Schuette v. BAMN and the Contradictions of Justice Sonia Sotomayor

By: American Decency Staff

Marxists have long made the case for capitalism’s collapse due to its “internal contradictions.” Liberalism may not collapse, but its contemporary contradictions are glaringly, gratingly on display in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s 58 page dissent, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the recently decided Schuette v. BAMN. That’s the case, you will recall, in which the plaintiffs argued that it was unconstitutional for the people of Michigan to amend their state constitution to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. (If you don’t recall, or you think I exaggerate, see here and here.)

I would like to mention only one of Justice Sotomayor’s contradictions  here, but it is a crucial one that so far as I’ve seen no one has mentioned and that undermines the entire “political process” doctrine at the core of the liberals’ argument in Schuette that it is racial discrimination for a state to prohibit racial discrimination.

Here is how Justice Sotomayor presents the mindboggling “political process doctrine” at the beginning of her dissent:

To Read More:  Click Here

---