The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a state-funded scholarship program that awarded financial aid based on the race of college students. The Democrat-controlled court followed the precedent laid out by the United States Supreme Court in finding that Gov. Tony Evers and the state were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Two of the most liberal justices, however, wrote a concurrence denouncing the bar on the use of race for such scholarships. If Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court as demanded by many party leaders, this concurrence is an example of the likely changes that a packed court will bring in reversing anti-discrimination and other rulings.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty represented the taxpayers in this successful challenge of the Wisconsin Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program. That program administered taxpayer-funded grants of up to $2,500 per academic year to eligible students of Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or certain Southeast Asian backgrounds.
The state paid out roughly half a million dollars in scholarships, now found to be racially discriminatory.
Citing the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court reaffirmed that “The Constitution requires that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.’”
While many have heralded the new bright line against racial discrimination in higher education, two of the most liberal justices, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, lamented the loss of racially discriminatory programs.
In her concurrence, Chief Justice Karofsky captured the sweeping, open-ended rationales used for such programs:
“Why have we not learned from our past? Why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised? Why, instead of wielding the Equal Protection Clause as a sword against racism, do we employ it to shield against the promise of equality for all? The answer appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”
These justices would continue race-based programs indefinitely under the claim that there is a “preference for White Americans” in programs that focus purely on academic achievement or specific non-racial criteria.
The two justices quote from the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that requiring race-neutral rules is just more “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” by a white privileged society. She added, “I fully recognize and acknowledge that I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA and other cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court…However, I also choose to write separately. I do so because I find it impossible to ignore the truths that Justice Jackson identifies.”
Notably, those “truths” from the Jackson dissent have been challenged as containing glaring false claims.
I have previously discussed my disagreements with Jackson and her jurisprudence, including her dissent in the SFFA case. However, this concurrence vividly shows the jurists whom the Democrats could call upon to pack the Supreme Court to reverse decisions like the one in SFFA.
With various Democratic leaders now openly pledging to pack the Court to reverse such decisions, the 2028 election is becoming a referendum on the future of an institution that has proven key to maintaining this Republic for 250 years.
Democratic politicians and pundits have made clear that they need the immediate control of the Supreme Court to carry out an agenda that would be struck down as unconstitutional. That includes reversing core constitutional rulings. The Karofsky concurrence offers a glimpse into our future if we allow the Court to be the object of a political hostile takeover.
Tell me again which party represents the real threat to democracy. Which party would shred the constitution and institutions which place limits on government to preserve liberty , security and prosperity for its citizens. The Democrat Party is being taken over by the DSA. If there are moderate Democrats remaining who actually support our constitutional system, will any rise to denounce the takeover of the party or will they remain silent to ride the socialist wave to power. The latter seems to be the case. We have the freedom to vote away our liberty as did the Venezuelans with Hugo Chavez. The next 2 elections may well decide our fate.
“New Democracy”
How can the judge and other people that espouse this kind of talk not see that if you discriminate against one you will never achieve equality?
If you take this approach to life, everyone has some form of trait that they can claim is an inhibiting factor in their lives and there fore deserve special treatment. The I am the victim characteristic does not sit well with me.
“… If Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court as demanded by many party leaders, this concurrence is an example of the likely changes that a packed court will bring in reversing anti-discrimination and other rulings. …”
If the goal of the Democrats is to overcome “austerity”, then packing the SCOTUS may become effective, but its long-run effects at a macro level can be catastrophic in terms of a litigation explosion. Currently the Court Dockets are already over-booked and Clerk pools under-staffed.
Austerity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
A.I. string: ( Definition: judicial austerity )
Judicial Austerity refers to the reduction of government funding for court systems and legal aid, leading to restricted access to justice. It is characterized by severe cutbacks in public spending that force courts to operate with limited resources.
