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.