Here's your answer in a more concise fashion commenting on particular legal events that may rise for your supposition of "colorblind theories"

>The question remains: HOW will the
>anti-discrimination laws be enforced absent
>a recognition of race? Don't
>just make a conclusory statement:
>"judges can figure out a
>way", tell me what basis
>they would use to determine
>*distinctions* b/t the two claimants,
>as a baseline. For example:
>"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>discriminated against him. The judge,
>colorblind, cannot see any distinction
>between the two parties, replies
>"You both look American to
>me, the defendant has 100%
>American workforce (but no "blacks"),
>so I don't see any
>discrimination here". The "black" defendant's
>recourse is what, under your
>theory?

The problem with your question is that up until this point you made no particular details as to the hypothetical case as such i had to answer you in general terms, but even now you preculde to allow us pertinent details on which to effectively judge the case at hand. Furthermore a judge doesnt rule on the on the presumption of things in evidence nor on his perception of those events- a judge can only act on acts committed and acts in evidence. The matter of prejudice may be material to quantifyin punitive measures for acts committed but alone and of themselves its not substantial in the legal system and it cant be prosecuted.

for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where "black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
discriminated against him. Ok now lets establish the facts of the case, was there violence involved, was their demonstrated inequality in treatment of others, what are the inproprieties cited by the plaintiff- and what is the defendant's subsequent rebuttal?

These questions dont even need to involve race as discrimination cases are judged not on the merit of ideologies but rather on the inproprieties committed by the accused party.

In an extreme example- if a White man lynched a man cuz he was Black does the judge need to believe in the racial ideology of either party to convict the white man of murder- nope.

If a White man lynched a guy he thought was a jew but it turned out he was mistaken does he get released cuz the guy wasnt a jew? No because he's being judicated on the grounds of motivated criminal activity - whereby motivation is only a matter of determining punitive damages not necessarily guilt.

In a common example If a company doesnt hire a guy cuz he's Black if they hire somebody of lesser talent then discrimination is not hard to demonstrate or prosecute.

The point is it doesnt matter what either party thinks- that is not what will be prosecuted and i dont think any reasonable person would conclude that people should be prosecuted for their beliefs.

In terms of judicating racial discrimination without adopting racial ideology- we will proceed with little more or less than the status quo...

hereby people are held accountable to their actions not their beliefs- and not your acceptance or dispute of their beliefs.

If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind then give me the electric chari for all my future crimes- prince

K