"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Secondly, this is simply a fancy excuse the court is using to overturn the will of the people and legislate from the bench.
Claiming that it should have been done another way so that it would be easier to overturn in the future is judicial activism. If we hold to this argument the parts of the Constitution that ban discrimination against minorities, women etc. will also need to be overturned as it places to high a burden to overturn it on the few who feel minorities and women shouldn’t have the right to vote.
I’m not advocating such positions but I use them to point out the absurdity of the argument/reasoning used in overturning this law.
Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 07-01-11 at 03:26 PM. Reason: misread text
I may be wrong.
Get a clue dude.
We therefore find that the race-conscious admissions policies now barred by
Proposal 2 inure primarily to the benefit of racial minorities and that Proposal 2, insofar
as it prohibits consideration of applicants’ race in admissions decisions, has a “racial