These measures deeply affect the judicial system’s infrastructure and the public’s ability to navigate the law. The phenomenon can be broken down into three primary subtopics:
1. The Closure of Courts and Operational Cutbacks
When governments seek to lower fiscal deficits, they often target the judiciary for non-essential spending reductions. This results in:
• Physical infrastructure decay: Deferred maintenance on court buildings or the outright shuttering of local courthouses.
• Understaffing: Hiring freezes for judges, clerks, and support staff, leading to massive case backlogs and delayed trials.
• Reduced operating hours: Courts limiting the days or hours they are open to the public to save on electricity and security costs.
2. Cuts to Public Defense and Legal Aid
Judicial austerity heavily limits access to legal representation for low-income individuals. This manifests as:
• Defunding of legal aid: Reductions in or elimination of public funding for civil legal matters like housing (evictions), family disputes, and immigration.
• Overworked public defenders: Publicly funded attorneys for criminal cases are often given unmanageable caseloads, restricting the time they can dedicate to individual defendants.
• Disproportionate impacts: These cuts systematically disadvantage minority communities and low-income populations who cannot afford private counsel.
3. Constitutional and Human Rights Implications
At a macro level, judicial austerity introduces significant legal and civil rights tensions. It can create a constitutional crisis when:
• Violation of fundamental rights: Inadequate funding for courts may violate constitutional mandates to provide a “speedy trial” or meaningful access to the courts.
• Conflicts between branches: The judicial branch often faces tension with the legislative and executive branches, as judges push back against budget cuts that impair their independent constitutional duties.
Re. Commentary:
Discount Justice: Fiscal Austerity and State Courts
By: Kathryn Kuznitsky – Commentary ~ Apr 18, 2017
https://insidesources.com/discount-justice-fiscal-austerity-state-courts/
IMO: The practicality of practice lies in its ability to bridge the gap between knowing and doing. It translates abstract knowledge or theory into reliable, real-world skill. By facilitating repetition, it accelerates skill acquisition, builds competence, and refines execution.
Achieving a colorblind meritocracy is an ideal of conservative morality we should never back down from. We should also admit to ourselves this is not an easy task, and should point out where the remaining difficulties lie.
First and foremost, there’s the ongoing “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” every time a Democrat opens their mouth to declare a racial group “marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised” (to quote Chief Justice Karofsky). What do you think minority children forced to listen to this dribble take away from it? The left is either completely unaware of what it is telegraphing to youth, or worse, sending a message intended to lock in racial stratification for the ages. At least now that soft bigotry is facing organized resistance, with the Supreme Court’s SFFA decision and the President banning DEA policies and funding within the scope of federal power. Yet, the foul messaging continues. Our best strategy is to berate and shame anyone who suggests within earshot of minority children that they are facing obstacles due to their immutable characteristics.
Next, we need to better understand innate self-similarity preference, a universal social instinct now well proven by experiments with infants. We all come into the world with “us vs. them” perceptions and biases that aren’t taught.
They are the leftover behavioral legacy of 200,000 years of survival in tribes. And those social instincts still can be seen in the segregated seating patterns during middle school lunch hour. Nobody is telling kids to prefer the company of similar-looking peers — it’s inborn and instinctual. The good news is that these social instincts can be overcome through post-racial socialization — but that requires all toddlers to spend significant time in mixed race environments where the adults are completely ignoring immutable characteristics — as if they are noise signals.
Helping a child overcome innate self-similarity preference requires teaching impulse control, especially in situations of conflict, high stress, and high-stakes decisionmaking. These are the situations that put meritocracy to the test.
We’ve made great progress toward a post-racial meritocracy, but the next phase won’t be easy. It’s both a matter of quelling leftist narratives that interfere with positive expectations, and learning how to attenuate inborn impulses that get in the way of purely meritocratic decisions — better recognizing hi-stress situations where these impulses are hardest to keep in check.
The answer is once you recognize act. When you see someone be friendly, courteous and kind. Try to engage with them about anything. As an example, I was walking a rescue from the Navajo Nation and came across a young person sitting on a bench that I could not go around. I stopped and asked him not to make any sudden moves. After I passed, I explained that as a puppy his life was filled with survival, fear and self protection in the wild. His look was pleasantly surprised that I would stop and explain.
