The hard cold truth of modern style racism

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not anymore, at least not legally, but that's not the only way to keep out certain people that you don't want.

Can you show where anyone with qualifications was turned down in recent history?

By recent history I take it you mean since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's when racial and other discrimination was outlawed.

Do you have proof that qualified non whites were denied positions on any Supreme Court?

Do you have any proof that they haven't been?

And why did you change the parameters of your questions after I responded?

[snipped]
I can see through all that floss MizMolly, you're not fooling anyone.

You realized after you asked your question that of course there is ample evidence of people being denied employement due to their protected class status in recent years. I only asked if you meant since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to see if you all would cry that's too long ago. Instead you changed the question entirely to one for which there is a lot less easily obtained data.

I can always support the claims I make, but honestly what I expected you to come back with is "you can't prove a negative", cause that's how you roll.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

List of U.S. states and territories by African-American population - Wikipedia

IM2 seems to be jealous. Jealousy is a dangerous emotion.

What am I supposed to be jealous of?

Beautiful white skin and big white brains

That's funny - if your brain is white it's decomposing

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

Interesting. I read the study--much truth there..along with a bit of over-simplification and statistical over-reach. For an example..requiring Idaho, Wyoming or Montana to give preference to Black people based on a perceived injustice nationwide..would be absurd, IMO.Their courts DO reflect the demographics of the State. Well..at least as far as Black people go. An argument could be made for Latino Representation..at least in Idaho--and Native American representation in Montana, North and South Dakota. This study limits itself to Black people though. The assumption is that there is,or will be, qualified applicants of color in those states. I see no reason why not.

There are 8 States that do not, according to this study, reflect the demographics. In those States that hold elections for the office..how would you redress the imbalance/ Limit an election to blacks? Not exactly Constitutional, I imagine. We could change the process to appointment...and limit the potential field to blacks, I guess.

I'm curious as to what you would see as a solution/ some form of quota or preference..until the balance is redressed? The question arises--is it in our best interests to possibly exclude the best candidate..in favor of redressing this imbalance? I reject the notion that there should be a nation-wide benchmark when the office is a State appointment.

If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations.

This was about the overall underrepresentation on state courts nationwide which includes state with high population of PEOPLE OF COLOR. Why do you not ask how the courts became that way, then address white quotas which are why states with large populations of POC have courts looking like Montana and Wyoming.

Because you cited a study as the basis of our op...and I responded to it. I know why it became that way..it is History 101.

I'm curious as to your proposed solutions? Do you have any/ Or is this thread just a way to while away the time and troll the racial apologists?

What are your solutions? You never ask for any in threads whites make, so don't start here.

You have none..OK.
Actually I ask for solutions all the time..not that I know the ethnicity of all the posters here. That explains a lot. You wouldn't really know a lot of my posts because you're a one trick pony. If it doesn't dovetail into some sort of racist polemic..you have nothing cogent to say.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Omg... A prophet is amongst us. I'll say you're more talented than Max Mouth Waters or many others. But your theory of 'collective black thought' needs a rough kick in the pants... And I'm thinking you're gonna get that kick as your political party continues to melt down... Won't be much longer that "all black people think and vote alike"...

You're more political than any kind of genuine Civil Rights leader that's made a name.. That's the weakness to your arrogance of speaking for all black people...

MLK went to the president idiot. The collective white thought you display is what needs the kicking. And the retarded white retort of you don't talk for all blacks because what you believe has been shown to be bunk, isn't going to cut it. You don't speak for any blacks. You are the one talking about politics and there will be no meltdown. Not when blacks hold leadership positions in the democratic party and black republicans are quitting.

You arrogance in believing that you speak for blacks and what you say on matters of race is definitive, non debatable fact is going to get shoved up your backside every time. Blacks don't vote for black republicans because black republicans generally don't have the best interests of the black community in mind.

That's why it happens. And as I am black, I'm not going to be debating some white man about it.

