Sometimes reality — especially in California — can be stranger than fiction, more humorous than stand-up comedy, more pathetic than loud drunks. A good example was on display in the California Supreme Court about ten days ago.
By approving Proposition 209 in 1996 the voters of California amended their constitution to bar the state from discriminating or giving preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, or gender. So, naturally, the city and county of San Francisco continued to discriminate and give preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Two construction companies, ably represented by Sharon Browne and the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued.
The case was heard on May 4, and the Los Angeles Times report reads more like a treatment for a sitcom than a news story about real life.
Sharon L Browne, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the ordinance allows the kind of racial preferences that Proposition 209 was supposed to end. Browne argued there was no evidence of significant discrimination to support San Francisco’s law and contended that the ordinance itself gave preferences.
“When racial preference is being used, that is no longer equal treatment,” argued Browne, an attorney with the conservative public interest law group.
But Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, representing the city of San Francisco, countered that the ordinance was needed “to level the playing field” because of “ongoing discrimination by the city.” San Francisco contends the ban on preferences for women and minorities violates the U.S. Constitution.
Got that? the city of San Francisco must be allowed to continue discriminating because the city of San Francisco … continues to discriminate. That ranks right up there with confessing to killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you’re an orphan.
To their credit at least a couple of the justices appeared skeptical:
Justice Ming W. Chin: “So discrimination in San Francisco is much worse than any other part of the state?”
Kaiser: “It is certainly possible.”
Justice Marvin R. Baxter: “Was any city official fired for intentional discrimination and if not, why not?”
Kaiser: “… the city must abide by confidentiality rules in employment, and the evidence in the case did not address such personnel matters.”
Other justices, however, contributed to the pathetic humor:
Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno noted that Proposition 209 treated minorities and women differently from other groups.
Well, yes, by requiring the state not to treat them differently from other groups.
I would say Justices Werdegar and Moreno and any colleagues who agree with them have no sense of humor, but that is overly restrictive since they have no sense at all.
