Our renowned Vice President - who has become the cornerstone of Joe Biden's job security package - may one day earn a Michelin star for her stupendous word salads.
“The final and most fatal flaw in the Left's 'equity' gambit lies in the criteria they set forth. It's always about certain identity markers - some obvious and immutable like skin color, ethnicity, and gender, others declared like sexual orientation and, ironically, gender. You won't see sorting based on intelligence or physical abilities, by the way. Nor will you see sorting by circumstances when those circumstances don't align with identity politics.
When understood for what it is, "equity" is not only incompatible with the bedrock principles of a free society, it's fundamentally immoral. It's a con job peddled by people who make money and build careers by dividing us, by subordinating the individual to their carefully curated groups, and by sowing discontent and envy in order to keep us from noticing just how bad they are at running the nation.“
The Supreme Court has barely yet steadfastly maintained some rationale in some circumstances (like higher ed) for "affirmative action" - not that I agree with it, but there is court precedence. And even in those exceptional, narrowly-defined circumstances, the Court has insisted on there being some proven "social benefit" to what is in fact, discrimination against the abled, the above average applicant. The Court has, however, taken a hard pass on "equity" (when defined precisely as the VP uses the term), but most especially when applied against immutable characteristics like race and gender. For this then becomes not just "equality of opportunity" but blatant reverse discrimination. "Equity" is not even a fig-leaf for a "level playing field", but a hard "taking" and in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats can keep putting new terms on the euphemism treadmill all they want, but the fundamental concept is illegal and has been deemed so by the Courts (see McDonald, 1976).
Expect the next "pack the Court!" firestorm next year, when the ruling on Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College gets handed down.
I expect it sooner when a federal judge somewhere puts the Student Loan Bailout on hold. I'm not entirely sure why all elected elected members of Congress don't have "standing" in this issue - when their Article I, Section 7 powers are abrogated by the Executive. My reading on the issue, however, suggests really *nobody* has standing to oppose this act. Really? So there's an Executive action (and a very significant one at that) for which *nobody* has standing to challenge? I find that hard to believe.
Paul Decker made the point that there's precedent for just about anything if someone digs enough, and I hope that a - someone does indeed get creative enough to write a case that can convince a judge to grant standing, and for the Court to take it up.
The alternative is too horrifying to contemplate. It'll be as I wrote - a government that does whatever it wants.
“The final and most fatal flaw in the Left's 'equity' gambit lies in the criteria they set forth. It's always about certain identity markers - some obvious and immutable like skin color, ethnicity, and gender, others declared like sexual orientation and, ironically, gender. You won't see sorting based on intelligence or physical abilities, by the way. Nor will you see sorting by circumstances when those circumstances don't align with identity politics.
When understood for what it is, "equity" is not only incompatible with the bedrock principles of a free society, it's fundamentally immoral. It's a con job peddled by people who make money and build careers by dividing us, by subordinating the individual to their carefully curated groups, and by sowing discontent and envy in order to keep us from noticing just how bad they are at running the nation.“
The Supreme Court has barely yet steadfastly maintained some rationale in some circumstances (like higher ed) for "affirmative action" - not that I agree with it, but there is court precedence. And even in those exceptional, narrowly-defined circumstances, the Court has insisted on there being some proven "social benefit" to what is in fact, discrimination against the abled, the above average applicant. The Court has, however, taken a hard pass on "equity" (when defined precisely as the VP uses the term), but most especially when applied against immutable characteristics like race and gender. For this then becomes not just "equality of opportunity" but blatant reverse discrimination. "Equity" is not even a fig-leaf for a "level playing field", but a hard "taking" and in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats can keep putting new terms on the euphemism treadmill all they want, but the fundamental concept is illegal and has been deemed so by the Courts (see McDonald, 1976).
Expect the next "pack the Court!" firestorm next year, when the ruling on Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College gets handed down.
I expect it sooner when a federal judge somewhere puts the Student Loan Bailout on hold. I'm not entirely sure why all elected elected members of Congress don't have "standing" in this issue - when their Article I, Section 7 powers are abrogated by the Executive. My reading on the issue, however, suggests really *nobody* has standing to oppose this act. Really? So there's an Executive action (and a very significant one at that) for which *nobody* has standing to challenge? I find that hard to believe.
Paul Decker made the point that there's precedent for just about anything if someone digs enough, and I hope that a - someone does indeed get creative enough to write a case that can convince a judge to grant standing, and for the Court to take it up.
The alternative is too horrifying to contemplate. It'll be as I wrote - a government that does whatever it wants.