It would seem that you wish to substitute your racism for 'ours'. LOL...I guess there is plenty of historical precedent for that.

Good luck with your cause...by the time 'Your' people achieve parity..they will be 'Our' people. so who really wins/ Whose culture remains the benchmark? I imagine you enjoy baiting the ignorant here....good for you..meanwhile the future is happening..and it is far outside your control.

There is no such substitution. I see the future fool and we have been mixed for about 300 years.

***chuckles** OK Nostradamus. Culture trumps Color..that is the future. For all sides. Cultural Assimilation...it's not an option..it's natural law.

Seems that you were the one talking about a future which probably will not exist as you think. If my people become our people, the things I am talking about now will be corrected. That means the existing society based on white privilege will be gone.

it means white privilege would go away..and good riddance. Of course, all the other forms of privilege that exist would still be with us..people being people and all. Class privilege....various forms of privilege based on status and financial success.

 

[IM2]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

How many Asians are in the NFL or NBA?

OP wakes up every morning and puts on his racist colored glasses

America is so racist we may never have a real born in America black President and have to settle for the cheap "born in Kenya" knockoff

You make professional sports teams by showing you can do the job by trying out. That was a dumb ass question. Don't ask it again.

 

[IM2]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

Interesting. I read the study--much truth there..along with a bit of over-simplification and statistical over-reach. For an example..requiring Idaho, Wyoming or Montana to give preference to Black people based on a perceived injustice nationwide..would be absurd, IMO.Their courts DO reflect the demographics of the State. Well..at least as far as Black people go. An argument could be made for Latino Representation..at least in Idaho--and Native American representation in Montana, North and South Dakota. This study limits itself to Black people though. The assumption is that there is,or will be, qualified applicants of color in those states. I see no reason why not.

There are 8 States that do not, according to this study, reflect the demographics. In those States that hold elections for the office..how would you redress the imbalance/ Limit an election to blacks? Not exactly Constitutional, I imagine. We could change the process to appointment...and limit the potential field to blacks, I guess.

I'm curious as to what you would see as a solution/ some form of quota or preference..until the balance is redressed? The question arises--is it in our best interests to possibly exclude the best candidate..in favor of redressing this imbalance? I reject the notion that there should be a nation-wide benchmark when the office is a State appointment.

If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations.

This was about the overall underrepresentation on state courts nationwide which includes state with high population of PEOPLE OF COLOR. Why do you not ask how the courts became that way, then address white quotas which are why states with large populations of POC have courts looking like Montana and Wyoming.

Because you cited a study as the basis of our op...and I responded to it. I know why it became that way..it is History 101.

I'm curious as to your proposed solutions? Do you have any/ Or is this thread just a way to while away the time and troll the racial apologists?

What are your solutions? You never ask for any in threads whites make, so don't start here.

You have none..OK.
Actually I ask for solutions all the time..not that I know the ethnicity of all the posters here. That explains a lot. You wouldn't really know a lot of my posts because you're a one trick pony. If it doesn't dovetail into some sort of racist polemic..you have nothing cogent to say.

You argue a strawman argument citing states with low black populations to serve as a reason to deny, then ask me about a solution. So here is my solution, QUIT DENYING that the lack of diversity on state supreme courts is due to past and present racism. That is the first thing that must be done.

 

[IM2]

MLK went to the president idiot. The collective white thought you display is what needs the kicking. And the retarded white retort of you don't talk for all blacks because what you believe has been shown to be bunk, isn't going to cut it. You don't speak for any blacks. You are the one talking about politics and there will be no meltdown. Not when blacks hold leadership positions in the democratic party and black republicans are quitting.

You arrogance in believing that you speak for blacks and what you say on matters of race is definitive, non debatable fact is going to get shoved up your backside every time. Blacks don't vote for black republicans because black republicans generally don't have the best interests of the black community in mind.

That's why it happens. And as I am black, I'm not going to be debating some white man about it.

