Justice Thomas Doesn't Get Statutory Rape

by Paul Siciliano

An interesting tidbit from Justice Thomas, in dissent, in the opinion in United States v. Kebodeaux , that was published today (the case involved the Necessary and Proper Clause but that is unimportant here) as the Justice writes: 

In March 1999, Anthony Kebodeaux had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was a 20-year-old Airman in the U.S. Air Force.  He was convicted by a court martial of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 16. . .

An adult cannot have consensual sex with a minor because a minor cannot, legally, consent to sex.  That is one of the reasons why statutory rape is a strict liability crime.   

Is Justice Thomas subscribing to the distinction between rape and forcible rape????  Regardless, even if the young girl agreed, the sex cannot be consensual.  Justice Thomas should know that and he should not have described the crime as such.


Supreme Court Leaves Affirmative Action Alone

by Paul Siciliano


Today, the Supreme Court published it's opinion with respect to the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas.  (Read the opinion here and my summary here).  The Supreme Court returned the case back to the lower court because they applied the wrong standard when analyzing whether Texas's policy violated the Equal Protection Clause.  In effect, there were no major changes to the constitutionality of affirmative action policies in public universities.  Such universities still have a compelling interest in achieving racial diversity but can only achieve that goal in a racially unconscious manner.  

Ever the jerk, Justice Thomas, in a concurrence, still argues that there is no such compelling interest in a racially diverse student body and the arguments made for such diversity are the same ones segregationists had made in the past.  Devoid of any sense of morality, ignorant of history, and just plain disingenuous, Justice Thomas writes: 

Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950's, but emphatically rejected by this Court.  And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then, the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.  . . .
There is no principled distinction between the University's assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists' assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.

On second thought, considering why and how Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, maybe there is an argument that diversity, for its own sake, does not result in better quality.