Well, well, well, the Supreme Court is at it again, providing me with plenty of fodder for an article maybe a dozen people will read. But hey, if it keeps me from throwing things at all those political ads on TV or going insane, it’s all well and good–right?
The case currently under discussion is Fisher v. Texas and it is in regards to the affirmative action program which was upheld under an earlier Court decision in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger.
Twenty-two year old Abigail Fisher claims she was discriminated against due to race, and passed over in admissions into the University of Texas for someone who was less qualified and is of another race.
Before I get in to the meat and potatoes of this article, let me make it clear that I do not particularly care for the use of the word ‘race‘ as it applies to people. We are all members of the human race, regardless of our skin color or national origin. To be more accurate, the term ethnic background would be more appropriate. But that’s just me, and if the Supreme Court wants to rule on race, they are going to rule on race, and who am I to stop them?
I have two problems with this particular case, both of which I intend to discuss. The first is the Supreme Court itself, and secondly I would like to address the idea that people, based upon their ethnic background, are entitled to advantages over others.
First, let me address the matter of the Supreme Court. I don’t particularly care that much for the Supreme Court, in fact you might say I despise them. Being that they are the “SUPREME” Court, their say is final, and is to be considered as binding upon all people who inhabit these 50 states. To me, that is an awful amount of power to be granted to one body of men, or one branch of government for that matter.
Secondly, they get to pick and choose which cases they will hear, and which they will ignore. If they feel a particular case is a political landmine, they simply choose not to take it, and the issue is never settled. That is no more evident than those who have provided substantial evidence that the information provided by one Barack Hussein Obama is forged, or fraudulent, and therefore his eligibility to hold the office of President is, quite possibly, a violation of the Natural Born Citizen clause found in Article 2 of the Constitution. Yet the Court refuses to address this issue.
And finally, if the justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to be impartial in their rulings, why is such importance placed upon whether a Democrat or Republican president gets to pick new justices for the court? After all, if they truly are impartial, political party leanings should play absolutely no part in their decision making, right?
It is my belief that, ever since the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, the Court has been guilty of interpreting the law instead of upholding it. In a letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson stated what I believe to be true, that, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please…”
Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, furthermore stated, “Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blowing by each successive political wind.”
My question is this, why is the Supreme Court hearing this case at all? In the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court had already ruled on affirmative action programs in college admissions. If theirs is the final say, then shouldn’t this case be heard and decided by a lower court? Or, is the law, and the interpretation of it, a thing of wax in the hands of the Supreme Court, to be changed as the current political winds dictate?
It is the same question I have whenever anyone brings up the subject of whether the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. If the court has already ruled that the Constitution, and more specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion, how can the Supreme Law of the Land, [i.e. the Constitution] change, requiring the Supreme Court to reverse a previous ruling? Unless of course the Supreme Court is not, in fact, ruling upon the law, but interpreting it based upon the current political climate or the personal beliefs of the individual justices?
I, for one, have had just about enough of the Supreme Court and their ‘interpretation‘ of the law. I have had enough of their rulings which uphold governments authority to infringe upon my rights or impose societies politically correct desires upon me. If there is any real justice in life I hope that the devil has set aside a special place in hell for past and current members of the Supreme Court, where they will have to spend eternity paying for their dereliction of duty.
Now let me take a few moments to discuss the issue to which this case applies, affirmative action. I believe in the underlying principle of affirmative action, that all people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any number of issues that make us different from others, all deserve to be treated as equals. However this whole issue of equality has gotten carried way out of hand.
Let’s face it, we are not all born equal. Allow me to put this into perspective. I work in a fruit packing facility. My job is not that difficult, however it does require a certain amount of physical strength and an ability, to a certain extent, to think. I constantly harp on the fact that some people are not capable of doing the job for which they were hired. You know what I have been told? I have been told that not everyone is superman like me, and that they should not be expected to perform the job at the same level of proficiency as I do.
That is complete and utter bullshit! Listen, there are certain standards by which people are expected to perform, and if they can’t meet the expectations of their employers, then just maybe they are not cut out for that type of work. By their twisted logic, just because I suck at math and sciences, I should still be allowed to work as an astrophysicist or a bioengineer. Hey, just because I couldn’t do the job with any level of proficiency should not get in the way, right?
When we talk about equality it should only mean that each of us have an equal chance to succeed, it should not mean that we are all guaranteed equal success. And it is upon this misinterpretation of equality that many of our government programs have originated. People feel that they are entitled to the same level of success, or affluence, if you will, as those who have worked hard for their success, or possibly have born into families of wealth and prominence. Instead of applying themselves and trying to succeed in life, they are jealous of the success of others and want government to take from the wealthy and give to the less fortunate.
Now I am not a cold-hearted bastard who does not think that there are those who have had bad luck in life and do not need a helping hand. I do, however, think that there is a certain entitlement mentality that has been bred into people that makes them think that they are deserving of certain benefits without having to put forth any effort to obtain them.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
When it comes to affirmative action and college admissions, the applicants ethic background should not even come into consideration. The only thing that a school should base its acceptance upon is the qualifications of the applicant.
Let’s face it, life is not always fair and not all people are equal. Our nation was not built upon the concept that everyone is going to obtain wealth and success–only that we be given the chance to succeed. Or, as Ben Franklin so clearly stated, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
It is not the purpose of the government, or the Supreme Court, to balance the playing field so that we all are truly equal in all things. If it were, I would have petitioned them a long time ago for my share of the wealth.
If people want true equality then they need to move to any of the Socialist Countries in the world were all are equally poor and oppressed. This is America, and we are not a socialist country – at least not yet. We are the land of equal opportunity, but equal opportunity is not the same as equal success. As the old saying goes, you win some you lose some, and I might add that in America, equality only means you be given the chance to try.
October 14, 2012
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at email@example.com.
If you wish to comment, please go to Neal’s blog so that others may partake of your wit and your wisdom as well… http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal