Don't kid yourself.

The intersection between the world of law, the courts, and the world of politics, the legislature, is far closer than most would acknowledge.

Courts keep a keen eye on the political winds blowing around them. And lawmakers understand their limits and when it makes little sense to step in where the courts have already made their mark.

This is by way of explaining why the blockbuster 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the admission policy of Kamehameha Schools reaches far beyond the narrow limits of the legal issues the two sides debated.

It is, in fact, a keynote moment in the larger political battle over Hawaiian entitlements, rights and opportunities as Hawai'i moves forward in the coming decades.

By far the most striking thing about the decision of the 15-member appeals panel (Kamehameha won by the narrowest of 8-7 margins) was that both supporters and opponents of the school's racially preferential admissions policy appeared to understand the underlying issues involved.

Maybe most of the work was done by serious law clerks burning the midnight oil, but whatever the providence, there was a significant element of historical, cultural and sociological understanding in the decision. From both sides.

The decision took note of the historical circumstances that brought us to this point and made numerous references to both scholarly and journalistic work that set Hawaiians in contemporary context. In short, there appeared to be a serious attempt to understand the unique circumstances that surround Hawaiians today.

That's impressive. Particularly, when one looks at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs voting case (Rice v. Cayetano) which rather fatuously declared that all citizens of this state are "Hawaiians." They meant, of course, that we are all Hawaiians as all residents of California are Californians, but the statement betrayed a profound unawareness of what makes this place different from other states.

Not so in this opinion. Whether a judge was writing to uphold Kamehameha's admission policy or to reject it, there was a strong sense that they understood the historical context they were dealing with. That may be in the end more important than the legalisms that tilted the majority narrowly to Kamehameha's side. Essentially, the majority said that a racially exclusive policy can stand up to legal challenge if it doesn't materially harm those excluded, achieves a remedial purpose that is worthwhile and is limited in scope or duration.

That's the legals of it. But the subtext, the place where law and politics intersect, comes in the understanding that circumstances in Hawai'i are materially different than in other places in the country and that rules of law designed to fit — for want of a better word — continental conditions may not necessarily apply in the Islands. It's a tricky concept and one open to all kinds of challenge: After all, aren't we one nation with one set of laws?

But the truth is, we are a multitude. We are not as one. That's the genius of the American experiment and it may turn out in time that the courts have begun to recognize this particularly as it applies to the Hawaiian experience.

If that is accepted, politics and law may intersect in a positive way, indeed.

Reach Jerry Burris at jburris@honoluluadvertiser.com.