The liberal double standard on race—explicit and unapologetic

The below passage is from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Gratz v. Bollinger. (I’ve placed the legal citations in endnotes so as to make the text easier to follow.)

Our jurisprudence ranks race a “suspect” category, “not because [race] is inevitably an impermissible classification, but because it is one which usually, to our national shame, has been drawn for the purpose of maintaining racial inequality.”[1] But where race is considered “for the purpose of achieving equality,”[2] no automatic proscription is in order. For, as insightfully explained, “[t]he Constitution is both color blind and color conscious. To avoid conflict with the equal protection clause, a classification that denies a benefit, causes harm, or imposes a burden must not be based on race. In that sense, the Constitution is color blind. But the Constitution is color conscious to prevent discrimination being perpetuated and to undo the effects of past discrimination.”[3] Contemporary human rights documents draw just this line; they distinguish between policies of oppression and measures designed to accelerate de facto equality.[4]

  1. Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 931—932 (CA2 1968) (footnote omitted).
  2. Id., at 932,
  3. United States v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed., 372 F.2d 836, 876 (CA5 1966) (Wisdom, J.); see Wechsler, The Nationalization Of Civil Liberties And Civil Rights, Supp. to 12 Tex. Q. 10, 23 (1968) (Brown may be seen as disallowing racial classifications that “impl[y] an invidious assessment” while allowing such classifications when “not invidious in implication” but advanced to “correct inequalities”).
  4. See Grutter, post, at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citing the United Nations-initiated Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women).

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 14, 2004 06:14 PM | Send

Just remember: this Marxist judge, nominated by Bill Clinton, was approved by Republicans in the US Senate. By contrast, look at what’s happened with Bush 43’s nominations to the federal bench.

I still remember the 2000 election, when all of the grunts in the Republican army were told over and over again how important it was to elect GWB - because he could make an impact on the federal judiciary. It should be quite obvious by now who fights for their judicial agenda and who just talks while doing nothing.

Posted by: Carl on June 14, 2004 7:15 PM

“Bravo!” to Carl for again expressing my thoughts, exactly. For those conservatives who continue to say they’re going to vote for Bush in spite of his huge lurch to the left in so many areas (amnesty for illegals, The Farm Bill, The Drug Bill (Medicaire) and refusing to allow Justice (Ashcroft & Co.) to pursue the Clintons after they left office, I can only say “Go right ahead”.

Posted by: David Levin on June 14, 2004 10:47 PM

How appalling that Ginsburg cites “Contemporary human rights documents” in support of her argument. Such documents have no bearing on the case at hand. Her only sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution.

Ginsburg divines a distinction between invidious racial classifications and beneficent racial classifications. The Constitution makes no such distinctions. For that she must invoke her hallowed “human rights” documents, documents authored by UN conventions. And we only need remember that, in the surreal world of the United Nations, such nations as Cuba and Libya have a seat on the “human rights” commission, while the United States was voted off.

Posted by: Scott in PA on June 15, 2004 7:34 AM

What makes Justice Ginsburg a “Marxist?” Has she advocated the overthrow of the current government to be replaced with a tyranny of the proletariat? Can someone give a citation to this?

Posted by: matt on June 15, 2004 8:20 AM

Ginsburg follows the classic Marxist model for the dissent posted above. In this model, blacks are the oppressed übermenschen and (non-enlightened) whites are the oppressor-untermenschen who must be destroyed to achieve the free and equal utopia. That’s why state-sponsored racial discrimination against whites is not only permissible, but an absolute necessity. The 14th amendment’s equal protection clause is therefore deemed subsidiary to Ginsburg’s tpyically Marxist notion of “justice” - which is reflected in the International documents cited in her opinion. O’Connnor likewise deemed equal protection subsidiary to a “compelling state interest” - “diversity” - in the Grutter decision issued the same day as Gratz.

This opinion alone would justify her impeachment and removal on the gounds that she violated her oath of office to uphold the constitution. There are at least two other Supreme Court justices who have similarly made a mockery of their offical oath by stating their preference for the legal documents of other nations and globalist organizations over the constitution. This is basically a form of treason.

