Kirkpatrick writes:
[C]onservatives say [Sotomayors'] strong identification with . . . race-based approaches to the law is perhaps the strongest argument against her confirmation, contending that her views put her outside an evolving consensus that such race-conscious public policy is growing obsolete.
. . . [M]any civil rights groups say, Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation could provide an anchor against the current direction of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has led the more conservative bench toward a sweeping re-examination of government reliance on racial classifications, whether in school desegregation plans or landmark voting rights laws. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in 2007, summing up his approach in one of the most memorable lines of his opinions.
(Emphasis supplied.) Who elected Chief Justice Roberts to decide these questions? These are best left to the elected bodies. Indeed, the Constitution demands such an approach. Certainly, an honest advocate of judicial restraint would say so. But extreme conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts are not judicial minimalists or advocates for judicial restraint. They are instead brazen judicial activists, unable to respect the Constitution, the decisions of the elected representatives of the people and instead are intent on dictating policy on these issues. The era of extreme conservative judicial activism, a new era of conservative Lochnerism, is upon us. And its leader is Chief Justice John Roberts, as extreme a judicial activist as has been seen on the Court for some time.
Consider this from Kirkpatrick's article:
Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University Law School, said, “
There is a tendency to say ‘The time has run, things are different, change has happened,’ ” adding, “It is an emerging theme of the Roberts court.”
(Emphasis supplied.) It is for the elected officials in the country to determine "the time has run" to address racism in our society. It is decidedly NOT the province of the Court. Only a brazen judicial activist would decide that it was proper for the Court to dictate policy issues that are clearly and expressly the province of the Congress and other elected bodies.
But the extreme conservatives are demanding judicial activism on the issue:
“[Sotomayor's] nomination and the Ricci case have brought racial quotas back as a national issue," said Mr. Marx of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
May I suggest that if people like Mr. Marx feel this way, that the place to fight that battle is in the Congress. After all, the Riccci case involved a federal law - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After all, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Originalists, textualists and advocates of judicial restraint should be able to understand the plain meaning of that text -- it is up to the Congress, NOT the Court, to determine when "the time has run." Chief Justice Roberts and his cohorts in extreme conservative circles have no respect for the Constitution. They will seek to impose their preferred policies no matter what the plain text of the Constitution says.
Speaking for me only
