The End of Equal Justice for All

Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream Speech" proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Indeed, that was what the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was about; bringing equality.  Consequently, a whole series of laws were passed to create a "level playing field".  Today, that "level playing field" is being dismantled.  The Civil Rights has been corrupted, it is now about obtaining preferential treatments that are now to be "entitled" based on alleged past "identity" grievances ("social justice"). King's dream of equality is being ruined.

Essentially, this post is a continuation of the threads posted in the World Access Forum: "Democrats Depreciating the "Rule of Law""  and  "White Lives Don't Matter - apparently", where the supposed neutrality of the law is now being subverted by the deceitful claim for "social justice". The shallowness and inappropriateness of "social justice" was recently exposed (at least in one media outlet) by The Hill in the article: "California's Prop 16 would allow discrimination against women".

"Proposition 16 seeks to repeal the provision of the California Constitution that prohibits discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex in public education, employment and contracting. That provision was put there by Prop 209 in 1996.

Little has been said about how this repeal effort could have the unintended consequence of furthering discrimination against women in college admissions."

The significance of this article is that there is a finally a degree of recognition (however small) of "unintended consequence" in the media resulting from allowing the selective application of the law. Usually, the media simple pushes the one-sided politically correct dogma of the unrelenting need for "social justice" to end so-called  "white male privilege". Now, through this article, we can begin to see the emergence of what could happen if we allow decisions based on "color of their skin" or other ambiguous criteria. Each "identity group" will begin to demand its so called "just share" and "protection" from the perceived adverse effects of any law. "We need a law to protect our XYZ community from the evils of ABC". Recall Orwell's: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Should this downhill trend of allowing decisions to be based on arbitrary capricious vague undefined rationale to achieved a vague undefined societal objective continue, in the end, the rule-of-law will cease to exist.