It would seem that you wish to substitute your racism for 'ours'. LOL...I guess there is plenty of historical precedent for that.

Good luck with your cause...by the time 'Your' people achieve parity..they will be 'Our' people. so who really wins/ Whose culture remains the benchmark? I imagine you enjoy baiting the ignorant here....good for you..meanwhile the future is happening..and it is far outside your control.

There is no such substitution. I see the future fool and we have been mixed for about 300 years.

***chuckles** OK Nostradamus. Culture trumps Color..that is the future. For all sides. Cultural Assimilation...it's not an option..it's natural law.

Seems that you were the one talking about a future which probably will not exist as you think. If my people become our people, the things I am talking about now will be corrected. That means the existing society based on white privilege will be gone.

it means white privilege would go away..and good riddance. Of course, all the other forms of privilege that exist would still be with us..people being people and all. Class privilege....various forms of privilege based on status and financial success.

If white privilege goes most of the rest does too.

 

[IM2]

Not so. But whites have benefited the most from affirmative action and swear the program is unfair. That's making a mountain out of a molehill. The study shows that nationwide people of color are 40 percent of the population. Not just blacks, but people of color. And they are underrepresented on these courts regardless of their population in a state. But since you are white it's easy for you to make such comments.

Your deflection to Affirmative action (Which is an insult to blacks) is noted for what it is, a desperate attempt to ignore the point of MY post about the state I live in. When blacks make up such a small segment of a state population, it is unsurprising not to see any blacks in courts or the state house.

You have already called me a racist for my telling you I refuse to pay for reparations, since my past family were never slave owners and never supported segregation.

Your never ending racism is irrational and divisive.

You are a racist. And not because you refuse reparation we would be seeking from the government that made all the things you talk about not doing legal. Affirmative action is not just for blacks and given what happened whites really need to be quiet about it.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

And the OP was about the lack of people of color, which make up approximately 30 percent of your states population.

Washington (state) - Wikipedia

I'm neither racist or divisive. Whites like you are just soft and can't take truth.

I agree with Flacalten, that you lack the critical thinking skills to realize that blacks by itself and cumulatively "people of color" (white is a color too) are too small a base to get many into political office and court seats. The obvious flies over your head because you see racism around every corner, underground and even in your dreams.

You LIED about my State since according to the CENSUS Bureau data, "people of color" make up about 23.75% of the population, but again that is misleading since separately NONE of the groups exceeds 8.1%

• White: 76.72%
• Asian: 8.07%
• Two or more races: 5.51%
• Other race: 4.09%
• Black or African American: 3.65%
• Native American: 1.32%
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.64%

This means they lack political power to elect anyone besides white people who dominate the state by population. Surely that is OBVIOUS?

You are one of the dumbest person on the board and the MOST racist too.

And what about the 12.1 percent Hispanics. They aren't white.

What about women or LGBTQRSTY? What about Jews and Muslims? People who are MIXED race? Poor people? Dumb people? You got enough seats on the Sup Ct. in Washington or Montana for fairness? Maybe you need 20 seats or 21 seats.....

It's politics, demographics and the ways these people are chosen.. If these seats are APPOINTED or voted in partisan races -- you cannot ask the people of state to have a court that is not of "their peers"....

Now Mississippi may have an issue in that Repubs just won't vote for leftist judges on lower courts because that state MAKES it political.. I don't like that. Should never be another monopoly on power by our lousy 2 party system to make judicial appointments another partisan food fight. I'd support elections WITHOUT party identification and make them on issues and beliefs and their judicial records...

And you really think this argument makes sense.

 

[IM2]

IM2 seems to be jealous. Jealousy is a dangerous emotion.

What am I supposed to be jealous of?

Beautiful white skin and big white brains

Why would I be jealous of those things? You guys give yourselves skin cancer trying to be black, or you pay money for a bottle of be black. And I've shown that I am smarter than you, for one.

 

[AveryJarhman]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

Hello, IM2. Keeping it 100% REAL & Respectful!

