That BAMN vs. Michigan Decree: Will GOP Defend Whites Against Judge-Imposed Discrimination?


Presumably hoping its work won`t be noticed, on Friday, July
1, 2011, the last workday before the long, somnolent Fourth
of July weekend, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
delivered a 2-1 decision,

BAMN v. University Of Michigan
[PDF] overturning the
2006 landslide victory of

Ward Connerly`s
Proposal 2
—the
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI),
which

banned
governmental “preferential treatment to any
individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity or national origin”
.

So what the radical group By Any Means
Necessary (or
BAMN, as it
likes to call
itself
to emphasize the

threat of violence
implicit in the

last four words of its name
see it in riotous
action in this 2005
video)
couldn`t achieve through intimidation, it was just handed by
two Democratic-appointed federal judges: thwarting the
democratic will of the people of Michigan.

Of
course, the judges have also handed the GOP a killer issue
to defeat Obama in 2012—if the Stupid Party has the courage
to use it.

Just as
in w:st="on">New Haven in the
Ricci case, where the

politicians
tried to change
Fire
Department
promotion rules after the
test
was given
, the Sixth Circuit panel says that playing by
the rules for amending the state constitution isn`t allowed
when nonwhites don`t win.



Q. What was the crime of the majority of Michigan voters
that required this drastic judicial intervention?



A. Being a majority
!


In the majority opinion issued last Friday,

Judge R. Guy Cole
, who is black,

opined
that this exercise in majority rule by citizens
in favor of equal protection of the laws
“unconstitutionally alters
Michigan
`s political structure by
impermissibly burdening racial minorities”
!

(By the
way, despite all the talk about how privileged white males
are, none of the three judges on the panel was a white male.
The other two judges are white females. Come to think of it,
the
President
isn`t a white male either.)


The two judges in the majority of the panel did not follow
the most relevant precedent. In

1997
,
the liberal Ninth Circuit upheld w:st="on">California`s nearly
identical
Proposition 209
initiative, which was chaired

by Connerly
and authored by

Glynn Custred
and Thomas Wood.

So what was Judge Cole`s rationale for
disenfranchising the 2,141,010
Michigan

citizens who voted for Connerly`s initiative?


You see, because it was so hard for Connerly`s movement to
amend the state`s constitution, that means it would be
equally hard for nonwhites to change it back. And, when it
comes to something as sacred as protecting

Affirmative Action,
we simply can`t afford luxuries like
equal protection of the laws. We gotta do what we gotta do
to keep quotas going
.

Can
anyone imagine Judge Cole following his own logic in the
opposite
circumstances? If BAMN had somehow earned 58 percent of w:st="on">Michigan`s voters to go for a hypothetical
initiative changing the state constitution to legalize
racial preferences explicitly, would Cole have ruled that
white males are unconstitutionally burdened by how hard it
is to organize and pass a statewide initiative?


Of course not!

All
that matters is, as Lenin

pointed out,
“Who? Whom?” All races are equal,
but, legally, some are to be

more equal
than others.

This
coalition of BAMN thugs and

legislating judges
—reminiscent of the teaming-up of
ACORN,

James Johnson
, George W. Bush, and

Angelo Mozilo
to destroy

mortgage credit standards
, precipitating the Minority
Mortgage Meltdown and the Diversity Recession—represent what
the late Sam

Francis memorably
called
anarcho-tyranny.”

And Anarcho side got pretty blatant in w:st="on">Michigan. This December
14, 2005
video
shows BAMN was
trying to terrify the Michigan Board of State Canvassers
into keeping Connerly`s MCRI off the 2006 ballot. The clip
ends with BAMN`s chairwoman

Shanta Driver
[Email
her
] congratulating her goon squad on their behavior.



Driver
was one of the winning lawyers on Friday.


Nevertheless, despite BAMN`s attempts at intimidation, the
voters of Michigan
outlawed governmental racial and gender discrimination in
the state by a 58-42 margin. And the Republican Connerly`s
victory was one of the rare bright moments for the GOP on a
day when Democrats

prevailed around the country in an anti-Bush landslide.


Indeed, Connerly`s victory was a defeat for a glamorous
young

Illinois Senator named Barack Obama
, who had recorded a

radio ad
against Connerly`s subversive initiative

for equal protection of the laws.

But,
needless to say, the Bush-McCain GOP

failed to follow up this opening.
And Republicans paid
the price in 2008, when Obama,
running on
a bogus image as a “racial transcender”
that
implied to some naïve white people that he would work for an
end to the era of Affirmative Action, coasted to the White
House.

Connerly`s triumphant 2006 campaign was
managed by Jennifer Gratz. She was already in the history
books as the pyrrhic victor in the Supreme Court`s

inane
2003 Gratz
and Grutter decisions.

In a 5-4 vote, Sandra Day O`Connor

wrote a concurrence in
Gratz
for the liberal majority chastising the
University of Michigan for using a simple point system in
its racial quotas, which kept Gratz out as an undergraduate.
But, crucially, O`Connor

upheld
the University of Michigan Law School`s fuzzy
“holistic” admissions process, which had (equally unfairly) denied a
place to plaintiff Barbara Grutter.

