Empathetic or not?

[DamnYankee]

Affirmative action is in fact, reverse discrimination, in most cases. Blacks are no longer segregated or owned, so therefore they shouldn't receive preferential treatment. Brown v. board isn't an example of activist judges, it is a case of unequal status by members of our society.

Interesting turn here. I believe that AA has served its purpose already and, now, is, as you say, reverse discrimination. Can't seem to pin the President down on this though. In this interview, you'll see how he avoids it rather well, while seemingly advocating for a "class based" AA process at first.

The Washington Monthly

But policy, here, is still in question.

On the one hand, Obama opposes the current state ballot measures (McCain supports them), thus offering at least de facto support for the current policy that gives preference to minorities and women and is rooted in the programs begun by President Kennedy and later significantly expanded by President Nixon.

On the other hand, Obama’s said that his two daughters should not be given preferential treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has called for government to “craft” a policy “in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.”

Such hints of a possible new policy focus are a relatively recent development from Obama, who once said that he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, though he didn’t specify at what institution he had so benefited. Friends have since recalled him saying that he did not list his race on his Harvard Law School application, though the candidate has said only that "I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”
Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric - David Paul Kuhn - Politico.com

And then he was elected President.

Time is running out - at least legally. In 2003, then-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor set a clock ticking when she wrote the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling. The court defended the University of Michigan's "narrowly-tailored use of race" in its law school admissions process as a means of creating a diverse student body. The caveat: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

Five years later, not enough progress has been made. But there is at least the potential that the nation could spend the next 20 years moving away from stale notions of affirmative action and toward an unprecedented era of widespread opportunity.
Obama and affirmative action - The Boston Globe

Does he have the courage to change it?

 

[editec]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

 

[Nik]

Sociology rears its ugly head again. There is societal expectations about women and men. In other words when a woman enters a bathroom, she doesn't expect to see a man pissing in a urinal.....

Exactly. The entire decision was predicated upon sociological facts. And those facts by themselves don't make the law constitutional, or unconstitutional. After all, one is supposed to read the plan text, blah, blah, blah, right?

This is the current argument against affirmative action, and its one you see everywhere in conservative circles. "Treat everyone exactly the same, and its A OK". Well, no, actually, its not. Because blacks suffer from inferiority complexes, because our society is still racist, its not ok. In fact, its rather problematic.

Again, Brown v. board is an example of "activist" judges, that nobody calls activist because activist judges is just a euphemism for "decisions we don't agree with".

I notice you've ignored my AUMF example as well. Thats another decision of, obviously, activist judges that conservatives are A OK with because it fits in with their worldview. To his credit, Scalia really tears apart that case, actually. And Thomas shows what a douchebag he really is.

A link with your activism shown in the AUMF, please? Affirmative action is in fact, reverse discrimination, in most cases. Blacks are no longer segregated or owned, so therefore they shouldn't receive preferential treatment. Brown v. board isn't an example of activist judges, it is a case of unequal status by members of our society.

AUMF Case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html

Blacks being segregated also doesn't mean they should receive preferential treatment until you take into account sociological and normative factors. You've stated that Brown isn't a case of activist judges many times now, but you've still failed to provide any evidence for that proposition, or anything contradicting my assertion.

And blacks DO still suffer disproportionately to whites. They are more likely to be in jail, be poor, be disenfranchised. And yet before when that was the case, it was somehow a terrible thing to segregate them, but now you can't treat them differently, even if they need that because of systematic disadvantages?

As for the sociological implications of race nowadays...On some tests when blacks perform equally as well as whites....they perform substantially poorer when they are asked their race at the beginning of the test. Yeah. Thats it. Their score goes down if they are asked their race.

Social psychology - Google Book Search

 

[Nik]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

Not really. Poverty is a definite problem, and we need to address that, but so is racism. Affirmative Action works, and should stay, but more social programs to create opportunities for impoverished kids, whatever race they may be, need to be implemented.

 

[DamnYankee]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

 

[Nik]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh yeah... THAT'S your problem... Not enough FREE CONDOMS!

Of course, all of those poor kids are enrolled in Secular Government schools, where sex education is RAMPANT... and part of the problem...