Do you honestly believe America's large SEGREGATION MINDED, INTRA-RACIAL HATE, DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE embracing PRO BLACK community is sincerely interested in seeking diversity in America?

I'm referring to the same SEGREGATION MINDED, INTRA-RACIAL HATE, DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE embracing PRO BLACK community that views many of their American neighbors of all backgrounds as "TRAITORS" or the "ENEMY!"

Be honest, IM2. Your focus is on retribution, tweaking 'WHITE GUILT', as well as pissing off the folks who in today's world are bending over backwards to accommodate HATEFUL PRO BLACK community that you are a proud member of.

IM2, As always I look fwd to reading your intelligent reply.



In this broadcast Life Coach Lenon Honor, an apparent caring, sensible, RESPONSIBLE American citizen Keeps it REAL, speaking about what he calls "The White Supremacy Promotion Hustle" ~Lenon Honor





Peace.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Interesting. I read the study--much truth there..along with a bit of over-simplification and statistical over-reach. For an example..requiring Idaho, Wyoming or Montana to give preference to Black people based on a perceived injustice nationwide..would be absurd, IMO.Their courts DO reflect the demographics of the State. Well..at least as far as Black people go. An argument could be made for Latino Representation..at least in Idaho--and Native American representation in Montana, North and South Dakota. This study limits itself to Black people though. The assumption is that there is,or will be, qualified applicants of color in those states. I see no reason why not.

There are 8 States that do not, according to this study, reflect the demographics. In those States that hold elections for the office..how would you redress the imbalance/ Limit an election to blacks? Not exactly Constitutional, I imagine. We could change the process to appointment...and limit the potential field to blacks, I guess.

I'm curious as to what you would see as a solution/ some form of quota or preference..until the balance is redressed? The question arises--is it in our best interests to possibly exclude the best candidate..in favor of redressing this imbalance? I reject the notion that there should be a nation-wide benchmark when the office is a State appointment.

If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations.

This was about the overall underrepresentation on state courts nationwide which includes state with high population of PEOPLE OF COLOR. Why do you not ask how the courts became that way, then address white quotas which are why states with large populations of POC have courts looking like Montana and Wyoming.

Because you cited a study as the basis of our op...and I responded to it. I know why it became that way..it is History 101.

I'm curious as to your proposed solutions? Do you have any/ Or is this thread just a way to while away the time and troll the racial apologists?

What are your solutions? You never ask for any in threads whites make, so don't start here.

You have none..OK.
Actually I ask for solutions all the time..not that I know the ethnicity of all the posters here. That explains a lot. You wouldn't really know a lot of my posts because you're a one trick pony. If it doesn't dovetail into some sort of racist polemic..you have nothing cogent to say.

You argue a strawman argument citing states with low black populations to serve as a reason to deny, then ask me about a solution. So here is my solution, QUIT DENYING that the lack of diversity on state supreme courts is due to past and present racism. That is the first thing that must be done.

OK..just for fun..show me my denial..LOL! My quote is right above us, "If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations."

Tell me, do you even differentiate between posters here..or do you just respond to any as though we are all...'some white dude'? I ask because this is not the first time you've responded to me..as though you haven't read a thing I wrote.

Oh..and as far as the lack of representation in ALL states being due to racism..well..probably not..in those States that have minimal Black population. Not that the States have not been racist..as have been all areas of the US...but because the pool of qualified black applicants may be low..and the percentage of blacks in the population argues against it. It appears that you are arguing for Black representation even in those States with minimal Black population as a mean to redress your grievance. Is this a correct assessment? Are you averaging Black population percentages across the US and applying them to all States/ Because that's a bit crazy..States are legitimately entitled to a fair representation of their populations in their State offices. I would have thought that that is the crux of your argument.

So..you have stated what the first thing is..that you feel must be done..what's the second?.

