Even worse, if the Constitution demands colorblindness then every solution to a policy driven by racism that notices the harm was racist is de facto Unconstitutional. That means that there's no disincentive for governments not to discriminate b/c there can't ever be a remedy.
If anyone is expecting this supreme court to come down on the side of current laws they are mistaken and naive. There is so much room when referring to a document written 300 years ago for "interpretation" anything is possible. Dems still rely too much on what is normal even in post trump 2024.
Alito literally says that it is constitutionally suspect for a court to find that other government officials acted in a racially discriminatory manner. What constitution does that come from? What text? What tradition? What, if anything, does this man actually believe in?
If you're a shamefully dishonest ideologue with a cruel agenda, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution actually says or how it's been interpreted in the past.
Have you looked into the origins of “colorblind constitution” rhetoric? I’ve definitely seen it invoked in 1960s before affirmative action even existed. Was there anybody who used that rhetoric for racist purposes earlier than that?
