By Daily Wire. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court, dissented in strident terms from Thursday’s decision striking down racial preferences in college admissions decisions.

(The full decision, and the concurring opinions and the dissents, may be found here.)

. . .In his own concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas took on Justice Jackson’s dissent. While agreeing that our society is not, and has never been, colorblind,” he said the Constitution itself was, in fact, colorblind.

He argued:

JUSTICE JACKSON would replace the second Founders’ vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, on her view, almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race. …

This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. … Worse still, JUSTICE JACKSON uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.

(Read more from “Justice Jackson’s Dissent: ‘Our Country Has Never Been Colorblind’” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices of Power Grab in Affirmative Action Opinion

By Daily Wire. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a scathing response to the liberal justices in Thursday’s Affirmative Action decision, accusing them of burying a power grab in the dissents penned by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring.

Roberts addressed the dissent on page 46 of his opinion, saying that the Justices had divorced the case from the context in a concerted effort to make the Court the arbiter of which race[s] were entitled to preferential treatment.

“The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like. The serious reservations that Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher had about racial preferences go unrecognized,” Roberts began. “The unambiguous requirements of the Equal Protection Clause — ‘the most rigid,’ ‘searching’ scrutiny it entails — go without note.”

“And the repeated demands that race-based admissions programs must end go overlooked — contorted, worse still, into a demand that such programs never stop,” Roberts continued. “Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is ‘inherently unequal,’ said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.” (Read more from “Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices of Power Grab in Affirmative Action Opinion” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.