Ketanji Jackson's dog-whistle dissent
The easiest way to identify a hopelessly lost cause is to listen to the gurgitation of idiocy coming from those advancing and/or sponsoring said cause. A prime example of same is the outrageous claim written in a dissenting opinion by associate justice of the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
In what appeared to be a last ditch effort to give a single-digit salute to the six SCOTUS justices whose decision effectively ended melanin-coded affirmative action as consideration for college admission, Jackson threw everything at the wall hoping something would stick.
She attempted to redeem an unfair, racist practice of disqualifying students based on the absence of melanin by claiming it was fair and realized equality. She argued: "Diversity saves lives" and is essential for "marginalized communities." She asserted that diversity is for the "betterment" of students and society at large beyond college campuses.
She wrote: "For high-risk black newborns, having a black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die." A ridiculous opinion prostituted in an amicus brief filed by lawyers representing an association of medical colleges postulating that for "high-risk black newborns, having a black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug; it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live." (See: "2020 Study that examined mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015.")
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Attorney Ted Frank, a senior attorney at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, destroyed Jackson's poorly constructed dissent, rightly observing: "So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party's mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges 'all of us' to 'do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.' Instead we should watch where we're going."
Knowing Jackson's kind as I do, nothing dissuades me that her mischaracterization was intentional for the purpose of entrenching her bastardized narrative. However, what has been omitted in the spate of op-eds condemning Jackson's opinion was her pathetic attempt to craft and indemnify the falsity.
Jackson and those like her would have us forget and/or ignore the fact that the greatest cause of death and harm to so-called black infants is not a shortage of melanin-visible doctors; rather it's the unlimited number of crayon-colored doctors responsible for the murder of 25 million or more unborn crayon-color children.
Arguing from Jackson's perspective, why isn't she an outspoken supporter of pro-life causes? Using her dissenting opinion, consider the following facts: "The aggregate number of [melanin visible] soldiers killed in military combat in the Korean War, the Vietnam War and every war since 1980 totals 18,515." Now, consider that doctors participating in the industrialized systematic extermination called abortion have murdered well over 20 million so-called black children.
Does Jackson know how many of the doctors participating in the satanic practice qualify as a color by her standard for being black? My obvious point is that according to her reasoning so-called black children should be paralyzed with fear and dread of both their mothers and so-called black doctors – unless she is prepared to argue that so-called white doctors are having abortion mill clinics intentionally set up in the urban neighborhoods for the express practice of being paid, i.e., employed by their mothers, to exterminate them. Again, if that is the case, shouldn't the children be even more afraid of their mothers?
When one considers the juxtapositioning of my argument with hers, it is clear there are questions that demand answers.
Another thing: Jackson's sinister and myopic dissent is intended to have this fallacious narrative entered in the SCOTUS public record as talking points for the left-wing lapdog media. The verbiage of her dissent was nothing more than a "dog whistle" to the left-wing crazies.
One must ask why it is that the only way for color-coded liberals to have any hope much less opportunity of elevating their station in life, is to be an extreme zealot? Jackson's kind espouses immiseration and hopelessness. They claim with straight faces: The only way to get ahead is through handouts and the bar of merit being lowered to the point that even rolling over it is viewed as a herculean effort.
There's no fair way to institute supposed pigmentation-based affirmative action because it ultimately all comes down to color of skin, which means those with the skin-pigmentation du jour are preferred over others regardless of their qualifications.
Take, for instance, 'Joyless' Reid, the infamous whatever-she-is employed by MSNBC. She admits the only reason she got into Harvard was because of pigmentation-based affirmative action. Her reward has been to be the face of hate-filled screeds and accusations of racism. She's MSNBCs in-house harridan who must forever view everything through a prism of aggrievement, animus, resentment and prejudice.
Even more egregious is that, as I've pointed out countless times heretofore, neither program nor country nor business entity can rise and sustain success by instituting policies of employing the least qualified.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
The post Ketanji Jackson's dog-whistle dissent appeared first on WND.