to take up another issue for a few moments if it’s all right with you.” Senator Carpenter flashed a tobacco-stained smile. Big Tobacco paid the bills in South Carolina politics. “It is, of course, the issue that almost everyone in this room has been waiting with bated breath to hear about: your views on affirmative action.”
McDonald said in a voice that for the first time sounded rehearsed, “As I mentioned in my opening statement, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on litigation that is currently pending before the Court.”
It was a predictable response from the nominee—no nominee in recent history had failed to respond in a similar fashion to thinly-veiled questions about how he or she might vote in a potentially landmark case wending its way to the high Court—and Carpenter replied in an equally predictable manner. He asked for McDonald’s “theory” for deciding such cases. “You are, of course, an academic, Professor. As your responses to my colleagues’ questions made plain, you have theories about most issues of constitutional law. I assume affirmative action is no different.”
McDonald said, “You are correct, Senator. I’ve got a theory on the subject.” The nominee fidgeted in his seat. “My theory is this: a tension underlies all facets of equal protection jurisprudence involving race. That tension is between government neutrality and anti-subordination. Is it better to have a flat per se rule of invalidity of all racial classifications? If you believe in the primacy of government neutrality on matters of race, this might be appealing. It’s what the first Justice John Marshall Harlan referred to as ‘color-blindness’ in his legendary dissent in the Court’s infamous 1896 segregation decision, Plessy v. Ferguson . But if you believe that anti-subordination is at the heart of the equal protection clause, you may be skeptical. Anti-subordination is a theme that Justice Harlan also embraced in his Plessy dissent when he insisted that the Constitution does not tolerate a ‘caste system.’ In short, Senator, whether a judge accepts or rejects affirmative action turns on which principle—color-blindness or anti-subordination—the judge emphasizes.” McDonald cleared a tickle from his throat and then said, “If the judge emphasizes color-blindness, then affirmative action would violate the equal protection clause. But if he emphasizes anti-subordination, affirmative action would likely pass constitutional muster.”
Senator Carpenter leaned forward in his chair and frowned. “ That’s my question, though. Which do you emphasize?”
McDonald leaned back in his chair and smiled. It was the first time he had smiled— truly smiled—since Jenny and Megan had been killed. “And that I’m afraid I can’t answer, no matter how much Senator Burton might wish I could.”
CHAPTER 11
Billy Joe Collier pulled into the Exxon station down the street from The Rebel Bar and Grill. He needed to refill the tank on his aging Ford Monte Carlo. The car was a gas guzzler, but he liked how much power it had. He also liked how large the trunk was; there was room enough to fit two bodies inside. Usually, he killed only one person at a time. Tonight, he felt the urge to kill two.
Collier swiped his Visa card through the designated slot on the gas pump, removed the nozzle, punched the regular unleaded button with his index finger, and began to fill his tank. A Toyota Pathfinder pulled up to the pump at the far end of the service island. Out jumped the black man who had been in The Rebel with the white woman—the guy Collier had called a nigger and chased from the bar.
The black man’s eyes met Collier’s. Talk about shitty luck, he seemed to be saying to himself. He said to Collier, “We don’t want any trouble.”
The white woman turned to see what the commotion was about.
Collier said, “Me neither.” Of course he was lying. He lived for trouble.
The white woman said,