CBS’s Stephen Colbert tried to be a constitutional expert on Tuesday’s edition of The Late Show and it ended exactly how one would expect. As the Supreme Court hears a challenge to affirmative action, Colbert showed no knowledge of the issue before the Court all while trying to accuse Chief Justice Roberts of being the one without any subject expertise.
For Colbert, that the Court is even hearing the case at all is a great tragedy, “Now, speaking of the end of everything we hold dear, the Supreme Court, they spent the summer stomping on settled precedents like Roe v. Wade and Miranda rights. And now, they may do it again, because according to legal experts, SCOTUS is likely to ban affirmative action in college admissions.”
The Court did not overrule Miranda and it is unclear who Colbert thinks “we” are because 64 percent of Americans oppose affirmative action, but moving right along Colbert introduced a soundbite from the oral arguments in the affirmative action case, “Harvard's lawyer tried to explain to the Court that affirmative action is applied on a case-by-case basis, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to buy it.”
The audio snippet contained Harvard attorney Seth Waxman arguing that, “Race in some-- for some highly-qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being the, you know, an oboe player, in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player, would be the tip.
Roberts followed up by telling Waxman his analogy was absurd, “Yeah, but we did not fight a civil war about oboe players. We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination, and that's why it's a matter of considerable concern.”
Not understanding anything Roberts just said, Colbert returned to add, “Hold on! Does Chief Justice Roberts really think the civil war eliminated racial discrimination? I think I know who's not on Twitter.”
Colbert apparently does not know the difference between arguing the Civil War ended racial discrimination, which is not what Roberts said, and that the Civil War and its subsequent constitutional amendments’ purpose was to end racial discrimination.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment and affirmative action are opposed to each other and, contrary to what liberals often proclaim, the plaintiffs in this case allege discrimination not against white people, but Asians.
This segment was sponsored by Energizer Batteries.
Here is a transcript for the November 1 show:
CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
11/1/2022
11:46 PM ET
STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, speaking of the end of everything we hold dear, the Supreme Court, they spent the summer stomping on settled precedents like Roe v. Wade and Miranda rights. And now, they may do it again, because according to legal experts, SCOTUS is likely to ban affirmative action in college admissions. Harvard's lawyer tried to explain to the Court that affirmative action is applied on a case-by-case basis, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to buy it.
SETH WAXMAN: Race in some-- for some highly-qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being the, you know, an oboe player, in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player, would be the tip.
JOHN ROBERTS: Yeah, but we did not fight a civil war about oboe players.
WAXMAN: I—
Roberts: We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination, and that's why it's a matter of considerable concern.
COLBERT: Hold on! Does Chief Justice Roberts really think the civil war eliminated racial discrimination? I think I know who's not on Twitter. Also, contrary to popular belief, we did fight a civil war about oboe players and it's all in that Ken Burn documentary.
SATIRICAL CIVIL WAR SOLDIER: My dearest Sarah, on the eve of battle, I have just thought of a killer oboe solo. It goes like this: do-do-do squeee-da diddly-doo-da duh-doo doo-dee-dah.
