In a discussion with Tim B. in the "comments" box for my Dowd diatribe, I happened to mention that I can at least respect a liberal like, say, Michael Kinsley who attempts to use some reason and logic as justification for his (incorrect) beliefs, as opposed to the sheer ovarian emotionalism of Dowd.

I coincidentally discovered that Kinsley, on the very same day, has written an excellent piece on Sandra Day O'Conner's confused "reasoning" in the Michigan affirmative action case.

Kinsley writes:

The majority opinion says that its preferred flexible-flier style of affirmative action [as opposed to the "point system" it struck down] does "not unduly harm members of any racial group." Well, this depends on what you mean by "unduly," doesn't it? As noted, we're dealing with an all-or-nothing-at-all decision here. Every time affirmative action changes the result, a minority beneficiary benefits by 100 percent and a white person is burdened 100 percent, in the only currency at issue, which is admission to the University of Michigan. This burden may be reasonable or unreasonable, but it is precisely the same size as the burden imposed by the mathematical-formula-style affirmative action that the court finds objectionable.

O'Conner is obviously uncomfortable with assigning a point value to minority status. But she is perfectly content to allow the school to reject or accept an individual student based on skin color. In other words, she takes a position against rigid discrimination, but not against arbitrary, floating discrimination. The school can't make an overall rule saying "Y number of admission decisions must be made based on race," but it can individually still make Y number of decisions based on race. The result can be exactly the same, with precisely the same amount of race discrimination taking place, as long as it's not officially enshrined as a quota.

Which just goes to show that you don't need to have any logical ability to be a Supreme Court justice.

Dear Lord, please let her step down. Today.