Supreme Court may end affirmative action

After a lengthy hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court may be on the brink of ruling against affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions, “ a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional,” filed lawsuits against two universities including Harvard, alleging that the school’s employment of affirmative action is “discriminatory.”

“A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university,” argues the group. Their lawsuit points out that “Harvard is using racial classifications to engage in the same brand of invidious discrimination against Asian Americans that it formerly used to limit the number of Jewish students in its student body. Statistical evidence reveals that Harvard uses “holistic” admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to compete against each other for admission. There is nothing high-minded about this campaign of invidious discrimination.”

Despite the fact that affirmative action makes college admittance harder for some minority groups, it is a hallmark of liberal political philosophy. And now that the Supreme Court might rule against it, the media is in a frenzy.

“Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones,” a panicked New York Times reported.

“A ruling against the universities would be further evidence of the court’s rightward lurch after President Donald J. Trump’s appointment of three justices, and it could raise fresh questions about whether the court’s approach to precedent threatens the stability of the law and the court’s own legitimacy,” the newspaper continued.

Interestingly, the media did not question the Supreme Court’s legitimacy when it redefined marriage in 2015. It did not question the Court’s legitimacy when it invented out of thin air a constitutional right to abortion.

SCOTUS is known for making shocking, sweeping decisions. But the media never questioned its legitimacy to do so. That is, until it started making decisions that went against the grain of establishment sentiment. 

Additionally, since the downfall of Roe, the media has had a lot to say about the court not respecting precedent. Many have argued SCOTUS should not rule against race-conscious admissions because it would “overturn almost 50 years of precedent.”

While it is true that justices historically stand by stare decisis (the doctrine of respecting prior court decisions) as a general rule of thumb, this can only go so far. No one could argue that overturning precedent is always a bad thing.

Brown v. Board of Education struck down Plessy v. Ferguson and segregation, for example. Bowers v. Hardwick determined that states could ban consensual homosexual sodomy but was later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.

Few in the media would claim that those cases should not have been reversed, proving that breaking with precedent is sometimes necessary. The political establishment is merely masking its qualms about Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard behind a concern for court precedent and legitimacy.

One thing is clear: our system of governance is out of balance. Contrary to popular opinion, the Founding Fathers intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest, as it was the least representative of the people.

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” Alexander Hamilton wrote [emphasis added].

Over the years, as the Supreme Court has thrust itself into judicial activism, we have strayed from the Founders' vision for the judicial branch. Unfortunately, all three branches of the federal government–not just the judicial–are now dangerous to our political rights, but thanks to the Founders, who inserted Article V into the Constitution as a fail-safe for the American people, we have a solution as big as the problem.

To show your support for an Article V Convention of States, sign the petition below!