In last Saturday’s BITHEAD’S BIT, I suggested:

*Such an interest is by no means a constitutional argument, but rather, a political argument… and a short-term political argument at that.  Even the key vote in this case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s declares, “…we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

One presumes that at such a point, the court will again be asked to rule, and will reverse its decision.  For the sake of discussion, and examination, let’s assume the constitution remains fairly well static between now and then, as it has for much of it’s 200 plus years of life. If the need, much less the remedy, is a constitutional issue, how could such measures EVER NOT be needed?  Unless the constitution itself changes, something doesn’t change status from constitutional to unconstitutional and back again. These race based initiatives are both illegal and unconstitutional. So to effect this ruling, we must ignore the Constitution.

So, the court figures maybe in 25 years (…. Or, maybe not… Justice Ginsburg reminds us we can’t accept a guarantee of the timing, here…) these measures won’t be needed anymore.  Did we simply put the Constitution on “hold” for 25 years or more, until someone decides to start enforcing the Constitution? If so, what’s to guarantee we won’t disregard it again, at some need or other, and for less popular reasons?

So now comes Neil Boortz, who says in his notes this morning:

Justice O’Connor opined that affirmative action might have a remaining shelf life of about 25 years.  Now there’s a new and novel idea for you.  We now have some judicial precedent for the idea that, while a particular law might be perfectly constitutional right now, the mere passage of time will render that law unconstitutional.  Wouldn’t you just live to hear that concept explained by some Harvard law professor? 

Nice to know we’re on the same page, Neil, at least here.
Now, we need to have a serious chat as regards your outrageous ideas on ADHD.