Not to worry, matt, GWB and the Republicans will do absolutely nothing to purge Ginsburg and her ilk from the federal bench, despite occaisional talk about reforming the judiciary.

Posted by: Carl on June 15, 2004 12:44 PM

The oppressor/untermensch - oppressed/übermensch model was, of course, first postulated by Hegel who pre-dated Marx by a generation or two as I recall. Marx applied the model to the “proletariat” - and his followers here in the US (realizing that the working class was fairly conservative) applied it to blacks, other minorities, women, gays, etc.

Posted by: Carl on June 15, 2004 12:53 PM

Excellent observations by Carl. The original American idea, as expressed by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and copied by nearly all of the original state constitutions was equality of freedom and independence. (Only Massachusetts deviated with her “all men are born free and equal” clause.)

Put simply — “Equality of freedom is Americanism; equality of men is Marxism.”

Justice Ginsburg merely continued the line of Justice Blackmun in the 1978 case of Regents v. Bakke:

“I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful… . In order to get beyond racism, we must first take acount of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Replace “differently” with “separately” and it becomes clear. What this shows is that the whole stated intent behind desegregation, (and later engineered integration,) was a complete hoax. Minorities were never going to be content with merely being treated “equally.”

And with regard to the reliance on extra-constitutional ‘authority,’ let’s remember how this whole mess started. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. Read the infamous Footnote #11. The Court rewrote a century of constitutional law, setting aside the Constitution and substituting the sociological writings of deranged equalitarians, (mostly Marxists at that.)

And these weren’t even _legal_ writings! Warren and Frankfurter substituted Myrdal and Clark for Franklin, Morris, Wilson, Madison and Marshall!

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on June 15, 2004 9:00 PM

Speaking of racial double standards, look at what happened when Bolivia’s contestant to the Miss Universe pageant pointed out that there were white people (like herself) who live there. She mentioned that Bolivia has DIVERSITY, and was promptly denounced as a racist. As usual, some diversities are more equal than others, it would appear.

Thanks to our fellow VFR reader Allan Wall for this most enlightening article.

Posted by: Carl on June 16, 2004 1:03 AM


Good point about “equality of freedom.” The problem of course is that when that was written there was no equality, there was slavery. It took another war for us to get on the right path for that sentiment.

Posted by: matt on June 16, 2004 8:34 AM

If matt (lower case) wants to keep posting here, he’s got to make more intelligent statements than this. Joel was speaking about the fundamental principles of the American polity at the time of the Founding. Black slaves were, very simply, not a part of that polity. Later they were included. It is the height of mediocrity to respond to any general statement about the principles of the American Founding by chirping, “But what about slavery”?

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 9:05 AM

Didn’t this conversation begin with a discussion on race issues? Didn’t America’s problems with race stem from slavery?

And after all, don’t mediocrities deserve Supreme Court justices also?

Posted by: matt on June 16, 2004 12:17 PM

matt is employing a standard leftist tactic here. By mentioning slavery, which was a worldwide practice in 1776, he attenpts to de-legitimize the constitution prior to 1868. If we accept that argument, he can then point out that women were denied the franchise until 1920, and so on. Thus the constitution becomes a “living document” and is interpreted in light of its “penumbras and emanations.” Sorry, matt, I’m not buying that cup of Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Carl on June 16, 2004 1:12 PM

I suspect Untermatt (as opposed to Übermatt, our literate contributor with the same name) warmly embraces the nonestablishment clause of the First Amendment. But that was written by slaveholders. So that idea is besmirched by their behavior as well. (As is the press freedom clause, though I’m not so sure Mattlet embraces that quite as warmly, if he’s like others of his kind.)

So our attending the Church of our choice is just another way of oppressing Negroes. Touché, Mattkin!