However, as I

predicted
in January 2003, months before O`Connor wrote
her mindless opinion, she was just following the lead of the
Bush Administration. To quote me:


“Bush`s speech was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to Justice Sandra
Day O`Connor to play Lewis Powell`s role in Bakke:
craft a seeming compromise that will throw a rhetorical bone
to anti-quota voters deliver red meat to the
racial
preference industry
. The Diversitycrats will be allowed
to carry on – just in a
more
surreptitious manner
that won`t be as

obvious
to their victims.”
.

The back story here: the Administration`s
Solicitor General, Ted Olson, had crafted a strong argument
against racial quotas, overt or covert. But Bush`s long-time
retainer

Alberto Gonzales
persuaded his boss to let him
emasculate Olson`s briefs.

Why would Gonzales be in favor of
de facto quotas that give special benefits to Spanish-surnamed
people? It is a

puzzlement

Powell`s
Bakke opinion was
read by admissions departments as mandating that they stop
using the word
“quotas”
and start using the word
“goals”, but
otherwise continue business as usual. O`Connor`s Grutter
decision meant that public universities couldn`t use simple
point systems to discriminate against white and Asian
applicants—they had to use more opaque methods, which would
make it too confusing for any outsider to figure out what
they were up to.

This
endorsement of “holistic” admissions has encouraged the proliferation of
Me
Essays
on college applications. Nonwhites are
encouraged to make clear to the admissions staff just how

Racially Correct they are.

You might think that the Connerly-Gratz
victory in w:st="on">Michigan, especially in
an otherwise disastrous year for Republicans, would have
sent a message to the floundering Bush Administration.
Instead, in 2007, Gonzales, now
“the first Hispanic
Attorney General”
, sued the Fire Department of New
York—the same department that sacrificed
343
men on 9/11—for racial

discrimination
.

The
only
evidence Gonzales presented was that blacks and
Latinos did worse on the department`s hiring test, an
objective, blind-graded exam of the ability to absorb
obviously work-related knowledge, such as chain saw safety
manuals. But this evidence of
“disparate impact”
was enough to persuade Judge

Nicholas G. Garaufis
, a

Clinton appointee
, to throw out the test and order the
FDNY to hire largely at random. (And

Garaufis
issued his
Vulcan Society
opinion after the
Supreme Court`s Ricci
decision castigating w:st="on">New Haven for
discriminating against white firemen.)

As you may have noticed, Justice
O`Connor`s call for
“holistic”
admissions putting a thumb on the scale for
the “diverse”
obviously creates disparate treatment by race. So, why is
tenuous disparate impact discrimination on the FDNY bad, but
direct disparate treatment discrimination at the
University

of Michigan

good?

Don`t be
silly! The purpose
of discrimination law is to legalize discrimination against
“the majority”
.

But, as I asked last week, aren`t we all
supposed to be celebrating the fact that there will
eventually be no more majority in w:st="on">America?
There are already no majorities in numerous states.

This
paradox has got me to wondering: what euphemism for legally
disprivileged whites will become fashionable in judicial
opinions as whites lose majority status? For some reason,
judges don`t seem to like referring to the losers from
racial preferences as
"white"
. Maybe they`ll start calling whites
"the

legacy
majority"
!

The
good news: the newly-elected Republican attorney general in
Michigan
,
Bill
Scheutte
, is showing some spine. He immediately

announced
he would appeal to the entire Sixth Circuit,
and that preferences will continue to be banned while the
appeal is ongoing. Scheutte said:

“MCRI
embodies the fundamental premise of what w:st="on">America is all about: equal
opportunity under the law. … Entrance to our great
universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue
the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law.”  

Wow!
The voters elected w:st="on">Michigan`s attorney
general. And, unlike Bush`s attorney general, he`s now
returning the favor by standing up for the majority`s
interests.


This fundamental concept of representative democracy doesn`t
seem so hard to grasp. But Republican politicians are
typically terrified of doing anything for their own
supporters,
lest they be tarred as “racist”.

Still, it behooves the Republicans to find
some issues to run on in 2012 that are broadly appealing to
the majority of voters—such as, say,
not legalizing
discriminating against the majority of voters
.

And BAMN`s court triumph can also be
useful to Republicans in reminding voters of the importance
of the President`s power to appoint judges. By the end of a
second Obama term in early 2017, the five
Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court who voted
for
Frank Ricci
will be, on average,

72 years old
—if they all live that long. If just one of
them drops dead, Democratic-appointed justices will be a
majority.

I realize that high-priced Republican
superstrategists like

Karl Rove
and whatever-his-name-was who ran John
McCain`s campaign into the ground in 2008 have been saying
for years that the surefire way to garner a majority at the
polls is to sacrifice the interests of the majority to
minorities.

But that
didn`t work.

Maybe
it`s time to try my wacky idea that the way to win the
majority of voters is
to be on the side of the majority of voters
—what
VDARE.com insists on calling


“The Sailer Strategy”.

It`s so
crazy it might just succeed!

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.

His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog. His new book,

AMERICA`S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA`S
"STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is
available


here
.]