 

[code1211]

No, Brown v. Board of ed said that separation was necessarily unequal. The thrust of the argument wasn't that the school systems were unequal, it was that by the very act of being separate, it made them unequal. In it, the court relied (as you've shown), on social science, international morals (UNESCO is not binding), and other social treatises which have nothing to do with the law.

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

There was an excellent movie on TV showing the story of the Brown v Board of Ed case with Thurgood Marshall as the main charachter. It showed the legal considerations and the awareness of how the dicision would affect the communities involved and the problems with enforcement of any decision.

My vision of the decision making of the USSC had always been one of the Chosen on Olympus rendering a decision for the masses. This movie revealed a very gritty and down and dirty understanding the law, the society and the impact of the law on real people and real communities. It was an eye opener for me.

Until I saw that film, it seemed like interpreting the law was a pretty simple thing. The decision in Brown was the result of every decision before it, every bias and prejudice they were aware of and every problem they could predict as a result of the decision. There was also a great deal of politicing going on.

I'm no legal historian, but the story seemed reasonable to me and was very instructive.

 

[DamnYankee]

Affirmative Action is a great way of pretending to deal with the problems in our society while not really doing anything about the REAL problem (which is poverty, mostly, more than racism)

AA served to create racial tension rather than mitigating it, and dividing the people to control them is SOP for every government.

Get the squabbling over crumbs and they won't even notice the cake.

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

I believe it is a parental responsibility to teach/tell since each has their own "standards". That being said, family life education begins quite early in the education setting -- with basic facts. You want more from the education system, it's up to the parents in the district to advocate for it. If it isn't there, obviously there's a reason.

In addition to that, kids aren't stupid. They have more access to information now than ever before. There are public health agencies and organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, where they can obtain information and assistance in every state. Problem is, Planned Parenthood isn't always assisting. This case from last year in California is an example.

Lawsuit: California Planned Parenthood Overcharged State Millions for Birth Control


Parents who were teen parents should be the best teachers, not the poorest teachers, doncha think?

 

[Nik]

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

There was an excellent movie on TV showing the story of the Brown v Board of Ed case with Thurgood Marshall as the main charachter. It showed the legal considerations and the awareness of how the dicision would affect the communities involved and the problems with enforcement of any decision.

My vision of the decision making of the USSC had always been one of the Chosen on Olympus rendering a decision for the masses. This movie revealed a very gritty and down and dirty understanding the law, the society and the impact of the law on real people and real communities. It was an eye opener for me.

Until I saw that film, it seemed like interpreting the law was a pretty simple thing. The decision in Brown was the result of every decision before it, every bias and prejudice they were aware of and every problem they could predict as a result of the decision. There was also a great deal of politicing going on.

I'm no legal historian, but the story seemed reasonable to me and was very instructive.

I think I know which film you are talking about, and it is good. As for interpreting the law being a simple thing, it very rarely is. If you want a simple example (the one that many law schools start with), you can consider this proposition.

A city council enacts a law that says "no vehicles in the park". Now the cops need to enforce it and decide what a vehicle is. So...can you define vehicle for me?

 

[Nik]

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh yeah... THAT'S your problem... Not enough FREE CONDOMS!

Of course, all of those poor kids are enrolled in Secular Government schools, where sex education is RAMPANT... and part of the problem...

Right. Except all the studies say you are full of shit. But then, you don't pay attention to anything that goes against your worldview, do you?

 

[Nik]

And yet, some people make their own poverty by repeating the mistakes of their parents. For example, there is a great deal of material available on the phenomenon of generational teen pregnancy, which occurs frequently amongst those "in poverty". Never quite sure how it is that they don't understand that another life adds to the cost of their own living.

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

I believe it is a parental responsibility to teach/tell since each has their own "standards". That being said, family life education begins quite early in the education setting -- with basic facts. You want more from the education system, it's up to the parents in the district to advocate for it. If it isn't there, obviously there's a reason.

In addition to that, kids aren't stupid. They have more access to information now than ever before. There are public health agencies and organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, where they can obtain information and assistance in every state. Problem is, Planned Parenthood isn't always assisting. This case from last year in California is an example.

