Vox: "Baffling" that Supreme Court tolerated racist anti-white rule for 44 years

How many hundreds of billions does The Establishment owe in damages for racist affirmative action and DEI?

The Supreme Court’s 9-0 Ames decision this week in which the Justices finally cleared up a 44-year-long dispute among federal circuit courts, with five of the 12 districts holding that whites, men, and straights should be discriminated against in discrimination law, has mostly elicited rather baffled commentary in the mainstream media.

You see, if you accept the conventional wisdom about white supremacy and systemic racism, the news that the Supreme Court tolerated since 1981 an indefensibly blatant racist anti-white concoction with no legislative basis whatsoever is … well, hard to process. Does Not Compute in your worldview.

Thus, Vox’s Supreme Court correspondent is stumped:

The Supreme Court’s rare moment of unanimity against a DEI rule, explained

Ames v. Ohio was an easy case, even if it touched upon contentious issues.

by Ian Millhiser

Jun 5, 2025, 8:25 AM PDT

… As Jackson writes in her opinion, this disparate treatment of majority-group plaintiffs is not allowed. She quotes the Supreme Court’s opinion in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), which held that the federal law governing employment discrimination prohibits “racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites.”

… Instead, both the trial court and an appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, ruled against Ames because of an unusual rule applied by the 6th Circuit and a few other courts.

5/12ths of the United States.

Usually, the Supreme Court is supposed to clear up disagreements among districts like this.

Under this rule, the plaintiff loses their case unless they can show, at a fairly early stage, “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This obligation applies only to majority-group plaintiffs.

… In Jackson’s words, “by establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

Indeed, Ames is such a straightforward case that it is baffling that the 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which has existed in some courts since 1981, survived as long as it did. McDonald, after all, has been the law for nearly half a century, and it was decided before any lower court embraced the “background circumstances” rule.

It’s almost as if ensuring equal justice under the law for whites, men, and straights has not been much of a priority over the last 44 years. But, surely, somebody would have mentioned that in recent decades if such an indefensible injustice was being propagated? I mean somebody respectable might have mentioned it, not some extremist defender of the 14th Amendment’s insistence upon equal protection of the laws like Steve Sailer.

Meanwhile, in The Nation, Elie Mystal admits that the Supreme Court made the right decision, but worries that America will become bogged down in discrimination lawsuits.

Paywall here.

June 5, 2025

The Supreme Court Just Cleared the Way for a Flood of “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

The court’s ruling in favor of a woman who says she was passed over for jobs because she is straight is correct in theory—but it’s going to be terrifying in practice.

Elie Mystal

Today, the Supreme Court made it easier for white people to claim “reverse discrimination” any time an employer hires or promotes anybody who is not a heterosexual white person. And the court did so unanimously. And the person who wrote the unanimous opinion for the court was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will now walk into the ocean.

What makes the whole situation even more galling to me is that it’s probably the correct decision. It’s right in terms of the law—even though the underlying facts in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services are a case study in white fragility in the modern age….

Ohio, however, is still governed by a rather archaic rule regarding workplace discrimination lawsuits. It requires people who are in the “majority” group (white people generally, or straight people in this case) to show that there are “background circumstances” at their place of work that suggest a pattern of discrimination against them. It places a “heightened burden” of evidence on members of the majority when they bring discrimination suits.

I think the rule makes sense. … It’s not too much to ask people in the majority to meet a heightened evidentiary standard before claiming that, all of a sudden, everybody hates them.

I mean, who can remember anything that has happened since Emmett Till? But now, all of a sudden, white people are purporting that colleges, corporations, and government agencies for the last 56 years have been running programs to discriminate against them in favor of other races?

Really? Did Emmett Till get one of those affirmative action jobs?

What kind of craziness are white people going to be spouting next? That I, Elie Mystal, needed affirmative action to get into Harvard Law School, as implied by my then never passing the bar exam following my expensive Harvard Law School education? Mystal wrote earlier:

Frankly, I know the feeling. I think that any successful Black person in this country, especially one who went to a traditionally elite university, knows the feeling. I’m a well-respected legal columnist and best-selling author, and I can’t go a week without some simpleton who paid eight bucks for Twitter suggesting that I didn’t “earn” my place at Harvard Law School, an institution I graduated from 20 freaking years ago. It’s maddening—both in the sense that it makes me violently angry and that it interrupts the normal functioning of my brain. If you haven’t walked a mile in my shoes, or Thomas’s shoes, or the shoes of any other Black person who had the temerity to be excellent while Black, you really don’t know what it’s like to have white people who have the intellectual firepower of a wet cigarette question your credentials.

He seems to have strong personal views on the subject.

Back to Mystal on the Ames case:

… Of course, I’m not white, and I’m not homophobic. Asking straight white people to acknowledge that they’ve had every advantage this world has to offer is not something we are allowed to do in this country.

Uh …

Instead, we live in a world where every time a white person doesn’t get something they think they’re entitled to, we’re supposed to assume they’ve been treated unfairly.

It’s almost as in 5/12ths of the country, the courts have been discriminating so blatantly against whites for 44 years that now, during the Vibe Shift, Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion about it.

… Reverse discrimination claims are on the march. White people, emboldened by Trump, are acting like every time a non-white person is hired or promoted for any job, anti-white discrimination is the culprit. Flooding the courts with reverse discrimination claims is literally part of the Project 2025 playbook. Straight white guys I know and am friends with have confessed that they at least wonder if anti-white discrimination played a role when they don’t get a job or a promotion. None of the white guys I know would actually sue over it (at least, they better not), but I’m not friends with a lot of white guys.

The 9–0 opinion in this case is like hanging an “Open for Grievances” sign on every federal courthouse. …

Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and a columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, both published by The New Press.

Because it’s not as if every day since 1969 has been Black Festivus with the Airing of Grievances in the courts.

Granted, Mystal is right that outlawing discrimination against whites in discrimination law will lead to more discrimination lawsuits by whites.

Indeed, it’s interesting to speculate just how many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in damages might be coming to white victims of racially discriminatory hiring.

In recent years, people have begun speculating how much providers of “gender affirming care” might wind up having to pay their victims. But think about the potential toll from compensating whites who didn’t get jobs or promotions due to illegal anti-white discrimination.

For example, in New York, black and Hispanic would-be teachers who were too dumb to pass the teacher hiring exam are being awarded a jaw-dropping $1.8 billion for being discriminated against because blacks and Hispanics aren’t as smart as Asians and whites.

Now, think about how many white and Asian victims of affirmative action/DEI there have been over the last two generations. The damages could add up to 11, 12, or even 13 digits.

What The Establishment needs to be thinking about now is a Statue of Limitations on their culpability for anti-white discrimination. I’d be amenable to November 6, 2012 being the cut-off, the date America re-elected its black President. Rationally, that would seem like the date when even the most skeptical critic of whites had to admit that whites were way past being significantly racist.

It has been pointed out to me that the proper term is “Statute of Limitations,” so I had ChatGPT whip up for me an anti-immigration Statue of Limitations to stand on Alcatraz and hole up a hand saying “Halt!” to would-be immigrants:

Instead, of course, Obama’s re-election unleashed the shamefully racist anti-white Great Awokening.

And then May 25, 2020 marked the beginning of the atrociously racist Racial Reckoning.

So, while I’m graciously willing to waive damages to whites from 1969 through 2012, white victims of anti-white racism after November 6, 2012 should be compensated 100% for damages. And white victims of racism after May 25, 2020 should be compensated 100% for damages and an extra 100% for punitive damages.

Sounds fair to me.

What do you think?