Linked is a PDF version of today's ACLU lawsuit against, tactically chosen to draw the weakest defense, Jennifer Granholm only, seeking to overturn Proposal 2, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiatve.

It's a pile o dukey.

Laughably, the introductory statement get's it wrong. It asserts that the state Constitution was amended to "[b]an public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals on the base of their race." It uses quotes around this, and the period after race. First, the passage there is actually from the "ballot summary" that appeared on the ballot and not the actual amendment to the Constitution which only mentions ban "discrimination and preferential treatment" on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin. The period after race in the brief is a disgusting twisting of even the ballot summary. Indeed, I propose that it could be sanctionable misconduct on the part of the attorney signing the brief. They have singled out race here, but ironically, the rest of the legal argument criticizes "any construction" of Proposal 2 that singles out "race, sex, ethnicity, etc." and argues that by excluding those factors from the possible choices universities may discriminate on and not excluding every other possible factor by which a university may make a choice, the Proposal is unconstitutional discriminatory against discrimination itself.

I mean we have turned into the Twilight Zone - or maybe ozone.

That is, Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits only SOME discrimination but fails to prohibit all discrimination (which the Equal Protection Clause, according to the brief, allows). It's such a bad argument I've created an abuse of process category and this entry is the inaugural. The judge, if he has any decency, will find that the ACLU has violated "Rule 11," which prohibits filing frivolous claims.