Macroagression Of The Week: Equal Protection Not For Whites?
Print Friendly and PDF

John Derbyshire reports that the "Microaggression of the week " was when Justice Scalia used the expression "the blacks"—"the blacks" rather than "blacks", "African-Americans" or whatever's next.

Derb reports that Shanta Driver, the By Any Means Necessary lawyer, said in oral argument that Michigan's ban on race preferences unconstitutional because it fails, quote, "to protect minority rights against a white majority."

That was when Justice Scalia committed his microaggression. Quote from him: "My goodness, I thought we've held that the 14th Amendment protects all races. I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected the Blacks. But I thought we rejected that." End quote.

Derb comments:

Colored people all over the nation howled in anguish and fell to the ground writhing with pain on hearing of Justice Scalia's vile and monstrous calumny. Professional black guy Nick Chiles shuddered that, quote: "If words mean anything … one would have to believe that a Supreme Court justice using the expression 'the Blacks' to refer to African-Americans does not bode well for African-Americans seeking unbiased treatment from the court," end quote. That was on a website named Atlanta Black Star.

And you can hear Al Sharpton (Al Sharpton!) being voluble on the subject in Derb's podcast. [MP3, at 29:05]

Donald Trump also got hit with a microaggression ticket for saying "the blacks"—Donald Trump: 'Great relationship with the blacks' By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY,April 14, 2011.

But that's microaggression. The macroagression is "civil rights" lawyer Shanta Driver's amazing claim—that the equal protection of the laws (embodied in the 14th Amendment) does not apply to whites.

In the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, Driver said, in her opening statement

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: We ask this Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that’s expressed in Hunter-Seattle, and to bring the 14th Amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case.

Blogger Josh Blackman, quoting this, said “This is what proponents of affirmative action think but aren’t supposed to say at the Supreme Court.”

This is true: it's as clear a statement of racial privilege as Roger Taney's ruling in Dred Scott.

And as Scalia was saying, the Supreme Court has rejected it.




Print Friendly and PDF