View Comments |  Print This Post |

The liberal judiciary uses legal tricks to protect racial preferences, especially when it is the entity operating them.

In a cowardly decision issued Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped deciding the constitutionality of Maricopa County Superior Court's separate Spanish-speaking and Native American DUI Courts. Instead, the court dismissed the case, saying that plaintiff Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas – whose non-Spanish speaking prosecutors must appear in Spanish-speaking court listening to a translator on headphones – didn't have standing to challenge it.

The court wrote in its opinion that since Thomas's interest in the court was professional, not personal, he didn't have standing to sue. This is a circular argument, because how could Thomas's interest have been "personal?" All attorneys who work in that court are working in their professional capacity. Thomas's co-plaintiffs included victims of Spanish-speaking and regular DUI defendants. The court ruled that they didn't have standing either because their relationship as injured parties was "too generalized and impersonal." This is another sham reason, because those victims were specifically injured by drunk drivers.

If Thomas and DUI victims, who are both required to participate in these courts, do not have standing to sue, then who does? Government wrongdoing is not entitled to absolute immunity. Organizations like the Institute for Justice make a living suing the government, so this invented excuse is transparent. It is all too likely that no plaintiff will satisfy the court's requirement for standing – effectively permitting courts to rule in favor of the separate DUI courts without actually having to declare so.

It is obvious why the courts will not rule against the race-based courts. Not only is Thomas taking on a sacred cow of the liberal judiciary, race preferences, but he is taking on the judiciary itself. Very few judges have the courage to rule that the judiciary is doing something unconstitutional.

The separate DUI courts aren't even equal. Thomas's office studied the treatment of the Spanish-speaking DUI defendants in the Spanish DUI Court and compared it to the treatment of all other DUI defendants in regular DUI courts. It was found that the Spanish-speaking DUI defendants received more lenient treatment than regular DUI defendants. The average jail sanction for a Spanish-speaking DUI defendant was three days jail, whereas a regular DUI defendant received an average of seven days jail – more than twice as long. This is even more troubling considering a large proportion of the Spanish DUI defendants are illegal immigrants. This comes in addition to their special treatment of participating in the proceedings in Spanish, while prosecutors, victims, police officers, probation officers, and anyone else in the courtroom who doesn't speak Spanish must all wear headphones.

The public is overwhelmingly against disparate racial treatment. Initiatives to ban racial preferences have passed easily around the country, and polls find that large majorities of Americans disapprove of affirmative action. Even the NAACP opposes the separate race-based courts. It is sad that the Ninth Circuit would rather allow racial discrimination then rule honestly against the practices of a lower court. The public does not want the separate courts, and if the judiciary does not do the right thing, the public will be forced to shut the courts down some other, costlier way.