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on June 16, 2004 1:40 PM

We might call this standard leftist tactic “the back of the bus syndrome.” The way it works is, whenever any reference is made to anything in the past as presumptively better than something in the present, even if the subject at hand has nothing to do with race, the leftist will immediately say, “Yeah, and blacks sat in the back of the bus then, too!” The effect is to make it impossible to make any positive reference to the past, or, indeed, to have any positive relationship with the past at all. Which, of course, is key to the left-liberal project of destroying our civilization.

And as will all leftist tactics, there is a double standard. When a liberal or leftist wants to make some positive reference to the past in order to criticize some aspect of the present that _he_ doesn’t like, no one ever uses the “back of the bus” syndrome on him. Meanwhile, the conservatives, the perennial stupidheads of modern politics, never catch on to this.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 1:46 PM

Regarding Mr. Auster’s post on “the back of the bus syndrome,” liberals and leftists do sometimes make favorable references to the past. They sometimes mention the Golden Days of the New Deal and New Frontier. People “cared” and were “idealistic” in those glorious days, they will say.

They especially talked like this during the 1980’s, “Decade of Greed,” as they called it. The “conservative stupidheads” neglect to point out that yuppie leftists are the most materialistic people you will ever see.

Posted by: David on June 16, 2004 1:59 PM

I missed Caesar’s comment of 1:40. He perfectly makes my point. Liberals freely appeal to the past, for example the Bill of Rights, when THEY want to do so; but when a conservative appeals to the past, he’ll suddenly hear shrieked in his ear, “The men who wrote that were slave holders!”

Once again, has anyone EVER seen a conservative in a mainstream forum use the liberals’ argument back at them? No, because mainstream conservatives never grasp the whole drift of liberalism. They think liberalism is a rational position being debated, like their own. They don’t understand that liberalism is at war with them and our whole civilization, and that the double standard is a principal weapon by which it wages that war.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 2:00 PM

And short of throwing the liberals’ double standard back in their teeth, I have never even seen a conservative in a mainstream forum do simply what I did in my post of 1:46 p.m., i.e., identify the nature of the liberals’ “Yeah, and blacks were at the back of the bus back then” ploy. I’ve never seen a conservative say to a liberal who had used that ploy: “Are you saying that we can’t make any positive reference to anything in America prior to 1964?” If the conservatives simply called the liberals out on what they were doing, the liberals would be forced to retreat and couldn’t go on using the ploy, since of course they themselves want to make various positive references to historical America when it suits their purposes. But because the dear conservative stupidheads fail to understand or identify what the liberals are up to, the liberals remain free to keep doing it.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 2:11 PM

A parallel leftist tactic is to filter references to the enlightened Europeans. Thus, we are told that no other industrialized Western nation besides the USA has capital punishment, or fails to have a national health care program, or whichever axe the leftists wish to grind at the moment. At this point, we are suppsoed to be ashamed of our backwardness as opposed to those sophisticated Europeans.

Why do you suppose the leftists don’t mention that no other industrialized country taxes corporate profits at a rate as high as the USA? Even socialist countries on the continent don’t want to drive corporations out. Nor do the British commonwealth countries. The maximum corporate tax rate in Ireland is 15%, which is less than half the top American rate. Also, the USA is the only country to tax capital gains as ordinary income AND not index gains to inflation. One form of investor protection or the other is present in every other “sophisticated” country, even the most socialist ones.

Why is it we are not supposed to be learning from those enlightened Europeans on issues such as these?

Posted by: Clark Coleman on June 16, 2004 3:00 PM

My own observations of Justice Ginzburg suggest that she is not a Marxist, nor primarily concerned with “racial justice” (aka racial injustice) but a feminazi.
Mr. Auster’s observation of the vicious “back of the bus” tactic is dead on target. In my experience, and that of other people I know, this is one of their favorite, nastiest, and, I am sorry to say, most effective little tricks.

Posted by: Alan Levine on June 16, 2004 3:04 PM

And I’m saying that the nasty trick would instantly cease being effective if conservatives had the simple logic and presence of mind to shoot right back: “Are you saying that we can’t make any positive references to anything in America prior to 1964?”

