Clarence Thomas concurring opinion destroys Ketanji Brown-Jackson

Clarence Thomas is often seen as the most quiet justice on the Supreme Court. It's time to stop thinking of Justice Thomas that way. In his concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, Thomas wrote "With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the people of our Nation proclaimed that the law may not sort citizens based on race. It is this principle that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in the wake of the Civil War to fulfill the promise of equality under the law."

Later in his concurring opinion, he disagrees with Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson's minority opinion, saying "Nor do JUSTICE JACKSON’s statistics regarding a correlation between levels of health, wealth, and well-being between selected racial groups prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So JUSTICE JACKSON supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood."

It's time to start working towards a more perfect union. The thought that various racial groups can't succeed without significant help from the government or Democrats is insulting. It also ignores the fact that, even during the pre-civil rights/Rosa Parks era, worked hard and started building a black middle class despite the hardships they faced. If anything, LBJ's Great Society hurt this progress by pushing black men out of the homes.

The truth is that inferior government-run schools are stopping upward mobility. This interview by Megyn Kelly of Heather MacDonald is one of the honest readings of the ruling:

If schools did a better job teaching students of color, a significant portion of this problem would disappear. Why aren't fixing government-run schools so students can achieve more? Fixing that problem might have more impact on students of color than today's ruling. Further, why is it ok, according to Democrats, to disadvantage Asian-American students compared to African-American students?

This paragraph essentially finishes off Justice Brown-Jackson's argument:

JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to "experts" and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will "tell us [what] is required to level the playing field" among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to "march forward together" into some utopian vision. Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.

Justice Jackson needs to start addressing real-life problems. Nowhere did she talk about fixing racial discrimination against Asian-Americans. Her worry was entirely with African-Americans. Her job as a SCOTUS justice is to worry about all racial discrimination. Period. She failed.