Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,201
Lessons of History and Trying To Avoid the Same Mistakes
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Stryker___777
Silver Member
- Aug 12, 2019
- 181
- 233
- 93
Keep talking to yourself then. On 4chan we call your type "samef*gs"
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,203
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,204
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,205
[ Wonderful result from patience and resolve ]
www.goodnewsnetwork.org
'Absolutely Epic': Watch Blackfeet Setting Free a Wild Bison Herd onto Tribal Land
Then, a worker opened up the gate and all 30 rushed out into the wild, a moment which a Blackfeet Councilman called "absolutely epic."
www.goodnewsnetwork.org
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,206
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,207
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,208
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,209
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,210
A federal judge on Monday blocked a provision of a recently enacted Florida law that the ACLU characterized as a "clear and brazen attack on civic participation in our democracy."
S.B. 7050, which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law in May, would have imposed $50,000 fines on community organizations for every noncitizen individual who collected or handled voter registration forms for the groups—even if the people were legally authorized to work in the United States.
In a scathing 58-page order granting rights groups' request for a preliminary injunction, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida called the law "Florida's latest assault on the right to vote" and agreed that the voter registration provision would have "substantially interrupted" community groups' outreach efforts.
"Tomorrow, Floridians across the state will commemorate our nation's birthday," Walker wrote. "They will endure the heat of the Florida summer to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends at barbecues and picnics. They will gather with their communities at public parks for music and fireworks. They will cheer and sweat at parades and block parties. And amid these patriotic festivities, some may feel moved, for the first time, to embrace their solemn privilege as citizens by registering to vote."
"That's where plaintiffs come in," the judge continued, pointing to the testimony of Veronica Herrera-Lucha, a lawful permanent resident who works as the Florida state field director for Mi Vecino, a nonprofit voter registration group.
"Absent the challenged provisions at issue in these cases, individuals like Ms. Herrera-Lucha and [third-party voter registration organizations] like the Florida NAACP and Hispanic Federation would be engaging with their communities and registering new voters," Walker wrote. "Ms. Herrera-Lucha, a noncitizen who, herself, lacks the right to vote, has spent years registering and encouraging citizens to exercise that solemn right. She may, at least for now, continue to do so and add more voices to the millions of others singing a more perfect union into existence."
Frankie Miranda, president and CEO of the Hispanic Federation, celebrated Walker's ruling as confirmation of "what we knew from the very beginning: Florida's latest voter registration law was unconstitutional and served no other purpose than to silence our communities."
"This ruling is a win for all Floridians—especially for underrepresented communities who rely on nonpartisan organizations like us to help make their voices heard," said Miranda. "We applaud this ruling, and will not rest until everyone's right to participate in our democracy is protected."
The Hispanic Federation was one of several groups that sued the state of Florida over the provision targeting noncitizen voter registration advocates, part of a broader voter suppression effort by the state's governor and dominant Republican Party.
In addition to its sweeping attack on voter registration groups and restrictions on mail-in voting, S.B. 7050 includes a provision that allowed DeSantis to run for president without resigning as Florida's governor.
Walker wrote in his order Monday that Florida's political leaders in recent years have struggled to govern "within the bounds set by the United States Constitution."
"When state government power threatens to spread beyond constitutional bounds and reduce individual rights to ashes, the federal judiciary stands as a firewall," Walker added. "The Free State of Florida is simply not free to exceed the bounds of the United States Constitution."
Daniel Tilley, legal director at the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that Walker's ruling "fortifies the idea that all Floridians have a right to participate in building a stronger democracy through civic engagement."
"While this is a step in the right direction, our work is not finished," said Tilley. "People in our communities, including noncitizens, work tirelessly to assist in voter registration efforts to empower Floridians to vote on issues that impact their daily lives. We applaud the court's decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether."
www.commondreams.org
S.B. 7050, which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law in May, would have imposed $50,000 fines on community organizations for every noncitizen individual who collected or handled voter registration forms for the groups—even if the people were legally authorized to work in the United States.
