Federal court votes 2-1 that racial preferences are okay

This is one of those stories you have to read very carefully to figure out what the heck its actually saying.

It's reporting a decision by a federal court of appeals, and the headline is "court strikes down Michigan's affirmative action ban."

Seems a 2003 decision--apparently by the same court--held that universities were allowed to "consider race as a factor" in selecting who they'd admit a students. "Consider race as a factor" is legalese for "give special preferences to minorities."

This rankled the good folks of Michigan, who had somehow gotten the impression that all men are created equal, and thus there shouldn't be favoritism on account of race. (This phrase has a familiar ring to it, but I can't recall exactly where I've seen it.)

Accordingly, the people of Michigan used the power of referendum to pass an amendment to the state's constitution explicitly prohibiting giving someone special preferences on account of race. Specifically, the amendment barred "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin."

It's this ban that the federal court didn't simply overturn, but found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, by a 2-1 vote--meaning that the court implied that it considers race-based favoritism to be perfectly legal.

Let that sink in for a minute: The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...." Of course this isn't the Constitution--which at one time years ago was considered "the supreme law of the land"--but at one time it was a pretty damned important cornerstone of the legal framework of this country.

Apparently that principle--like so many others in the post-Constitutional era--is no longer operational.

I haven't read the decision, but must say I don't see how any legal scholar could rationally hold that the law permitted government to grant individuals of one race favorable treatment on account of that race. The only hint as to the reasoning was this: The appeals court said the Michigan law "violated the Constitution's equal protection laws."

Yes, that's what CNN reported the court as saying. And this:

"Because less onerous avenues to effect political change remain open to those advocating consideration of non-racial factors in admissions decisions, Michigan cannot force those advocating for consideration of racial factors to go down a more arduous road than others without violating the Fourteenth Amendment," said Judges R. Guy Cole and Martha Daughtrey, both named to the bench by former President Bill Clinton.

This is a classic example of gobblespeak: Judges Cole and Daughtrey are saying that because those in favor of race-based preferences have easier avenues to effect change [easier than what?], then to uphold the amendment barring racial preferences would "force those advocating for [racial preferences] to go down a more arduous road than others," which the judges apparently interpret as a violation of equal protection.

Only in the mind of a liberal could an amendment demanding equal treatment by government be warped into "this is a violation of the equal-protection clause."

But see, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

This is where we've come to here in the age of Obama and lawmaking (as opposed to law interpreting) judges.