Again...any cogent solutions?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It would seem that you wish to substitute your racism for 'ours'. LOL...I guess there is plenty of historical precedent for that.

Good luck with your cause...by the time 'Your' people achieve parity..they will be 'Our' people. so who really wins/ Whose culture remains the benchmark? I imagine you enjoy baiting the ignorant here....good for you..meanwhile the future is happening..and it is far outside your control.

There is no such substitution. I see the future fool and we have been mixed for about 300 years.

***chuckles** OK Nostradamus. Culture trumps Color..that is the future. For all sides. Cultural Assimilation...it's not an option..it's natural law.

Seems that you were the one talking about a future which probably will not exist as you think. If my people become our people, the things I am talking about now will be corrected. That means the existing society based on white privilege will be gone.

it means white privilege would go away..and good riddance. Of course, all the other forms of privilege that exist would still be with us..people being people and all. Class privilege....various forms of privilege based on status and financial success.

If white privilege goes most of the rest does too.

I disagree. History says otherwise. People form hierarchies..it is what we do. Equality is a philosophical aspiration..not a natural reality..some are smarter..some stronger...some lead..some seek to be led. Ideally Govt. should guarantee rights and protect those who need it. But I see no situation where there are not both haves and have-nots in society..and the haves will rig the game...it is our nature. If not race as a defining element..we will find something else..or make it up.

Privilege one of the ways we rig the game.

 

[protectionist]

I've got American history. How about you?

Like, you don't even know what you're talking about in regard to Affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

What you apparently don't have, is a good memory. Here's an exchange between you and me, from 6 months ago, about the left's favorite (and wrong) talking point on Affirmative Action. >>

IM2 said: ↑
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

BULLSHIT! For every one white woman helped by Affirmative Action, there are vastly many more harmed by it.

1. Those discriminated against because of being white.

2. Daughters, wives, and mothers, of white men being discriminated against.

 

[IM2]

I've got American history. How about you?

Like, you don't even know what you're talking about in regard to Affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

What you apparently don't have, is a good memory. Here's an exchange between you and me, from 6 months ago, about the left's favorite (and wrong) talking point on Affirmative Action. >>

IM2 said: ↑
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

BULLSHIT! For every one white woman helped by Affirmative Action, there are vastly many more harmed by it.

1. Those discriminated against because of being white.

2. Daughters, wives, and mothers, of white men being discriminated against.

I remember and you're still telling yourself that lie. I produced evidence. What you said is backed by nothing.

AA doesn't discriminate against whites. Whites aren't entitled to all the jobs or admissions. SAT scores are not the only qualification for college admittance and more unqualified whites have been given jobs over qualified people of color. White women have benefited the most from AA. That means daughters, wives, and mothers, of white men are not being discriminated against.

 

[IM2]

This was about the overall underrepresentation on state courts nationwide which includes state with high population of PEOPLE OF COLOR. Why do you not ask how the courts became that way, then address white quotas which are why states with large populations of POC have courts looking like Montana and Wyoming.

Because you cited a study as the basis of our op...and I responded to it. I know why it became that way..it is History 101.

I'm curious as to your proposed solutions? Do you have any/ Or is this thread just a way to while away the time and troll the racial apologists?

What are your solutions? You never ask for any in threads whites make, so don't start here.

You have none..OK.
Actually I ask for solutions all the time..not that I know the ethnicity of all the posters here. That explains a lot. You wouldn't really know a lot of my posts because you're a one trick pony. If it doesn't dovetail into some sort of racist polemic..you have nothing cogent to say.

You argue a strawman argument citing states with low black populations to serve as a reason to deny, then ask me about a solution. So here is my solution, QUIT DENYING that the lack of diversity on state supreme courts is due to past and present racism. That is the first thing that must be done.

OK..just for fun..show me my denial..LOL! My quote is right above us, "If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations."

Tell me, do you even differentiate between posters here..or do you just respond to any as though we are all...'some white dude'? I ask because this is not the first time you've responded to me..as though you haven't read a thing I wrote.