In a scathing 58-page order granting rights groups' request for a preliminary injunction, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida called the law "Florida's latest assault on the right to vote" and agreed that the voter registration provision would have "substantially interrupted" community groups' outreach efforts.
"Tomorrow, Floridians across the state will commemorate our nation's birthday," Walker wrote. "They will endure the heat of the Florida summer to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends at barbecues and picnics. They will gather with their communities at public parks for music and fireworks. They will cheer and sweat at parades and block parties. And amid these patriotic festivities, some may feel moved, for the first time, to embrace their solemn privilege as citizens by registering to vote."
"That's where plaintiffs come in," the judge continued, pointing to the testimony of Veronica Herrera-Lucha, a lawful permanent resident who works as the Florida state field director for Mi Vecino, a nonprofit voter registration group.
"Absent the challenged provisions at issue in these cases, individuals like Ms. Herrera-Lucha and [third-party voter registration organizations] like the Florida NAACP and Hispanic Federation would be engaging with their communities and registering new voters," Walker wrote. "Ms. Herrera-Lucha, a noncitizen who, herself, lacks the right to vote, has spent years registering and encouraging citizens to exercise that solemn right. She may, at least for now, continue to do so and add more voices to the millions of others singing a more perfect union into existence."
Frankie Miranda, president and CEO of the Hispanic Federation, celebrated Walker's ruling as confirmation of "what we knew from the very beginning: Florida's latest voter registration law was unconstitutional and served no other purpose than to silence our communities."
"This ruling is a win for all Floridians—especially for underrepresented communities who rely on nonpartisan organizations like us to help make their voices heard," said Miranda. "We applaud this ruling, and will not rest until everyone's right to participate in our democracy is protected."
The Hispanic Federation was one of several groups that sued the state of Florida over the provision targeting noncitizen voter registration advocates, part of a broader voter suppression effort by the state's governor and dominant Republican Party.
In addition to its sweeping attack on voter registration groups and restrictions on mail-in voting, S.B. 7050 includes a provision that allowed DeSantis to run for president without resigning as Florida's governor.
Walker wrote in his order Monday that Florida's political leaders in recent years have struggled to govern "within the bounds set by the United States Constitution."
"When state government power threatens to spread beyond constitutional bounds and reduce individual rights to ashes, the federal judiciary stands as a firewall," Walker added. "The Free State of Florida is simply not free to exceed the bounds of the United States Constitution."
Daniel Tilley, legal director at the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that Walker's ruling "fortifies the idea that all Floridians have a right to participate in building a stronger democracy through civic engagement."
"While this is a step in the right direction, our work is not finished," said Tilley. "People in our communities, including noncitizens, work tirelessly to assist in voter registration efforts to empower Floridians to vote on issues that impact their daily lives. We applaud the court's decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether."
Federal Judge Blocks Florida GOP's 'Clear and Brazen' Attack on Voter Registration Efforts
"We applaud the court's decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether," said the ACLU of Florida's legal director.
www.commondreams.org
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,211
148 years after the Declaration of Independence was passed in 1776, Congress acted to give Native people citizenship.
Even then, states continued denying our voting rights, either through outright bans or tactics such as poll taxes or literacy tests, which were also used to deny Black people the right to vote.
It wasn’t until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that our right to vote was realized and strengthened. Yet some states resisted until the late 1960s. But the long history of systemic racism, denial of our sovereign nation status and civil rights continue to prevent Native peoples from registering and voting, especially in states which are critical in determining the outcome of national elections.
Then and now, Native communities in the U.S. face voter suppression and discrimination that restricts our ability to exercise our right to vote. Ensuring Native communities can fully participate in our elections is a foundational piece to building a multiracial, inclusive democracy that recognizes our sovereignty.