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 3:08 PM

A minor point on which I would differ with Mr. Auster and Carl. It seems to me that it is inexact to say that black slaves were not a part of the polity during the Founding period. Under the constitution they were counted for purposes of apportionment (after considerable argument) while slavery was rapidly being ended in the North. Moreover, free blacks were allowed to vote, at least in some places in the North. The only generalization one can make is that some of the Founders opposed slavery, others did not, and that the Revolutionary war and the making of the Constitution took place DURING the period in which slavery in the Western world was being delegitimized ….long before it was delegitimized anywhere else, of course.

Posted by: Alan Levine on June 16, 2004 3:11 PM

I am, unfortunately, not sure that Mr.Auster’s suggested response would work as well as he thinks, as many liberals and leftists would answer “YES!” For one thing, many of them are just that alienated from Western and American tradition. For another, many of them are not as attached to the memory of the New Deal, much less the Great Society, as he supposes. I have encountered a remarkable amount of hostility to FDR, on various grounds, among liberals and leftists over the last ten to twenty years, often on grounds that we would find comic or insane. Other liberals are simply no longer capable intellectually of recognizing inconsistencies and hypocrisy on their part, and will praise some “leftist” glories in the past anyway.

Posted by: Alan Levine on June 16, 2004 3:16 PM

The fact that three quarters of the black slave population was enumerated for representational and electoral purposes has nothing to with the blacks’ political status in America. The slaves had no political status in America. They were not members of the body politic, period. That did not mean that they did not come under various laws and rules. For example, a slave couldn’t simply be killed. A tourist or a resident alien also comes under various laws, yet he is not a member of the body politic.

The blacks’ status was something like that of the am ha’aretz, the people of the land, in ancient Israel, that is, people who lived in the country, but were not considered a part of it.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 3:18 PM

In reply to Mr. Levine’s of 3:16 p.m., even if the liberals proudly answered, “YES!”, that would still shift the debate back at them and expose where they’re coming from. They would then have to defend the proposition that nothing in America prior to 1964, including the Bill of Rights and the supposed separation of church and state, can be referred to as a standard for us today. Their anti-Americanism would be seen for what it is.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2004 3:23 PM

My comment of 3:16 P.M was not at all intended to suggest that Mr. Auster’s counter to “the back of the bus,”was wrong; it is not, it may be the best counter possible. I am merely saying that one should not underrate the insanity and intellectual shallowness on the other side. As for SLAVES’ political status, he is of course right. They had none. My argument here was at best imprecise. However, that slavery was ceasing to exist in parts of the country or forbidden in the new Northwest Territory. Free black men sometimes did have a political status, in some places. The main point I meant to make is that the position of blacks and attitudes toward, and the existence of slavery, differed from place to place in late eighteenth century America and was in flux.

Posted by: Alan Levine on June 16, 2004 3:31 PM

Mr. Levine’s point is buttressed by the seemingly endless revelations that, say, Orwell thought homosexuality was deviant or that JFK thought communism was bad. The level of ignorance of history required to work for the media which trumpet these “discoveries” is astonishing. I suppose they all majored in “communications.” Still, it would be nice to hear a conservative use Mr. Auster’s retort, or say anything at all other than apologizing and throat-clearing.

Posted by: Agricola on June 16, 2004 3:56 PM

Mr. Levine raises some interesting points regarding black participation, however minor and localized, in the political polity of early America. The fact of that such participation was not categorically forbidden, coupled with the fact that there were free blacks who were allowed to own property - even slaves, shoots a serious hole in the typical leftist picture of unending total oppression.

Mr. Auster’s idea of pulling off the mask is a good one that conservatives need to make use of. I think that the fundamental nature of leftism needs to be understood in order for this to be possible, though.

Posted by: Carl on June 16, 2004 4:04 PM

Carl’s post reminded me that I might have added the point that the treatment of slaves in the South is generally held to have greatly improved after the Revolution and probably got better still in the nineteenth century, partly because of growing humanitarian feelings, partly because they were becoming fiendishly expensive — and it was certainly better in our Southern states than anywhere else in the Americas. Moreover the whole idea that society was divided between “free whites” and “black slaves” is a loose generalization valid only AFTER the American Revolution. Before that, plenty of whites were indentured servants — better off than slaves, of course, but hardly free.

