On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the use of race-based affirmative action in the college admissions process, and race-obsessed Democrats and leftists immediately lost their minds.
One example of such was Joy Behar, a co-host of ABC's "The View," who somehow linked the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action to "gay rights," which she asserted was "next" to be rolled back, according to Breitbart.
During the talk show panel's discussion of the Supreme Court's ruling, Behar first revealed how "I resent the 'legacy' thing because I was the first one in my family to go to college," which was in reference to a completely separate admissions process criteria that provides additional weight to the children and relatives of school alumni -- something that was not at issue in the case at hand.
"But the other thing I would say about this is that it plays into what the talk is on the right about a post-racial society that we’re living in, you know? Because we elected a black president, they think that racism is over. It’s not," she said.
"And that’s what bothers me about this, about this rolling back. And also what bothers me also, is that, what’s next? Gay marriage?" Behar added. "I mean, they want to get rid of abortion rights, which they practically have done. Now it’ll be gay rights."
For what it is worth, sole right-leaning co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin aptly interjected, "Marriage equality was codified by the Senate, which is important because you can’t pull it back now."
She then went on to provide a meaningful defense of her perspective of the court's ruling on affirmative action that, somewhat surprisingly, received little pushback from her more liberal-leaning co-hosts.
SCOTUSblog reported that, by a margin of 6-3, the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes put an end to the use of race-based affirmative action in the college admissions process by ruling that it unconstitutionally violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The case was actually a combination of two lawsuits filed years ago by an organization known as Students for Fair Admissions which challenged the overtly race-based admissions process at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, both of which provided additional favorable weight to Black and Latino students to increase their chances of acceptance in pursuit of "diversity."
In the process, though, as determined by the high court, the preferential treatment for Black and Latino students necessarily created a "negative" racial factor for Asian and White students, with the end result being the better-qualified and more deserving students were passed over and excluded in favor of minorities who received a nod simply because of the color of their skin.
The majority was led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by the five other Republican-appointed justices, several of whom wrote their own concurring opinions. The minority in dissent included the three Democrat-appointed justices, though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused from the Harvard case due to her prior employment on the school's board and only participated with respect to the UNC case.
"Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Accordingly, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies 'without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality' -- it is 'universal in [its] application,'" Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority opinion, citing prior precedent on the 14th Amendment. "For '[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.'"
At another point, the chief justice wrote, "Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause."
"Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin," he concluded. "This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."
