed, especially among Britons who approved of their country’s leadership (38%). This is the lowest level of confidence in the world among people who approve of their leadership — tied with Lebanon.
After years of clear distinction, the line between governmental confidence and leadership approval in the U.K. is now blurred. This may be a concern for the conservatives — in power since 2010 — ahead of the general election likely to be held at the end of next year.
Much has changed since Gallup surveyed G7 countries in 2022, and recent events could have shifted these trends even further — including the political fallout from Trump’s legal troubles and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation from parliament in recent weeks.
The U.S. and the U.K. face crucial elections around the end of 2024. On both sides of the Atlantic, the election results will likely prove decisive in whether the public’s faith in their governments can be rebuilt in coming years or will erode yet further.
173
Views: 9
Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.
Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.
149
Views: 7
Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.
One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.
Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.
Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?
GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.
So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.
JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.
I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.
Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.
That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.
And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.
Sandra Sellers.
SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy
PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.
And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.
JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.
And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.
Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.
I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.
And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.
I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.
103
