I read Jonathan Baird’s predictable ranting on the recent Supreme Court’s discrimination ruling. Nobody asked me, but the 14th Amendment is pretty explicit in affording equal protection of the laws. 25 years ago, the Court ruled that some “good” discrimination was allowable to make up for past practices. It was projected by then-Justice O’Connor that a future Court might disagree. Well, even a reasonable reading of the 14th Amendment by a non-attorney might conclude how and why the current Court ruled as they did.
It may well be that the Court’s decision may not be limited to Asian students who were blatantly discriminated against in the college application process gaining admission to lesser qualified students based on race. Stare decisis is an interesting theory which holds true if you favored the decision made at the time even if it were a bad one. They are still erasers on the end of pencils to correct mistakes. Courts have proven the necessity to takes a second look at questionable past decisions and the current and future courts should not be reluctant to do so. But nobody asked me.
Robert C Washburn
Concord