MIRACLE: California Judge Upholds Actual Legal Equality

Patriotic Americans protecting discrimination.

California has long been at the vanguard of what many would consider far-left lunacy. Indeed, from nearly legalizing petty theft to allowing their population to balloon to almost 40 million whilst essentially still using municipal infrastructure built for 10 million, California is no stranger to mismanagement. Even California’s occasional bout of sanity, such as overturning affirmative action in 1996, is eventually torn down by the seeming tsunami of leftism permeating almost every aspect of life in the former Golden State. More recently, one of these brushes with sense has come in the form of Judge Duffy-Lewis.

According to The Epoch Times, Los Angeles County-based California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis issued a ruling that the provisions of SB 826 go against the constitutional rights of the people of California.  SB 826, signed into law in late 2018, compelled companies to maintain a minimum number of women on their boards for the sake of having women on corporate boards. Judge Duffy-Lewis came to the very terse conclusion that judging people based on their demographics instead of the merits of their abilities was quite out of line with regards to the legal equality the constitution enshrines.

Judge Duffy-Lewis also wrote that the objective of SB 826“was to achieve general equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees,” when opining about the legality of the law.

“Putting more women on boards demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination,” Duffy-Lewis also wrote.

“There is no compelling governmental interest in remedying discrimination in the board selection process because neither the Legislature nor Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful discrimination to be remedied,” she continued in her writing.

Apparently, there has been judicial precedent for such a ruling. In Crest v. Padilla, Los Angeles County-based California Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green made a ruling last month that such a law “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution on its face.”

“The statute treats similarly situated individuals—qualified potential corporate board members—differently based on their membership (or lack thereof) in certain listed racial, sexual orientation, and gender identity groups. It requires that a certain specific number of board seats be reserved for members of the groups on the list—and necessarily excludes members of other groups from those seats,” Green wrote.

Whether the people of increasingly far-left California allow the upholding of such rulings, in the long run, does very much remain to be seen.

Our Latest Articles