276
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
illegitimate uses of race in governmental decisionmaking," ante, at 228 (lead opinion), "to 'differentiate between' permissible and impermissible governmental use of race," ibid., to distinguish " 'between a "No Trespassing" sign and a welcome mat,' " ante, at 229.
Close review also is in order for this further reason. As Justice Souter points out, ante, at 270 (dissenting opinion), and as this very case shows, some members of the historically favored race can be hurt by catchup mechanisms designed to cope with the lingering effects of entrenched racial subjugation. Court review can ensure that preferences are not so large as to trammel unduly upon the opportunities of others or interfere too harshly with legitimate expectations of persons in once-preferred groups. See, e. g., Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Bridgeport Civil Service Comm'n, 482 F. 2d 1333, 1341 (CA2 1973).
* * *
While I would not disturb the programs challenged in this case, and would leave their improvement to the political branches, I see today's decision as one that allows our precedent to evolve, still to be informed by and responsive to changing conditions.
Page: Index Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77Last modified: October 4, 2007