Oh..and as far as the lack of representation in ALL states being due to racism..well..probably not..in those States that have minimal Black population. Not that the States have not been racist..as have been all areas of the US...but because the pool of qualified black applicants may be low..and the percentage of blacks in the population argues against it. It appears that you are arguing for Black representation even in those States with minimal Black population as a mean to redress your grievance. Is this a correct assessment? Are you averaging Black population percentages across the US and applying them to all States/ Because that's a bit crazy..States are legitimately entitled to a fair representation of their populations in their State offices. I would have thought that that is the crux of your argument.

So..you have stated what the first thing is..that you feel must be done..what's the second?.

Again...any cogent solutions?

I gave you a solution. You wanted to bring up states with low black populations instead of addressing this as a national problem that the study presented when it said that nation wide people of color are 40 percent but make up 15 percent of the justices. That white men are 1/3 of the population but 58 percent of the justices. That's where your denial come in. And I do believe I hit reply just like I did now and that means I read your post and responded to it.

So again, my response is that whites stop denying the problem by talking about states with minimal black populations. There is a reason few blacks live in Montana, a high population of white supremacist groups. Same with Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon. So racism plays a huge role in these matters.

 

[IM2]

There is no such substitution. I see the future fool and we have been mixed for about 300 years.

***chuckles** OK Nostradamus. Culture trumps Color..that is the future. For all sides. Cultural Assimilation...it's not an option..it's natural law.

Seems that you were the one talking about a future which probably will not exist as you think. If my people become our people, the things I am talking about now will be corrected. That means the existing society based on white privilege will be gone.

it means white privilege would go away..and good riddance. Of course, all the other forms of privilege that exist would still be with us..people being people and all. Class privilege....various forms of privilege based on status and financial success.

If white privilege goes most of the rest does too.

I disagree. History says otherwise. People form hierarchies..it is what we do. Equality is a philosophical aspiration..not a natural reality..some are smarter..some stronger...some lead..some seek to be led. Ideally Govt. should guarantee rights and protect those who need it. But I see no situation where there are not both haves and have-nots in society..and the haves will rig the game...it is our nature. If not race as a defining element..we will find something else..or make it up.

Privilege one of the ways we rig the game.

History shows us a lot of things

 

[22lcidw]

I've got American history. How about you?

Like, you don't even know what you're talking about in regard to Affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

What you apparently don't have, is a good memory. Here's an exchange between you and me, from 6 months ago, about the left's favorite (and wrong) talking point on Affirmative Action. >>

IM2 said: ↑
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

BULLSHIT! For every one white woman helped by Affirmative Action, there are vastly many more harmed by it.

1. Those discriminated against because of being white.

2. Daughters, wives, and mothers, of white men being discriminated against.

I remember and you're still telling yourself that lie. I produced evidence. What you said is backed by nothing.

AA doesn't discriminate against whites. Whites aren't entitled to all the jobs or admissions. SAT scores are not the only qualification for college admittance and more unqualified whites have been given jobs over qualified people of color. White women have benefited the most from AA. That means daughters, wives, and mothers, of white men are not being discriminated against.

White women took the mantle from African Americans. The system was designed to help African American males achieve opportunity. But the system did not succeed as intended. There ended up being not as many males qualified with educations and they fell behind. There were also many opportunities for those who screwed up in jobs they were given chances to do. This back in the 1970's/early 1980's.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

running a sweet potato against a Republican in a black district would get elected...

I yam what I yam for Congress

Vote early .vote often.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Because you cited a study as the basis of our op...and I responded to it. I know why it became that way..it is History 101.

I'm curious as to your proposed solutions? Do you have any/ Or is this thread just a way to while away the time and troll the racial apologists?

What are your solutions? You never ask for any in threads whites make, so don't start here.

