It is in that context that the Supreme Court said it would reconsider cases of affirmative action where whites were discriminated against in college applications. Of course, the Court didn't put it that way.

For the Supreme Court, the Constitution is like an ocean. Sometimes it is calm, sometimes not. There is no consistency in the Constitution; after all, it is simply words on a piece of paper. It changes, like the weather, or the mood of the people enjoying the weather, or the mood of at least five of nine people enjoying the weather.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take a second look at the use of race in admissions decisions by the University of Texas at Austin, reviving a potent challenge to affirmative action in higher education. The move, which supporters of race-conscious admissions programs called baffling and ominous[.]

They find it baffling and ominous, heh heh heh! I think the white and Asian people who were discriminated against also found it baffling and ominous.

The consequences would be striking if the court sided with the plaintiff in the case, a white woman named Abigail Fisher, and did away with racial preferences in higher education. It would, all sides agree, reduce the number of black and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian-American and white students gaining entrance instead.

This is bad! Two ethnic groups who benefited from discrimination would suffer tremendously, while two other ethnic groups who suffered tremendously from discrimination would benefit. People would be judged solely on ability. Do you find this more baffling, or more ominous?

A decision barring the use of race in admissions would undo a 2003 ruling that the majority said it expected to last for 25 years. In that 5-to-4 decision, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court said that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to increase minority enrollment but could take race into account in vaguer ways to ensure academic diversity.

A 5-4 decision. Isn't America a great place, where the vote of only one person, the 5th of nine votes, can decide that a whole group of people can be discriminated against?

Texas students and those from elsewhere are considered under standards that take account of academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. Many colleges and universities base all of their admissions decisions on such “holistic” grounds.

You see? They're not discriminating on race. It's holistic! They don't look at race! They look at academic background, essays, extracurriculars, and race! That's totally different. By adding other variables they consider in addition to race, that makes it innocuous.

Let's say a fire department wanted to hire only white people. But they couldn't just say "We want only white people." If instead they considered an applicant's extracurriculars, the size and bushiness of his (or her) moustache, how good he looks in uniform, and also his race, do you think liberals would find that okay because it's "holistic"?

In 2003, the Supreme Court endorsed such holistic admissions programs in Grutter v. Bollinger, saying it was permissible to consider race as one factor among many to achieve educational diversity. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now,” the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

The witless wonder of Arizona was right. The 14th Amendment ostensibly says that everyone is entitled to "equal protection of the laws." But what it really means is that white people and Asians may be discriminated against until 2028, or even later, until the Court decides it will no longer be acceptable. That's why we have judges to interpret these complex and confusing phrases !

As in the earlier appeal, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she worked on it as United States solicitor general.

Uh-oh! Now that Kagan has recused herself, do you think somehow a vote against discrimination could somehow slip out of the ooze that calls itself the Supreme Court?

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.