Anyone can think of the things they should do but acting, engaging are the answer even if it is one person at a time.
I can’t know that I don’t like gay sex unless I try it first.
You are ridiculous. I am reminded of the Cheech and Chong “Chebornek” sketch🤣
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYSBoeTDSoc&list=RDCYSBoeTDSoc&start_radio=1&pp=ygUZY2hlYnVyZWsgY2hlZWNoIGFuZCBjaG9uZ6AHAQ%3D%3D&ra=m
Whenever a Leftist wants to sound profound, she uses the worst “societal”.
If you live in a McMansion and I live in a tent, then we are not equally protected from the elements.
Your belief in equal protection is half-assed.
That’s why we’re moving your lazy butt out of these particular elements to less protection-requiring ones. Buh-bye.
How is it our fault you are not smart enough to get and keep a job and rent an apartment?
People should start asking if Trump should add 5 new SC justices NOW if the Dems think there aren’t enough.
Equality has never meant equality of outcomes. These 2 Justices, like many who espouse the favored groups, still cannot understand the difference. Any society that handicaps its best and brightest is doomed to failure. There was a purpose for integration and programs for those that had been discriminated against. But that has been going on consistently since the post WW 2 era. It’s time to stop.
I have no problems with programs and scholarships for those who are poor economically but they need to be color blind and race blind. The point is to give those students who want to excel the chance to excel irrespective of color or race. We are all better off if all students can achieve their maximum level.
The major problem I see is the abysmal product that comes out of the elementary schools and high schools of the nation. That seems to be the main handicap that almost all students have to deal with, irrespective of color.
“The major problem I see is the abysmal product that comes out of the elementary schools and high schools of the nation. ”
And how do you think that happened? I’ll tell you, your generation did nothing to stop it. You caused this all.
So here is your generation pointing fingers at dems and liberals to deflect blame for your generation’s incompetence and stupidity.
Do you think generational blame is going to solve such a complex problem?
There are isolated pockets all over the US where schools are producing excellence. The winning strategy is to study them, study the family values necessary for student success, and then replicate those wherever missing.
The blame game is a cop out. It’s the mindset of losers with nothing to offer.
You could not be more wrong.
GEB’s generation brought us the Civil Rights movement, desegregation. Had it not been for the like of GEB, the Democrats would of kept segregation.
Whaaa…. his generation? Are you completely bonkers? His generation f-ed up the country, and whether you realize it or not (guessing you’re too dum_b ..) his generation was all democratic policy that gave us the ongoing living nightmares. AND…. GEB admitted to being a dem.
Man, when you open you mouth, in defense of someone’s stupid comment, you embarrass yourself. You baff_oon .
LOL. If you mean that his generation did nothing to stop the teachers’ unions rise to power and the subsequent rise of the useless administrative state in education, you are correct. The Dept of Ed. is so obviously a ruinous device. Kids were better educated on the prairies in one room school houses 120 years ago than in the urban centers and now suburban areas of this country. But hey, you do have an army of teachers that have filled the bars, golf courses, and divorce courts of the nation to the brim over the past 50 years, so we got that going for us.
Teachers and judges are the most over-rated professions in this nation, now – thanks to his generation.
Regardless, it is the parents’ fault, no one else’s, that so many dolts roam this nation and can even rise to become two WI or two US SC Justices.
Why are there ghettos?
Because we allow morons to reproduce.
…and then the useless crotchfruit votes themselves into self-sustaining plantations of suck, or ghettos as you call them.
Why are there democrats…because the mafioso wasn’t hard-core enough.
Life is too short to consider such issues.
Excuse me while I go sit in my jacuzzi.
Just don’t fart when others are in it too. Ya know. those Saturday morning beer farts. Deadly stuff.
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a thorn in the sides of lots of democrats, but his views on racial prejudice is why the liberals despise him.
