Of course said nuttiness joined by what we might have expected to see; a particular "wise Latina woman" making a mockery of equal protection under the law. A fascinating read of the first day's hearing on the case reveals even liberal biases will not paint the 2006 referendum result as an unconstitutional achievement.

"Arguing that a referendum that bans racial discrimination and preferences is itself a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause was always a stretch. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration told USA Today that the lower court ruling striking down the referendum was  "an indefensible decision."  The liberal Slate writer Emily Bazelon called Schuette "the affirmative action case liberals deserve to lose."  And the Obama administration, which intervened in last term's affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas, did not participate in the Schuette case."

Also revealed; the percentage changes mentioned in yesterday's post appearing to be more of a 'census guidelines' effect, and cannot be completely attributed to actual numbers of minorities attending the school. (given the President of the university promised to break the law anyhow, should we be surprised?) The numbers as noted by Michigan solicitor general John Bursch, revealed the changes as expected from a 30 school study are not different than what the actual percentages showed.

And I did mention the self designation of Sonya Sotomayer.  Her commentary should not really be of any great surprise, yet reveals that elections do indeed have consequence.

"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems the game posts keep changing every few years for minorities."

Sadly, its being sold from the equivalent of sniper on a clock tower using a scope that reaches the entire country.  We are all targets if a "wise Latina Woman" wishes it.