Posted by: Alan Levine on June 16, 2004 5:03 PM

Mr. Cæsar wrote:
“…as opposed to Übermatt, our literate contributor with the same name…”

My thanks to Mr. Cæsar for making the distinction!

I should point out, though, that as a traditional ethnic oppressor I am really the Üntermatt in the story; and the reason Übermatt and his free and equal Überfriends aren’t living their idyllic end-of-history free and equal existence is because of oppressors like me, who are less than fully human and must be eliminated through one means or another. The Übermatt’s failures, shortcomings, and inability to immediately achieve utopia don’t represent any natural limitations or heirarchies, you see; no, the barrier to the unimpeded will of the Übermatt is solely the less-than-human traditional ethnic oppressor Üntermatt.

Posted by: Matt on June 16, 2004 10:19 PM

If ‘64 is a parting of the waters, such that one might expect things to be generally better afterwards, why has there been no great achievement here since then? Or, to be more particular, why has there been no important play ,novel or painting, no musical composition, breakthrough invention or newly-accepted theory of the first rank, since those years? It was said that we were opening the floodgates to an onrush of minority achievement, which had been suppressed by keeping populations separated(publicly or privately). Forty years later, a cultural desert spreads out, where productive fields had bloomed. It is not in spite of the hostile racialization of the culture, but because of it (alongside other causes), that these fields have been salted by the state, seeking equalization. While our government maliciously pursues racial revolution, other countries have moved beyond us; there are many areas where America is no longer first in the world, but forty years ago, there were almost none.

Posted by: John S Bolton on June 17, 2004 12:32 AM

Mr. Bolton’s post of 12:32 gives a splendid summation of the results of government racial policies of the past four decades - total disaster. Because the government and all of the corporatist entities seeking its approval have embraced the Orwellian racial preference agenda, the US has fallen behind in numerous areas. The corporate types - even the Gramscian Bobos - don’t want to lose money continually, so they outsource the jobs to places that don’t have to deal with such pernicious nonsense. I do hope there is a special dark corner of hell reserved for Abe Blumrosen and his ilk.

Posted by: Carl on June 17, 2004 2:03 AM

Lower-case matt resorted to obscene insults and will not be with us anymore.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 17, 2004 3:30 PM

Thanks to Mr. Wall for continuing to help. And exciting is Mr. Auster’s advice to conservatives to turn the tables on liberals by asking why is everything pre-1964 bad only when given an illiberal interpretation. Now to some ranting.

Justice Ginsberg cites an appropriately named Justice of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: Minor Wisdom, an icon of radical integration of the South that led the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans during the 1960’s. We can link his kind of thinking to the 90% of the 1.7 million violent crimes committed by blacks upon whites annually today. (Factoid: prior to 1964, Southern blacks did not dare commit a violent crime against a white.) I suppose she thinks like the enemies of Israel and the U.S. in our wars against Islamic terrorism—its basically our fault that we want our own cultures so we deserve whatever we get.

Conclusory assertions are not unusual in revered “high” court opinions. One conclusion is racial classification is morally wrong because its purpose it to maintain racial inequality. Why? I suppose one could also propose that the body’s classification of molecules is wrong because its purpose is to maintain a physical inequality such as race. Yet she, a supposed judge, is assuming facts not in evidence: it is immoral to take physical differences into account.

Another conclusion is racial classification is shameful. Why? Does it lead, in general, to some shameful result? Racial classifications are evil but not political, religious, national, ethical, and ethnic? If so, why? This member of an inappropriately revered institution does not explain; therefore, her opinion is not authoritative except in the sense of a dictate by King George to the American colonies. Granted the Court takes on more cases than it can handle well, but this is wholly within its control and is therefore no excuse for unjustified conclusions. Yet there is some evidence the Founding Fathers intended to impose a decisive, undemocratic element on the institutional hodgepodge we know as America. Was this an obvious mistake, a mistaken intrepretation by the Court, or an inevitable oversight inherent in the plans of mice and men?

