Friday Follow: GOP, Affirmative Action, and Satan

Friday, February 24, 2012

Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista Gingrich attend his Florida primary night party in Orlando. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

The NYPD has been monitoring Muslims. Affirmative Action is under attack. A Koran was burned in Afghanistan sparks protests. The GOP primary race roles on, and Rick Santorum believes in Satan. These stories and more will be covered by our panel which includes Kai Wright, editor of Colorlines, Farai Chideya, a journalist and blogger at, and Ron Christie, Republican political strategist, CEO of Christie Strategies, and former special assistant to President George W. Bush.


Farai Chideya, Ron Christie and Kai Wright

Comments [3]


Several valiant journalists have been lost in recent months covering the religion fueled carnage in the Islamic world and here we have heroic journalists summoning the courage to mock Rick Santorum and his Catholicism in the context of a free democratic process.
Not much pompous chortling going on among journalists faced with a braying crowd in a police state gripped by violent anarchy in the Middle-East today.

Feb. 24 2012 10:07 AM

One more thing, Celeste. Citizens United v. FEC did not establish a constitutional right to form Super PACs. The decision that mainly led to Super PACs was v. FEC, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

The overwhelming issue coming out of Citizens United was the right of corporate entities to make independent expenditures and engage in politicking (you know, like that multibillion-dollar corpaoration, the New York Times) within time periods previously proscribed by McCain-Feingold.

In today's environment, almost all Super PAC fudning is coming from individuals, not corporations. So Citizens United's statement as to corporate rights is largely irrelevant.

You could tell that to you listeners, or else you could continue the low-brow bludgeoning of public radio audiences that the Citizens United decision and Super PACs are just inexplicable, unalloyed evil. Like, say, that other paragon of journalism, the Comedy Channel.

Feb. 24 2012 09:11 AM

Celeste, please try to be a better journalist. If you are going to quote the members of the Supreme Court, try to be accurate.

As much as you would probably like to turn it into a kind of entitlement, Justice O'Connor never blandly suggested that affirmative action ought to last for 25 years.

Here is the quote. It comes frome Justice O'Connor's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger 539 US 306 (2003):
"The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

It was something of a silly, extranoues comment by the often silly and extraneous Justice O'Connor. Legal scholars call unneccessary verbiage like in a court opinion "dicta."

In any event, it is a horrid disservice to public radio listeners that affirmative action was some sort of entitlement program that was designed to last for 25 years, and we haven't got to that time-limit yet. The "25 years" suggestion stems simply from the fact that in 2003, it had been about 25 years since the Court had issued its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 decision.

Feb. 24 2012 09:03 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.