> If the law is not agreeable soon it will be unenforceable.

Lots of awful laws remain enforceable for very, very, very long times. For example, the whole industry of private prison contractors profiting from prisoner labor, with prisoners sometimes being legally required to participate and always being paid far below the usual minimum wage, and with contractual provisions between the prison companies and the states about how full the states will keep their prisons, leading to the creation and proactive enforcement of lots of crimes with prison as a punishment to keep that pipeline filled. Non-inheritable slavery never got outlawed as a criminal sentence, even if states have chosen to limit their implementation of that to prison labor instead of "you but not your family are now literally a slave for the rest of your lifetime."

> I consider the rulings inappropriate [...] on the basis of construction an egalitarian society.

Many people agree with you, and I believe they share your reasons. But many people disagree with you, including me, on the basis that properly crafted affirmative action efforts are addressing an existing inequality in our not-at-all-egalitarian society.

That's not to say a qualified white person should see their application refused on the basis of rigid racial quotas - we both agree that should be illegal, and as we discussed it already is.

But yes, to me it seems fair and egalitarian to take into account something like race that routinely leads to disadvantage and discrimination (or alternatively advantage and privilege) even in today's society when evaluating a person's achievements and obstacles, and in planning outreach and recruitment efforts. People do likewise for other similarly impactful factors like poverty, disability, and migrant status, and rightly so. I view this as appropriate both in university admissions and in viewing success stories like Kelsey Hightower's as even more impressive than if he were Just Another White Guy In Tech(tm) ... highlighting the sad fact that stories like his are so rare is part of the point of the article.

> Again, see my example about Missouri statutory expenditures on the basis of gender and race. Many states have laws like this. They plainly violate the equal protection clause.

I haven't properly thought through the case about state government statutory expenditures, so I don't have a strong opinion there right now on what is either constitutional or appropriate. I think that case's constitutionality or lack thereof is a far less clear question than you apparently do.

But if any such programs are making significant progress toward fixing disproportionate imbalances in government expenditures that come from the systemic sexism and racism in society without getting the government substandard value per dolllar, any invalidation of those programs should be coupled with the adoption of some adequately effective replacements with fewer constitutional issues.

If you agree that there needs to be some recompense surely you also agree there must be a way to determine when it is no longer necessary?

This is why affirmative action as implemented is, to me, a very bad idea: there's no way to tell if it is working.