You have none..OK.
Actually I ask for solutions all the time..not that I know the ethnicity of all the posters here. That explains a lot. You wouldn't really know a lot of my posts because you're a one trick pony. If it doesn't dovetail into some sort of racist polemic..you have nothing cogent to say.

You argue a strawman argument citing states with low black populations to serve as a reason to deny, then ask me about a solution. So here is my solution, QUIT DENYING that the lack of diversity on state supreme courts is due to past and present racism. That is the first thing that must be done.

OK..just for fun..show me my denial..LOL! My quote is right above us, "If your point was simply to bring attention to this issue..I agree..Blacks are not represented in some states and under-represented in others. Institutional racism will be with us for generations."

Tell me, do you even differentiate between posters here..or do you just respond to any as though we are all...'some white dude'? I ask because this is not the first time you've responded to me..as though you haven't read a thing I wrote.

Oh..and as far as the lack of representation in ALL states being due to racism..well..probably not..in those States that have minimal Black population. Not that the States have not been racist..as have been all areas of the US...but because the pool of qualified black applicants may be low..and the percentage of blacks in the population argues against it. It appears that you are arguing for Black representation even in those States with minimal Black population as a mean to redress your grievance. Is this a correct assessment? Are you averaging Black population percentages across the US and applying them to all States/ Because that's a bit crazy..States are legitimately entitled to a fair representation of their populations in their State offices. I would have thought that that is the crux of your argument.

So..you have stated what the first thing is..that you feel must be done..what's the second?.

Again...any cogent solutions?

I gave you a solution. You wanted to bring up states with low black populations instead of addressing this as a national problem that the study presented when it said that nation wide people of color are 40 percent but make up 15 percent of the justices. That white men are 1/3 of the population but 58 percent of the justices. That's where your denial come in. And I do believe I hit reply just like I did now and that means I read your post and responded to it.

So again, my response is that whites stop denying the problem by talking about states with minimal black populations. There is a reason few blacks live in Montana, a high population of white supremacist groups. Same with Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon. So racism plays a huge role in these matters.

You did not give me a solution...realizing the issue...admitting it..blah, blah, blah..is not a solution..it is at best an acknowledgment..that has no meaning if not followed by some sort of action.
Nope..now you are talking about stuff you know nothing about. no matter..I've come to believe that you are a racist troll...entertaining yourself--rock on. I will point out that lumping Washington in with your other named States is a bit silly..as Washington's demographics are quite different.

To be clear...only a fool would attempt to use national demographics to address State level issues..or the lack of same. 8 states in your study..or 16% of the States nationwide--have a clear issue with under-representation. This according to your OP--which is based on Statewide demographics. Also..it is ingenuous, at best, to open with a study that is solely directed at blacks..and then make the rookie mistake of lumping all people's of color together in order to make a larger demographic base and make it appear as though this percentage is the one that should be addressed. Other ethnic minorities have their own interests and goals and they may be radically different from the Black communities vision. It is NOT P.O.C. against the Whites..in some monolithic movement.

Your constant moving of the goalposts....ignoring your own OP's conclusions and failure to actually address any sort of solution--argue against your caring about this issue at all...it's just another piece of red meat to bring out the board racists for you to play with.

It's cool, everyone needs a hobby, after all.

 

[MizMolly]

Can you show where anyone with qualifications was turned down in recent history?

By recent history I take it you mean since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's when racial and other discrimination was outlawed.

Do you have proof that qualified non whites were denied positions on any Supreme Court?

Do you have any proof that they haven't been?

And why did you change the parameters of your questions after I responded?

[snipped]
I can see through all that floss MizMolly, you're not fooling anyone.

You realized after you asked your question that of course there is ample evidence of people being denied employement due to their protected class status in recent years. I only asked if you meant since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to see if you all would cry that's too long ago. Instead you changed the question entirely to one for which there is a lot less easily obtained data.

I can always support the claims I make, but honestly what I expected you to come back with is "you can't prove a negative", cause that's how you roll.

We were not discussing all employment, just the Supreme Court positions. Try again.