No Shit Dumb Ass Pussy
Turley is a know-it-all.
@Anonymous
Now I’m certain of your age. There is just one cohort that makes that observation of someone displaying more genuine acumen than they possess. Meanwhile, many on the left just make sh** up and decree people ‘experts’. I don’t blame you for being confused given the milieu you cut your teeth in, but don’t disparage people who are authentic and happen to know more than you. That is 50% percent of said but not named generation’s problem – the inability to learn from others fostered on entitlement and narcissism. You are your own worst enemy. You aren’t taking the rest of us down with you.
Oh oh, more Jimmy word salad.
James,
Well said!
If Turley is a know-it-all, I would question why you are reading and posting on his column? Let it go man!
What color are you? What color are your friends?
The advocacy of ‘I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived’, is the tool Karofsky’s sort use to persuade the community of color that they’ll never be able to rise up by their own recognizance and that dependency on public assistance is obligatory. It re-enforces the sarcasm of Reagan’s ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help. The beneficiaries of such policies are, unfortunately tainted by some, with the stigma of complexion vs competence when considered from afar.. Such is the legacy of affirmative action. The ‘Harris/Jackson Curse”.
Is this you, Officer Krupke? 🧐
“The dems just can’t kick the racism, can they?” Well, if it pays the bills, why not?
When justices like Jill Karofsky use the writings of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as role models for legal decisions, it implies she has declared the intensity of her irrationality and illegality supersede the law. My goodness, even her closest colleagues on SCOTUS regard Jackson as nearly legally inept.
Jackson huh? And yet she’s a SCOTUS judge. You, an anonymous bigot and racist. And liar.
It’s the climate change catastrophe alchemy all over again. Get an idiot to say something, find a bunch of other corrupt (morally and otherwise) losers to quote that one then each other and…tada!…”consensus”.
Nobody is more racist than today’s left. They demand racially-segregated Congressional distircts, race-based college scholarships and admission standards, and race-favored business contracts. The left has always focused on race as a basis for institutional favoritism. Of course, in the 1930s, the German left led by democratic Socialist Hitler favored a different racial group, but the focus on race and racial purity was exactly the same.
Hitler’s party, die NSDAP translated is: National Socialist German Workers’ Party, was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945. Learn history anon.
@Anonymous
No, they were far left, as were/are all socialists. That’s pretty much just incontrovertible, and extreme leftism was being introduced by the progenitors of the modern democrat party at the turn of the LAST century. Indeed, initially back then, pre-holocaust, those people sung the praises of Hitler, at times, quite openly.
You are the one the dark, Anon, sorry.
*in the dak
And I truly am sorry. You all don’t seem to see the metaphorical (for now) gun pointed by you at your own head nor the modern left loading it up.
Someone’s in the dak, and it ain’t anon. LOL!
Leftist huh? So the word “socialist” is unequivocally indicative of a leftist ideology. Be careful, I used the word ideology. You know what that means? Didn’t think so.
Knowing you’re the dumb_st SOB here, I’d have to say you are, as usual, wrong.
Gotta ask, ever read a German history book? Didn’t think.
“No, they were far left, as were/are all socialists.” Really, got proof?
Central authoritarianism is a tenet of leftists. They may tell you it is democracy, like East Germany or Laos, but it is central authoritarianism. The Nazis, the commies, the obammas, and the teachers’ unions are central authoritarians bent on limiting individual freedoms to implement ‘collective goods.’ Funny thing is that they have never ever ever delivered on these collective goods, but morons and losers can’t help but to keep doubling-down because it is easier than actually making something of yourselves and your families. GFY.
James7:27AM- Agree. Hitler was very much a Socialist and through the 1920’s railed against corporate Germany and the rich. He hated communists as many socialists groups did and his thugs fought it out on the streets with the communist thugs. Corporate interests in Germany thought they could control him and so they allied with him and financed much of his ride to power only, like many who rode the tiger, found that they got swallowed by the tiger. Mussolini was also a socialist as was Lenin, Stalin , and Mao. You had to become a socialist before you could ascend to the angelic communist state, or so the thinking went. Strange how they all just ended up killing millions of people in all their systems.
