Rich Lowry: Sonia Sotomayor through the looking glass

  • By Rich Lowry
  • Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:18pm
  • Opinion

All you really need to know about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in this week’s affirmative-action case is that Attorney General Eric Holder praised it as “courageous.”

There’s a strong presumption that whatever meets Holder’s approval will be insipid or politically stilted or both, and Sotomayor’s opinion doesn’t disappoint on either count.

In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s prohibition on racial discrimination in college admissions, adopted as an amendment to the state’s constitution by voter initiative in 2006. It is this anti-discrimination measure that Sotomayor endeavors, in a dissent joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to deem discriminatory and unconstitutional.

She tackles this difficult and dubious task with gusto, even promoting a new euphemism: “race-sensitive admissions policies.” If Sotomayor’s phrase were applied more broadly, we would rewrite the history of Jim Crow to refer to “race-sensitive” water fountains and lunch counters.

Sotomayor builds her legal case on the “political process” doctrine developed beginning with the Warren Court in the 1960s. The doctrine can forbid voters from restructuring the political process in a way that harms the interests of minorities. Sotomayor leans on two flawed Supreme Court cases that unquestionably give her material to work with; the result is nonetheless a perverse hash of through-the-looking-glass legal reasoning.

According to Sotomayor, Michigan’s amendment changed “the rules in the middle of the game.” This is strange. As Antonin Scalia points out in his concurrence, amending the state constitution has long been part of the rules. Voters have done it 20 times since 1914.

Sotomayor further bizarrely maintains that the constitutional provision “draws a racial distinction.” By this logic, so does any law mandating equal treatment of people no matter what their race or ethnicity. For that matter, so does the 14th Amendment.

The emotional heart of her opinion comes near the end, where she repeats over and over the mantra “race matters.” She notes how a minority can be asked what country he is from, even if his family has been here for generations, and the hurtful effects of other similar “slights,” “snickers” and “silent judgments.”

This passage could be titled “Microaggression comes to the Supreme Court.” Needless to say, such inadvertent offenses can wound people. But what do any of them have to do with college admissions, or the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence?

Sotomayor could have added that “race matters” when you are an Asian-American student who gets rejected from your top school because it discriminates against Asian-Americans to achieve a racial balance considered appropriate by its “race-sensitive” administrators.

For Sotomayor, Asian-Americans are the invisible minority. They are highly inconvenient to her narrative. When California considered putting on the ballot a measure rolling back the state’s ban on affirmative action this year, it was a revolt of Asian-Americans that shelved it.

If she had wanted, she could have included them in her discussion of the history of discrimination in America. In the 19th century, Chinese couldn’t give testimony against whites and were excluded from San Francisco public schools. In the 20th century, California banned marriage between whites and “Mongolians.” Of course, Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II.

This history could extend all the way into the late 20th century and early 21st century, when colleges disadvantaged Asian-Americans to avoid having “too many” of them attend. Then, to add insult to injury, a Supreme Court justice who styles herself the champion of minorities didn’t bother even to mention them in a 58-page opinion about minorities and college admissions.

For Sotomayor, racial preferences are clearly an unalloyed good. She seems blissfully unaware of research showing that they aren’t even necessarily good for the minorities they allegedly benefit. At least she leaves no doubt about her animating vision. It is of a perpetually racialized society with different rules for different groups, blessed by a “race-sensitive” Supreme Court.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

More in Opinion

Dick Maitland, a foley artist, works on the 46th season of “Sesame Street” at Kaufman Astoria Studios in New York, Dec. 15, 2025. (Ariana McLaughlin/The New York Times)
Opinion: Trump’s embarrassing immaturity Republicans won’t acknowledge

Sullivan should be embarrassed by the ignorance and immaturity the president is putting on display for the world to see.

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, speaks in support of debating an omnibus education bill in the Alaska House Chambers on Monday, Feb. 19, 2024 in Juneau, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Choosing our priorities wisely

Rep. Justin Ruffridge reports back from Juneau.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, speaks in support overriding Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 69 at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau, Alaska, on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: As session nears end, pace picks up in Juneau

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Commissioner Deena Bishop and Gov. Mike Dunleavy discuss his veto of an education bill during a press conference March 15, 2024, at the Alaska State Capitol. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Strong policy, proven results

Why policy and funding go hand in hand.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski speaks on a range of subjects during an interview with the Juneau Empire in May 2019. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The Jones Act — crass protectionism, but for whom?

Alaska is dependent on the few U.S.-built ships carrying supplies from Washington state to Alaska.

Cook Inlet can be seen at low tide from North Kenai Beach on June 15, 2022, in Kenai, Alaska. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Solving the Cook Inlet gas crisis

While importing LNG is necessary in the short term, the Kenai Peninsula is in dire need of a stable long-term solution.

Sockeye salmon caught in a set gillnet are dragged up onto the beach at a test site for selective harvest setnet gear in Kenai, Alaska, on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Creating opportunities with better fishery management

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

The ranked choice outcome for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race is shown during an Alaska Public Media broadcast on Nov. 24, 2022. (Alaska Division of Elections)
Opinion: Alaska should keep ranked choice voting, but let’s make it easier

RCV has given Alaskans a better way to express their preferences.

The Alaska State Capitol on March 1. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Keep Alaska open for business

Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that laws passed at the ballot box work effectively on the ground.

Most Read