Yes, we submitted amicus briefs at all stages of that appellate process. I mean, that was almost a ten year appellate process that finally got that result, more or less, if you consider that if you take it back to Baki in 1978 and then the Grudder was grudder decision. So those were two earlier Supreme Court decisions that had endorsed racism in college admissions. Endorsed? We identified something in something like five Supreme Court cases.

We identified something like 26 opinions, if I’m quoting it accurately. They were so fractured and there were so many. There was only a plurality decision in Baki, for example. The jurisprudence was a failed jurisprudence that was so convoluted and difficult to apply that there never really was one opinion about why it was okay and how it would be done to make it okay. Well, now that is no longer the case.

And of course, colleges are scrambling to do what? To continue what they always did or what they did until recently, and to admit people on the basis of race and to take race and make it a determining factor. There was a good Wall Street Journal article recently about this that suggested the way they’re going is to seize on some language in the decision and try to evoke in essay responses some sort of indication about your race.

So they want to so then you could use that and say, well, we’re using this as a measure of this person’s, I don’t know what worldly education. I don’t know if they can use the word diversity anymore anyway, more disingenuous games. But it was a significant decision in the sense that it kind of lays the groundwork for deeming, in my view, unconstitutional. Other race conscious, as the word is used, but it’s racially discriminatory hiring practices and government contracting.

The left talks about systemic racism, and the only systemic racism is promoted by left wing bureaucrats and politicians who know better or should know better, and corporate HR people and corporate heads who specifically hire and fire and disperse benefits based on race. That’s the systemic racism. It’s racial discrimination for one group, in this case, African Americans against other minorities, typically. I mean, the best example of this is President Biden.

And the irony of this justice then opining on these topics is high and rich. But Justice Jackson, President Biden said, I am going to limit my choices to a black woman for the Supreme Court, and it’s outrageous. I think it’s unconstitutional and anti constitutional in the least. But what that meant was that a male who was black couldn’t get through the White House front door to get it considered a female Indian American or a female Asian couldn’t get past the front door.

So not only are, quote, whites discriminated against in these racialist programs, but other minorities as well. And we’ve seen that with this big local high school. If you’re not in DC. You may not know the high school, but anyone in the DC area knows know. Just think of the best science high school in your hometown. And this is the DC version of it. Talk about this case because it cuts along some of the lines we’ve talked about and it shows the dishonesty behind this racialism Thomas Jefferson in Virginia.

And the case is called Coalition for Thomas Jefferson. Coalition for TJ. It’s a high school that admitted on the basis of merit. And it was very selective and it ended up admitting 74% Asian applicants. And what the high school did was say, well, we’re going to alter how we induce people to apply and we’re going to go to individual high schools or institutions, schools around the region, and we’re going to take, I think, the top several percent, top 10% of those classes, and we’re going to do this regionally.

And the reason to do it regionally, as everyone understood the real reason, was to change the makeup of the school and it succeed. It went from 74% Asian admittees to 54%. And there are emails, there’s a trail, there’s evidence saying that the reason this was done was in order to affect racial balancing. And that’s not constitutional. I am concerned that what people will do is learn to hide their conversations, learn to make phone calls instead of send emails, learn to be disingenuous in a better and more effective way in the future.

But this is one attempt to get around restrictions on how people are admitted based on race. What was the problem that was being addressed when there were 75% of the school was Asians based on merit? I don’t know what other than racialism too Asian, too Asian. So it was anti Asian animus could it be anything else? But the argument is, and the argument from the left, to give them the credit of their argument, say there’s a public interest in diversity.

This is a public high school. It’s supposed to be available to all students of all backgrounds. And we’ve got this system in place and we’re not anti Asian per se, but we don’t mean to just have only one ethnicity, practically speaking, represented. Now, that might be a reasonable position, but it almost always results in punishing people based on race and giving benefits to people based on race, which I thought we’re not allowed to do.

And so, I mean, didn’t the Supreme Court tell us that diversity was not a reason to engage in race discrimination. It did. I mean, listen, this country’s regrettable race history has led to the development of a jurisprudence at all levels of courts, but at supreme court especially, that sees beyond fake excuses and pretext and gets to the heart of the know. And the heart of the matter is you say you’re doing this, what you’re really doing is based on race.

The classic case, certainly in american history, is yikwo v. Hopkins, where there was a rule that laundromats had to be made of brick. Well, the wooden laundromats were chinese, okay? And the idea was a trade barrier against chinese laundromats, and everyone saw through it, and they saw through, you know, nothing in supreme court jurisprudence, I think, is as well developed as its ability to detect pretext. Race hiding is pretext.

And so the university officials and the school officials who are trying to get around this, I believe, are going to run into just a bristling hedgerow that they’re not going to be able to get through. I mean, this has already been determined how to tell when someone is making something up. I think of the coalition for TJ analysis, what’s the simple thing to do? It’s to look at the 74% and compare it to the 52%.

It’s to look at what people say. But even if you don’t have people admitting on the record what they’re actually doing, it looks like they’re trying to reduce the number of asian applicants. Its timing suggests that it was in response to national events that raised the issue of race. This is around the floyd death and the riots, right? And supreme court jurisprudence is not stupid and sees through that kind of thing.

It did so admirably in the will do. So now. My concern is, in recent years, the veil has been lifted by the left used to be supposedly concerned about racial discrimination, and they simply believe in it now. And it used to be they tried to kind of mask it in diversity and such, and it’s now a racial spoil system. They’re blunt about it. They want quotas, they embrace quotas.

They used to run away from that. And I think that’s one of the reasons they hate the supreme court, and they’re trying to destroy it as much as they are. Because the supreme court could be this initial decision. I think other decisions following that could be the death knell for this racialism if the court keeps on going the way they are. And that’s why they particularly hate clarence thomas, the black conservative, who not only sees through this in a legal way, but as an older black american who suffered actual discrimination and saw how so called affirmative action harmed the black community, he’s bearing witness in a way that’s devastating to them.

So this is a major issue. It’s a major issue for judicial watch. When you think of critical race theory, this is what we’re talking about, just allowing racism to have this veneer of legalism around it using code words like diversity and equity and things such as that. Or could we call them dog whistles? Dog whistles is the other phrase. But listen for me, exactly what you’re talking about.

It’s correct, but it is epitomized in two developments. Colorblind is now a dirty word. The critical race theorists say that if you’re colorblind, that’s racist. That’s right. And equality is a dirty word. Yeah, because that’s racist as well, because it cements in the inequality and equity that’s been set up by the systemic racism equity code word for preferences. Yeah. So it strikes me, as you talk, that Judicial Watch is America’s leading civil rights organization.

And it’s ironic or I don’t know if ironic is the right word, because I think we’ve always been in favor of civil rights, applied properly, is that when it comes to race and voting and your rights under law, and your right to be treated according to the way the Constitution demands you be treated by government, whether it be protecting you from being punished for exercising your First Amendment speech or defending your rights as a voter in terms of being able to vote for a candidate that isn’t taken away from you through illegal means like Gerrymandering.

As we’re talking about, there’s no one doing the civil rights work like we’re doing and certainly, obviously trying to vindicate the core aspect of the 14th amendment, which is equal justice under the law. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button. And like our video down below. .