Time for the NBA to “look like” America

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has again been overturned by the very court on which she seeks to serve. That makes four out of six reviews in which the high court has reversed her opinions.

This case involved four white, New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied due promotions because no minorities scored high enough on the required test. Sotomayor’s ruling supported the town’s decision. She held that preparation and achievement should take a back seat to quota systems and racial bean counting. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.

There was a time when I would’ve hailed the Court’s decision as a step toward the truly colorblind society that everyone demands in theory but scorns in practice. My mind has now changed. Preferences and quota systems based on race, age, or disability are entirely appropriate in certain situations.

With that in mind I forfeit my college eligibility and declare myself available for the 2010 NBA draft. What’s more, I expect to be picked. Otherwise a discrimination lawsuit is coming. And I’ve counted all the beans necessary to prove my claim, especially if Sotomayor is confirmed.

In 2009 only 18-percent of NBA players were white while whites have averaged about 75-percent of the total population over the last three census estimates. Blacks, conversely, are 12-percent of the population. Yet 77-percent of NBA players are black. Isn’t that appalling?

The NBA doesn’t “look like” America. It needs more white players in order to be racially balanced and representative of the population. Let change begin with me.

“But Hager, you can’t jump,” you argue.

Well, I’m not fast or quick either. I also can’t dribble or sink three-pointers and I’d probably curl up in a ball if I had to shoot a free throw in front of 15,000 screaming fans. So what?

“You’re not qualified for the NBA,” you continue. “You have nothing for Lebron James. You’d be embarrassed.”

That’s quite true. Again, so what? Being unqualified is a prime qualification in the world of racial quotas. And I can ease my shame with each trip to the bank.

“Wise up, Hager. You’ll be forty-five before draft day.”

Yes I will. No NBA team will draft an earthbound 45-year-old who hasn’t played competitive basketball at any level in 30 years. But age discrimination is also a fertile field for litigation, and my lack of vertical elevation is a disability.

With the right team of lawyers there’s no reason why this case can’t become a class action suit. Let’s achieve diversity. Not only can the white, the aged and the gravitationally challenged join the suit, but other races, too.

Hispanics and Latinos are 15-percent of the U.S. population but only 3-percent of NBA players. And what about Asians? Asians are 4-percent of the population but only 1-percent of NBA players. If Yao Ming’s injury forces his retirement, Asians can join the suit, too. Let me explain.

The way I see it, any group can join the suit as long as they’re underrepresented in the NBA by three or more percentage points related to their representation in the overall population. If three percent is a proper margin of error in polling data it should work for bean counting, too.

For the NBA to achieve racial parity and properly represent American diversity its players should be roughly 72-percent white, 12-percent Hispanic, 9-percent black and 1-percent Asian.

Oh, you don’t think people will pay $50 a ticket to watch the pitiful product such racial manipulation will undoubtedly produce? Neither do I. Too bad, isn’t it? Looks like the federal government will have to nationalize the NBA.

This most certainly sounds ridiculous, especially the part about me joining the NBA. But it’s the racial quota reality. All I’ve done is provide a mirror image of such programs.

Now, how much of a signing bonus should I demand?

Obama, Sotomayor promise to remove Lady Justice’s blindfold

One of the key tenets of American jurisprudence is the notion of equality before the law. All citizens of a free nation should expect--no, make that demand--an impartial judiciary.

No symbol better illustrates our nation’s devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.

Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it’s the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.

No doubt that’s idealistic, and blind justice isn’t invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.

Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they’re very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another’s interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.

However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter’s replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama’s choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.

His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who’s unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama’s mind Lady Justice’s blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.

If a conservative employed Obama’s judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.

No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.

Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn’t work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person’s economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person’s day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?

Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another’s expense isn’t law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren’t just; they are preference, plain and simple.

So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She’s stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn’t hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.

Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won’t force him to reveal his birth certificate.