Lawsuit: California Planned Parenthood Overcharged State Millions for Birth Control


Parents who were teen parents should be the best teachers, not the poorest teachers, doncha think?

Citing parental responsibility is just a cop out in this case. We are talking about indigent individuals who have very little resources and are struggling to get by. They have other worries besides just taking care of their kids, and they often aren't home very much. Its not a fun situation.

 

[AllieBaba]

Their primary worries are centered around their next high and only second to that, their next orgasm. Because they've been taught they have a "right" to those things.

 

[jreeves]

Exactly. The entire decision was predicated upon sociological facts. And those facts by themselves don't make the law constitutional, or unconstitutional. After all, one is supposed to read the plan text, blah, blah, blah, right?

This is the current argument against affirmative action, and its one you see everywhere in conservative circles. "Treat everyone exactly the same, and its A OK". Well, no, actually, its not. Because blacks suffer from inferiority complexes, because our society is still racist, its not ok. In fact, its rather problematic.

Again, Brown v. board is an example of "activist" judges, that nobody calls activist because activist judges is just a euphemism for "decisions we don't agree with".

I notice you've ignored my AUMF example as well. Thats another decision of, obviously, activist judges that conservatives are A OK with because it fits in with their worldview. To his credit, Scalia really tears apart that case, actually. And Thomas shows what a douchebag he really is.

A link with your activism shown in the AUMF, please? Affirmative action is in fact, reverse discrimination, in most cases. Blacks are no longer segregated or owned, so therefore they shouldn't receive preferential treatment. Brown v. board isn't an example of activist judges, it is a case of unequal status by members of our society.

AUMF Case: HAMDI V. RUMSFELD

Blacks being segregated also doesn't mean they should receive preferential treatment until you take into account sociological and normative factors. You've stated that Brown isn't a case of activist judges many times now, but you've still failed to provide any evidence for that proposition, or anything contradicting my assertion.

And blacks DO still suffer disproportionately to whites. They are more likely to be in jail, be poor, be disenfranchised. And yet before when that was the case, it was somehow a terrible thing to segregate them, but now you can't treat them differently, even if they need that because of systematic disadvantages?

As for the sociological implications of race nowadays...On some tests when blacks perform equally as well as whites....they perform substantially poorer when they are asked their race at the beginning of the test. Yeah. Thats it. Their score goes down if they are asked their race.

Social psychology - Google Book Search

As was cited in the case, Brown v. Board of Ed, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, due to the equal protection clause. Yes Sociological factors were used, but in no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. The sociological factors were reflected in general terms and how they would effect society.


Of course there is so many systematic hindrances, our President is a great example of this. The reason more black people are in jail, is because more black people per capita commit crimes according to the FBI. AA is nothing short of reverse discrimination in almost all cases..

 

[DamnYankee]

They usually didn't get pregnant on purpose. But of course it can be hard to get free condoms or birth control or even sex education in parts of the country if you are poor. And then we blame them for getting pregnant, after we didn't bother to tell them how to have safe sex.

I believe it is a parental responsibility to teach/tell since each has their own "standards". That being said, family life education begins quite early in the education setting -- with basic facts. You want more from the education system, it's up to the parents in the district to advocate for it. If it isn't there, obviously there's a reason.

In addition to that, kids aren't stupid. They have more access to information now than ever before. There are public health agencies and organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, where they can obtain information and assistance in every state. Problem is, Planned Parenthood isn't always assisting. This case from last year in California is an example.

Lawsuit: California Planned Parenthood Overcharged State Millions for Birth Control


Parents who were teen parents should be the best teachers, not the poorest teachers, doncha think?

Citing parental responsibility is just a cop out in this case. We are talking about indigent individuals who have very little resources and are struggling to get by. They have other worries besides just taking care of their kids, and they often aren't home very much. Its not a fun situation.

Wow.... Speaking of "cop out"....

Guess what? I know, personally, more than a few (from professional experience). Some choose to "cop out" and play the victim. Others pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and say "I screwed up, but I'm going to do better." Don't give me that shit about "very little resources" and "struggling to get by". If they don't want to be a victim, they LEARN where the resources are and STRUGGLE to make a BETTER life for their child. The WORK for it so they no longer NEED OTHERS to assume THEIR responsibility.