She cites “contemporary human rights documents.” Yea, that is what we need; our contemporary authors of human rights documents coming from places such as the U.N. and the Hague. These are the same empaths that are nonplussed by genocidal, religious, class, and political extermination of black human beings in Africa, genocidal extermination of non-white people such as Vietnam’s Montagnards, class mass-murder in Cambodia, and religious extermination in Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They excoriate any white expression of racial preference but sit on their hands when faced with violent and nonviolent oppression based on nonwhite racial classification and other classifications. Moreover, North Korea and Iran (countries that have proclaimed their intense desire to obtain and to use nuclear weapons against its imaginary enemies) are ignored. Yet these august institutions spend their energy agreeing about how terrible the U.S. goes about protecting itself against Islamic terrorism and ignoring how she compassionately refrains from threatening to use its righteous and God-like tactical nuclear weapons against the deserving elites of North Korea, Iran, and black Africa.

She prefers de facto equality to de jure equality. What does this mean? She prefers we stop consensual sexual reproduction and begin cloning or some other form of sexual engineering? And then what? Clones won’t engage in road rage?

Posted by: P Murgos on June 18, 2004 8:56 AM

Your point about the increase of interracial violence over the last forty years would be good to have some numbers on. A new study by Prof. J Shepherd at Clemson, has found that for every 1% increase in (racial) diversity, the interracial murder rate goes up 3%. Yet extraordinary proportions of officials and scholars say that diversity is valuable, and that more diversity of this kind would be better. If they believe this, and Shepherd’s conclusions are right, would this mean that, in valuing diversity, they are valuing interracial violence, even as if it were an end-in-itself? If this is true, what damnation is upon them, who value diversity in this way? ….. searchable as “general trends in crime rates, diversity and segregation…… If the current levels of interracial violent crime are over one million a year, this sounds as though it would be on the order of 100x the level of pre-64….

Posted by: John S Bolton on June 20, 2004 2:44 AM

Mr. Bolton, leftists (the ones advocating diversity most loudly) routinely lie and cover up the issue of interracial violent crime - particularly murder and rape. This is especially true of black on white murders (which frequently include gruesome acts of sexual degradation of the victims) in the US. It’s also true of Mexican on white murders (the Nebraska Mexican-style bank robbery in Sept. ‘02 which left 4 whites and 1 asian dead).

Just try a seach on the “Wichita Massacre” sometime. This was a horrendous, racially motived rape-murder of four whites which was essentially buried by “mainstream” (leftist) news media. The officials, of course, explained the motive as simply being robbery - always a good motivation for tortuing victims for several hours who handed over all their money and valuables before shooting them in the back of the head. Some conservative sites picked up the story (including Horowitz’s FrontpageMag) - but that was it basically it. Compare this to the ceaseless 18-month coverage of the James Byrd murder in Jasper, Texas.

Leftists view black and other minority criminals as foot soldiers in the dirty war that must be waged to rid the world of the evil, irredeemable white oppressors - though few have the honesty to admit this. That’s also why Hispanics are listed as “white” when the FBI counts up perpetrators while they’re broken out into their own category when listing victims.

Posted by: Carl on June 20, 2004 3:23 AM

We are, for the most part, not allowed to talk about this publicly, but the government is clearly trying to set the races and ethnic groups into violent conflict. Most of all, one is given discouragement from telling the immigrants that they are to be used as the cannon fodder, or victims, of a racial-ethnic war. That the government is not really on their side, but only for the aggrandizement of its power by whatever means seem practicable. They have all but forgotten about the class war, that was supposed to be their passport to power. We’re not supposed to mention that the minorities, every one of them, are to be sacrificed and partitioned off, once the officials get the dictatorship that they want. Then we have conservatives, speaking of assimilation, almost as if they didn’t believe that anything had any identity; what could be more irrelevant, if the above is true?

Posted by: John S Bolton on June 20, 2004 9:34 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):