In the wake of Grutter v. Bollinger, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, a measure designed to prohibit the use of race in admission to state universities. It stood to reason that the Roberts Court would uphold this proposal, and so it did, in the recent Schuette v. BAMN. According to the plurality opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, this case involved a fundamental right held "by all in common:" "the right to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process."
I wonder what he means by that. Assume that citizens of the state of Michigan return to the polls ten years from now and reverse Proposal 2. Assume, that is, that they continue todebate, learn, and act once again through a lawful process. What if the citizenry takes it further and in fact demands that state universities take race into account during their admissions processes? What would the plurality say then?
This is when our bizarre constitutional world kicks in. Opponents of race conscious policies can eliminate these policies through the political process and the Court stands aside. Were supporters of these policies able to overturn this outcome through the same political process, the Court will be ready to stand in their way, in the name of constitutional justice.
This is a perverse constitutional world. If this is what the 14th Amendment demands in fact, it must be time to give the Amendment back.
How does anyone committed to an originalist jurisprudence make sense of this?
Better question: is there anybody left in the world who believes that our race jurisprudence is guided by law and not ideology and the justices' personal preferences?