Liberal Media Perpetuates Ignorance about the Seattle School District’s Supreme Court Case

This is the first follow-up editorial I have written since we started this blog. I usually like to provide a diverse group of topics for our audience, but this had to be done. Many of you who read my previous post, Supreme Court Strikes Down Seattle School District's Racial Balancing, no doubt understand my anger. Being an expert about the Seattle School District case, the recent misinformation that has taken place on television, in newspapers, and on blogs, is enough to make me want to vomit.

I will not rehash every point I made in my previous post, but I will cite several examples in the media where inaccuracies clearly could have been corrected. This list is not exclusive:

The Huffinton Post’s heading: Supreme Court Rules Schools Must Ignore Race In Diversity Plans, is objectively incorrect. Justice Kennedy’s Concurrence made sure that race may still be used as a factor in some circumstances. Moreover, if Race could no longer be used, then that would likely outlaw affirmative action entirely in all Higher Education.

Furthermore, the Democrat Presidential Panderfest contained statements from Democrat Candidates talking about Segregation, Brown v. Board of education, and equality. This, as I mentioned in my recent post, is ignoring the facts of Seattle. Seattle did not involve segregation. The worst case scenario was that a school had a 70/30 ratio of whites to non-whites (those were the District’s classifications not mine). Moreover, the District arbitrarily used a 60/40 quota with an absolute tiebreaker. This is objectively unconstitutional, and I have no doubt after reading Justice O’Connor’s opinion in the University of Michigan cases, that she would have sided with the Majority in the Seattle case if she was still on the Court.

As a result of this blatant misinformation, take a look at the anger generated from the liberal bloggers. Here are some of the examples:

“These decisions will go down as 21th "Plessy v. Ferguson."
Segregation practices before Brown were designed to DENY BENEFITS TO BLACK PEOPLE. Brown was not a decision in favor of "colorblindness" for its own sake. It argued that government could not use race to give some people benefits and deny those same benefits to others.
Everyone can't go to the same school. The students have to be distributed by some means. Using race as one factor in conjunction with geographical districting is no different than flipping a coin. These plans to into account race, BECAUSE broad guidelines based on demographic distribution ARE ONLY taking into account the lasting effect of RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION.
150 years after Dred Scott, instead of black people having "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" we now have "no rights which should lead to any inconvenience of any white person."

I also counted 15 blogs calling for the impeachment of Alito and Roberts because they “lied” to the Senate on how they were going to rule. I’m not even going to go into this one it is so absurd. Just see Stare Decisis Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry.

This outrage is all a result of liberal ignorance. I have noticed recently that liberals' goals are to deceive their own constituency. Conservatives, on the other hand provide concrete facts so that their constituents can make solid arguments. Why else would the Democrat Presidential candidates openly lie to their audience?

Lastly, I was watching PBS last night and heard this guy from Berkeley talking about how the court is moving to the right with this decision. Moving Right from what?? Where is the starting point?? This case was correctly decided, plain and simple. Even the few liberals who are informed about this decision know that. Nevertheless, either these “legal experts” in the media didn’t read the decision, or they are blatantly lying to public.

Maybe the media will have the good intentions to check their facts next time. It is too bad I was not there to call them on it.