You DID listen to Obama's speech last Father's Day, didn't you?

 

[Nik]

A link with your activism shown in the AUMF, please? Affirmative action is in fact, reverse discrimination, in most cases. Blacks are no longer segregated or owned, so therefore they shouldn't receive preferential treatment. Brown v. board isn't an example of activist judges, it is a case of unequal status by members of our society.

AUMF Case: HAMDI V. RUMSFELD

Blacks being segregated also doesn't mean they should receive preferential treatment until you take into account sociological and normative factors. You've stated that Brown isn't a case of activist judges many times now, but you've still failed to provide any evidence for that proposition, or anything contradicting my assertion.

And blacks DO still suffer disproportionately to whites. They are more likely to be in jail, be poor, be disenfranchised. And yet before when that was the case, it was somehow a terrible thing to segregate them, but now you can't treat them differently, even if they need that because of systematic disadvantages?

As for the sociological implications of race nowadays...On some tests when blacks perform equally as well as whites....they perform substantially poorer when they are asked their race at the beginning of the test. Yeah. Thats it. Their score goes down if they are asked their race.

Social psychology - Google Book Search

As was cited in the case, Brown v. Board of Ed, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, due to the equal protection clause. Yes Sociological factors were used, but in no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. The sociological factors were reflected in general terms and how they would effect society.

Haha. In no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. What a crock of shit. Tell me where in the 14th amendment it says that people shouldn't feel unequal.

Of course there is so many systematic hindrances, our President is a great example of this. The reason more black people are in jail, is because more black people per capita commit crimes according to the FBI. AA is nothing short of reverse discrimination in almost all cases..

Of course its reverse discrimination. Its reverse discrimination in all cases. But its ok because it promotes equality. Or do you like going to law school with only 1 black kid?

 

[Nik]

I believe it is a parental responsibility to teach/tell since each has their own "standards". That being said, family life education begins quite early in the education setting -- with basic facts. You want more from the education system, it's up to the parents in the district to advocate for it. If it isn't there, obviously there's a reason.

In addition to that, kids aren't stupid. They have more access to information now than ever before. There are public health agencies and organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, where they can obtain information and assistance in every state. Problem is, Planned Parenthood isn't always assisting. This case from last year in California is an example.

Lawsuit: California Planned Parenthood Overcharged State Millions for Birth Control


Parents who were teen parents should be the best teachers, not the poorest teachers, doncha think?

Citing parental responsibility is just a cop out in this case. We are talking about indigent individuals who have very little resources and are struggling to get by. They have other worries besides just taking care of their kids, and they often aren't home very much. Its not a fun situation.

Wow.... Speaking of "cop out"....

Guess what? I know, personally, more than a few (from professional experience). Some choose to "cop out" and play the victim. Others pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and say "I screwed up, but I'm going to do better." Don't give me that shit about "very little resources" and "struggling to get by". If they don't want to be a victim, they LEARN where the resources are and STRUGGLE to make a BETTER life for their child. The WORK for it so they no longer NEED OTHERS to assume THEIR responsibility.

You DID listen to Obama's speech last Father's Day, didn't you?

Thats nice. And why do you want to punish the kids for their parents failing to take "personal responsibility". And, by the way, sometimes the struggle of trying to take personal responsibility (i.e. taking 3 jobs) is why the kid ends up not knowing shit. Too busy putting food on th e table to teach their kids.

 

[jreeves]

AUMF Case: HAMDI V. RUMSFELD

Blacks being segregated also doesn't mean they should receive preferential treatment until you take into account sociological and normative factors. You've stated that Brown isn't a case of activist judges many times now, but you've still failed to provide any evidence for that proposition, or anything contradicting my assertion.

And blacks DO still suffer disproportionately to whites. They are more likely to be in jail, be poor, be disenfranchised. And yet before when that was the case, it was somehow a terrible thing to segregate them, but now you can't treat them differently, even if they need that because of systematic disadvantages?

As for the sociological implications of race nowadays...On some tests when blacks perform equally as well as whites....they perform substantially poorer when they are asked their race at the beginning of the test. Yeah. Thats it. Their score goes down if they are asked their race.