GEB, as usual you’re full of it. You clearly know little to nothing about the rise of the Nazis.
The scientific consensus among historians and political scientists is that Hitler and the Nazi Party are classified as far-right. Some of the many reasons for that:
Racism and Anti-Semitism: One of the central aspects of the Nazi Party’s ideology was the belief in the superiority of the “Aryan” race and intense anti-Semitism. These views align with far-right ideologies.
Ultra-Nationalism: Hitler emphasized nationalism and the superiority of Germany over other nations.
Authoritarianism: Hitler rejected democratic systems and aspired for totalitarian rule.
Anti-communism: Communism was viewed as the primary enemy, and communists were among the first groups to be persecuted by the Nazis.
Militarism and Expansionism: Hitler believed in the expansion of German territories, leading to the annexation of Austria, the Sudetenland, and the invasion of multiple countries. This aggressive militarism is a hallmark of far-right ideologies.
Traditionalism and Anti-Modernism: The Nazis held a romantic view of Germany’s past and sought to return to an idealized version of traditional Germanic values, mostly opposing modernist views.
Suppression of Left-Wing Movements: The Nazis actively suppressed, arrested, and eliminated members of left-wing movements, especially communists and social democrats, viewing them as direct threats to their regime.
Corporatism: While the Nazis used rhetoric about supporting workers, they set up a corporatist system where industries and labor were organized into corporations based on their sectors. This was a way to control and suppress independent labor movements.
Anti-Intellectualism: Intellectuals, especially those who promoted progressive or liberal views, were often persecuted. Universities were purged of “un-German” thought, and many intellectuals fled or were silenced.
When it comes to the term socialism, you have also to take a closer look. Here too, simple explanations are just wrong.
Historical : When the Nazi Party was founded in the 1920s, it attempted to poach workers from the Communist and Social Democratic Parties. So they incorporated socialist-sounding rhetoric into their platform to appeal to these voters.
Rhetoric: Although there is “socialist” in the name, many of the Nazi Party’s actual policies and actions were far from traditional socialist ideals. Once in power, the Nazis persecuted real socialists and communists.
Meaning: In the United States, “socialism” is often understood as a system in which the state plays a greater role in the economy, particularly with regard to the well-being of citizens. In Europe, and particularly in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, the term had a broader and sometimes different meaning, ranging from Marxist concepts to more general notions of communal ownership.
American Point of view: In the USA, the Cold War strongly influenced the perception of “socialism” and “communism”. Therefore, some Americans tend to automatically interpret anything with “socialist” in its name as left-wing or communist, without considering the specific historical or cultural context.
At its core, the Nazi ideology was nationalist and racist. Any “socialism” in their rhetoric was heavily intertwined with nationalist and racist ideas, which distinguishes it from other socialist movements.
Because I was often confronted with the opinion that Hitler was, like Stalin, on the left, I would like to understand Hitler’s perception from a US perspective and would be happy to receive answers and a discussion about it. I’m particularly interested in possible reasons for the different perspectives.
Addendum: The following terms offer a little help in differentiating between right and left. Feel free to add other valid points. Since we are talking about left and right, the one-dimensional, historically developed model is of course used.
egalitarian(left) vs elitist(right). Hitler was clearly elitist, hierarchies were paramount. Not only internally for economics, but there also where humans and “lower humans”.
progressive(left) vs conservative(right). Here too, Hitler favored old stories and German traditions. If progressive means, for example, that you advance human rights and also develop morally to tolerance and these things, then Hitler was conservative and therefore right-wing.
internationalist(left) vs nationalist(right). Clearly, Hitler was nationalist (“Germans First”) and therefore right-wing.
Very accurate.
In 1940, today, nope
Nice mind-numbingly long shopping list you got there.
