Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 27, 2003 / 27 Sivan, 5763

Joel Mowbray

Joel Mobray
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

O'Connor flips — again | A Supreme Court justice some years ago wrote this stirring rebuke of racial preferences: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs." That was Sandra Day O'Connor, but in 1989. What a difference 14 years can make.

In a spate of news stories, O'Connor's opinion in the Michigan racial preferences case was pegged as reflecting the views of Americans, most notably in the Washington Post. The paper claimed that "the court came down roughly in line with public opinion," by rejecting outright preferences and quotas, but supporting the nebulous goal of "diversity."

Americans do, in fact, support "affirmative action," but they support the bumper sticker catchphrase so long as no one gets preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity. But that's not the principle the court upheld in its decision Monday.

O'Connor, after having found racial preferences and quotas to be unconstitutional in four previous cases, suddenly decided with the Michigan case that now the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what she used to believe that it meant. Though she helped strike down the undergraduate admissions program - which used a crude 150-point scale, where 20 points were given for being the "right" race - she was the swing vote in upholding the law school's program.

Although reporters praised O'Connor for her keen "nuance," the notorious centrist drew a distinction where there was no real difference. The law school's admissions program was almost identical to the undergraduate one, except it was smart enough not to attach "points" to each minority applicant. O'Connor called it "not mechanical," but all it really amounts to is a more subtle way to implement racial preferences.

Donate to JWR

According to several people familiar with both systems, there was little substantive differences in the results each produced. The law school admissions officers still considered race; they just devised a plan more likely to snooker a court.

Court watchers should not have been shocked that O'Connor would preserve racial preferences after repeatedly deeming them unconstitutional in the past. (Granted, this was the first such case involving college admissions, but the principles are the same as before.) But while O'Connor may be inconsistent in her approach to racial preferences, she is remarkably consistent with her inconsistency on hot-button issues.

In voting rights cases, O'Connor had sided with a 5-4 majority on a number of cases, striking down racially gerrymandered districts in Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. O'Connor even wrote one of the opinions finding that drawing Congressional district lines for racial reasons was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But a funny thing happened when the North Carolina case came back to the court a third time: O'Connor flipped. The female justice from Arizona signed onto the Steven Breyer-penned 5-4 decision endorsing the still-racially gerrymandered districts.

Nowhere has O'Connor done a greater turnaround than on abortion. In three separate, high-profile cases in the 1980s - the first in 1983 and the last in 1989 - O'Connor essentially upheld the pro-life position. In the first of those cases, abortion supporters were furious at the line in her written opinion that the framework of Roe v. Wade is on a "collision course with itself." But those same activists were downright tickled three years later, when O'Connor did what is by now her trademark: she flipped.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O'Connor ditched her previous pro-life opinions because, in so many words, she felt the public wasn't ready for Roe to be overturned. But, much like the phony distinction she made between Michigan's undergraduate and law school admissions programs, her argument was hollow - at best. Overturning Roe would not have made abortion illegal; it simply would have allowed states to decide the question as they had the power to do before 1973. Thus, if the public wasn't ready for abortion to be tightly regulated or prohibited, state legislatures wouldn't do so. That's democracy.

It's anybody's guess why O'Connor, a former legislator herself, has decided to play politics with the Constitution. Perhaps the best theory comes from the Center for Equal Opportunity's Edward Blum: "She's Goldilocks. One principle is too hot, the other is too cold. Now she's found one that's `just right.'"

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Joel Mowbray is the author of the forthcoming book "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers America's Security". Comment by clicking here.

06/23/03: Many people at State Dept. want to embarrass President
06/18/03: Bush, State Dept. at odds over democracy protests in Iran
06/16/03: Moral equivalence in the Middle East
06/11/03: What's really going on at Saudi mosques
06/09/03: The will to go on
06/04/03: ‘What most Jews don't want to verbalize is that they know, deep down, this is never going to stop’
06/02/03: Expect State Dept. to ignore Bush policy toward Iran
05/29/03: Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'?
05/27/03:'Defense Dept.'s de-Baath efforts run into State's pragmatic view of party
05/21/03: Comments by State Dept. official reflects Foreign Service disdain for Bush and believers
05/14/03: Jesse Jackson's Latest "Outrage" is Outrageous
05/12/03: Saddam's doctor selected by State Department
04/14/03: Why we fight
04/09/03: State Department giving Baghdad to House of Saud?
04/07/03: State Department giving Baghdad to House of Saud?
04/02/03: Martha Burk's State Department adventure
03/31/03: State's bad deeds head to Baghdad
03/26/03: Human shields-turned-hawks
03/24/03: No such thing as a benign despot
03/20/03: Self-fulfilling tyranny
03/14/03: Gadhafi-State Department Alliance
03/12/03: Pushing "peace" pushes war instead
03/10/03: One last chance --- for the UN
03/03/03: Democracy domino theory
02/28/03: $1 Trillion tax cut?
02/12/03: Saudi Slavery in America
02/05/03: "We're Going to War"
02/04/03: State Department's idea of a "traitor"
01/27/03: State's cold shoulder
01/02/03: Canada: The Weakest Link
12/20/02: Real Story of Yemen's Scud Missile Purchase
12/18/02: Lott's got the Senate in the palm of his hand
12/12/02: White House moves closer to finding Iraq in "material breach"
12/10/02: A 9/11 plotter confessed
12/06/02: Saudi Spin doctors dodge U.S. marshals
12/03/02: Wild, Wild Web
12/02/02: Justice, finally, for terrorism victims
11/26/02: Sue McDonalds? I Lost 80 lbs With Fast Food!
11/25/02: The State Department's spin machine
11/22/02: Finally! No more open door for Saudis
11/20/02: A defeat for border security
11/18/02: Trial lawyers vs. homeland security
10/09/02: The visas that shouldn't have been
09/26/02: The "right" Miss America
09/23/02: Tax Cuts, R.I.P.
09/17/02: Freedom denied
09/11/02: Iraqi roulette
09/06/02: O'Reilly the wrong 'Factor' in Saudi abduction case
09/05/02: State's war on Americans
08/09/02: White House wants replace 'Visa Express' genius with woman accused of not helping free kidnapped American kids in Arab lands
07/23/02: Visas for suspected terrorists?
07/03/02: Saudis Fueling Mideast Terrorism
07/02/02: Dick Gephardt, Wannabe Deadbeat Son
06/26/02: Open door for terrorists still open
06/17/02: Open Door for Saudi Terrorists
06/11/02: Sacrificing liberty and safety
05/29/02: Coddling Castro
05/20/02: GOP running from social security reform?
05/09/02: Arab (sky) High Culture
04/24/02: Catholic Church's real challenge
04/17/02: How do you say 'media-bias' in Hebrew?
04/09/02: Sexually Explicit "Abstinence" Education?
04/09/02: A price on the heads of Americans overseas
04/02/02: Bush's New Version of Compartmentalization
03/25/02: Homosexuality a Factor in Sex Abuse by Priests
03/20/02: Government's "Candid Cameras"
03/14/02: Happy Abortionist Appreciation Day
03/07/02: Let dissent ring
03/04/02: Is Ted Kennedy a racist?
02/26/02: The Audacity to Be Black and Conservative

© 2003, Joel Mowbray.