Social psychology - Google Book Search

As was cited in the case, Brown v. Board of Ed, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, due to the equal protection clause. Yes Sociological factors were used, but in no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. The sociological factors were reflected in general terms and how they would effect society.

Haha. In no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. What a crock of shit. Tell me where in the 14th amendment it says that people shouldn't feel unequal.

Of course there is so many systematic hindrances, our President is a great example of this. The reason more black people are in jail, is because more black people per capita commit crimes according to the FBI. AA is nothing short of reverse discrimination in almost all cases..

Of course its reverse discrimination. Its reverse discrimination in all cases. But its ok because it promotes equality. Or do you like going to law school with only 1 black kid?

Its right there if you look....
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to create: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's property interest can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederate states and their officials.

It guarantees rights to everyone, hence the equal protection clause. Including education, marriage, etc.....

Ah yes, cause if someone can't succeed it must be because of someone else. What about the poor white kid that can't get into law school because his rich black counterpart who isn't as qualified is accepted due to AA. That's a crock of shit right there and furthermore the 14th amendment should guarantee that the white student be given equal protection under the law.

 

[DamnYankee]

Citing parental responsibility is just a cop out in this case. We are talking about indigent individuals who have very little resources and are struggling to get by. They have other worries besides just taking care of their kids, and they often aren't home very much. Its not a fun situation.

Wow.... Speaking of "cop out"....

Guess what? I know, personally, more than a few (from professional experience). Some choose to "cop out" and play the victim. Others pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and say "I screwed up, but I'm going to do better." Don't give me that shit about "very little resources" and "struggling to get by". If they don't want to be a victim, they LEARN where the resources are and STRUGGLE to make a BETTER life for their child. The WORK for it so they no longer NEED OTHERS to assume THEIR responsibility.

You DID listen to Obama's speech last Father's Day, didn't you?

Thats nice. And why do you want to punish the kids for their parents failing to take "personal responsibility". And, by the way, sometimes the struggle of trying to take personal responsibility (i.e. taking 3 jobs) is why the kid ends up not knowing shit. Too busy putting food on th e table to teach their kids.

Spare me the "taking 3 jobs" crap. If a struggling single parent (we were talking about unmarrieds here) took three jobs, not only would they be non-functional themselves and be out of work because of it, Family Services would take the kid(s) away for endangering the welfare of a minor.

And you also, conveniently, glossed over the (above) point that kids today have more access (themselves) to information than ever before.

 

[Nik]

As was cited in the case, Brown v. Board of Ed, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, due to the equal protection clause. Yes Sociological factors were used, but in no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. The sociological factors were reflected in general terms and how they would effect society.

Haha. In no way did the Justices empathize with the parties. What a crock of shit. Tell me where in the 14th amendment it says that people shouldn't feel unequal.

Of course there is so many systematic hindrances, our President is a great example of this. The reason more black people are in jail, is because more black people per capita commit crimes according to the FBI. AA is nothing short of reverse discrimination in almost all cases..

Of course its reverse discrimination. Its reverse discrimination in all cases. But its ok because it promotes equality. Or do you like going to law school with only 1 black kid?

Its right there if you look....
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to create: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's property interest can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederate states and their officials.

It guarantees rights to everyone, hence the equal protection clause. Including education, marriage, etc.....

And where does it provide the right to FEEL equal? Nowhere. Thank you for proving my point.

Ah yes, cause if someone can't succeed it must be because of someone else. What about the poor white kid that can't get into law school because his rich black counterpart who isn't as qualified is accepted due to AA. That's a crock of shit right there and furthermore the 14th amendment should guarantee that the white student be given equal protection under the law.

No, not must, but is often because of someone else. Try not to create strawmen, especially such obvious ones.

I actually go to law school with a bunch of kids, white and black. The whites are pretty rich, the blacks actually aren't. Not sure where you are getting this weird myth about rich black kids booting poor white ones from schools.

Of course...equal protection. Because we shouldn't look at sociological research now that shows that blacks are discriminated against. But before it was A OK, right?

Hypocrite.