Next time, try thinking in essentials:
The Nazis were collectivists — the group is everything; the individual, nothing.
The Nazis were statists — the individual’s life, property and wealth belong to the government.
The Nazi moral code was to sacrifice the individual to a “higher cause.”
Those three fundamental ideas are fully embraced by the modern Left.
Sam,
You just wrapped it up succinctly!
Succinctly? How would yo know, you’re a fool and i_diot.
UF: TY.
Those three fundamental ideas are fully embraced by the modern Conservative. .Obviously you don’t see you’re contradicting yourself in that screed. All apply to conservatives too. Next time, try thinking in essentials.
Glad you responded. The material I posted is sourced 3 German historians: Hartmann, Pohl and Richter, all experts in the WWII era. You took the bait and only proved you’re a pompous and misinformed fool.
As for the American left, as someone already noted, the “essentials” you note fully apply to conservative movement in the USA. Always has.
The NAZIs were an anomaly. Hitler cherrypicked memes from both the far left and far right. He was a socialist, but he was also a racist and ultranationalist. Most importantly, he was an authoritarian who built a personality cult to indulge his grandiose narcissism.
He ultimately cut a deal with Germany’s industrialists to dial back the socialism because opportunistic power was all he really wanted. Too bad for that. Had he pursued unfettered socialism, he would have lost the war without firing a shot. Anyone who really believes in socialism is a perfect idiot.
Cuba is a more genuine model of communism, and Cuba is also a basket case. The Soviet Union was destroyed by communism. And, please, don’t tell us communism has never been tried.
Current models of communism, like China or Vietnam, are a reversion to Hitler’s political methods. They ultimately pursue capitalism and nationalist aims but claim to be communist to justify their “benevolent” authoritarianism. Many on the academic left want the same model of governance applied here. So much for academic sources.
I don’t share the opinions of your German historians. Oversimplifying Hitler’s appeal to the German working class in order to impugn conservatives is exactly what I would expect from your cherrypicked sources.
“As for the American left, as someone already noted, the “essentials” you note fully apply to conservative movement in the USA. Always has.”
You could not be more wrong.
The three Sam lists are far leftists values. Not conservative ones.
“. . . misinformed fool.”
I hate doing this, but you asked for it:
I spent some 25 years teaching college-level political philosophy, including 17 years at a T-1 university. I *specialized* in the political philosophy of Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany. As a graduate student I was steeped in seminars on that ideology by German scholars. I have read enough commentary and original source material to fill a library.
The difference between me and you is that I am a trained and experienced expert on the topic of pre-Nazi and Nazi philosophy and politics. You, on the other hand, are an AI “scholar.”
BTW, a real scholar would respond to the ideas and arguments in my comment. He would not resort to silly insults, appeals to authority, and deflections.
Racism and anti-antisemitism align with far right? Have you read the news in the past 50 years?
It is amazing that your explanations are nearly closer in fact on a timeline to when Cervantes wrote about Don Quixote than today…not quite yet, but getting closer.
Your concept of reality has clearly been programmed into your addled little mind by the usual morons. But, we get it, it is easier than thinking for yourself. Wallow in your distorted history, tilt at your windmills, pretend you are not an addled product of propaganda all you like, but know you aren’t fooling anyone else but yourself.
GEB, you just had your a_s_s handed to you.
Do yourself a favor GEB, shut up. You worse than George/X, constantly yapping away about everything and proving you know nothing.
James,
Kinda funny how the far leftists look more and more like Hitler’s socialism.
‘While many have heralded the new bright line against racial discrimination in higher education, two of the most liberal justices, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, lamented the loss of racially discriminatory programs.’
The dems just can’t kick the racism, can they? The greatest hat trick they ever pulled was convincing the people they actively subjugate to participate in their own disenfranchisement under the guise of imaginary equity while keeping their separatist privilege in tact. Anyone that can’t see the modern left are an atrocity and anathema to prosperity and freedom at this point has to be blind.