That’s why we’re calling on Congress to pass the Native American Voting Rights Act.
Judith LeBlanc
Even then, states continued denying our voting rights, either through outright bans or tactics such as poll taxes or literacy tests, which were also used to deny Black people the right to vote.
It wasn’t until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that our right to vote was realized and strengthened. Yet some states resisted until the late 1960s. But the long history of systemic racism, denial of our sovereign nation status and civil rights continue to prevent Native peoples from registering and voting, especially in states which are critical in determining the outcome of national elections.
Then and now, Native communities in the U.S. face voter suppression and discrimination that restricts our ability to exercise our right to vote. Ensuring Native communities can fully participate in our elections is a foundational piece to building a multiracial, inclusive democracy that recognizes our sovereignty.
That’s why we’re calling on Congress to pass the Native American Voting Rights Act.
Judith LeBlanc
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,212
It’s easy to understand why minority students would be up in arms over the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action, while permitting practices like legacy-based admissions to continue. I am too. Our common sense tells us that giving college applicants a bump up in the process because they’re a “legacy,”—a parent attended the school they’re applying to—would largely serve to reinforce a system that historically served white, often wealthy, students.
This tweet is among the many reasons I adore my (Princeton/UVA educated) husband, who doesn’t have any problem calling out discrimination, unlike the conservative wing of the Supreme Court.
It didn’t take long for the group Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston to swing into action after the Court decided the pair of cases, aimed at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that prohibited explicit consideration of race in the application process. A group of students have filed a complaint with the Department of Education, challenging Harvard’s use of legacy and donor status to give applicants a preference in admissions.
This is not a lawsuit filed in federal court, it’s a complaint filed with an executive branch agency. That was the right approach here, and it’s worth taking a moment to understand why, as challenges of this type begin to percolate. Why not just file a lawsuit in federal court?
The affirmative cases the Supreme Court just decided alleged Harvard and the University of North Carolina engaged in intentional discrimination, the affirmative use of race as criteria for admissions. Individuals are entitled to challenge intentional discrimination in court under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. But challenges to legacy status, at least so far, aren’t about intentional discrimination. They’re “disparate impact” claims, which means they are objections to a law or practice has the effect of discrimination against certain protected groups, here, Black students and other minorities, regardless of the intent of the people who adopted the approach. We see disparate impact claims frequently in areas like employment and the adoption of laws and practices that make it difficult to vote or to register to vote.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin both in and outside of the classroom. It applies to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories. But there’s a hitch. A 2001 Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Sandoval, questioned whether there was any private right—whether individuals could file lawsuits like the plaintiffs in the affirmative action cases did on their own behalf—for disparate impact claims under Title VI. Sandovalmeans that disparate impact claims like the ones here must be brought by a plaintiff like the Department of Education. So, bringing this complaint directly to the Department of Education is a first step towards officially teeing up the issue. It’s likely the Department will receive complaints from additional groups identifying additional institutions of higher education.
The Department of Education has an office that is specifically tasked with working on issues like this and filing lawsuits where appropriate, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). For almost six decades, the OCR at Education, working with DOJ lawyers, has enforced Title VI the regulations that implement it. My experiences working with OCRs across federal agencies as the U.S. Attorney in North Alabama taught me that these folks are committed professionals. The OCR at Education has a demonstrated commitment to their mandate of ensuring equal opportunity for students who experience discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. They work with a laser focus.
The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights has been tracking statistics on preferential admissions that lay bare the disparate impact practices like legacy consideration result in:
· At Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Cornell, University of Southern California and the University of Virginia, legacies are “admitted at twice the rate of other applicants.
· The vast bulk of recruited athletes getting a leg up in admissions are in sports like crew, fencing, squash, and sailing, sports that aren’t offered at public high schools or available to most low-income students, particularly students of color. Student athletes are often admitted despite having weaker academic credentials than other students, with one analysis of 90,000 students at selective colleges and universities estimating that recruited athletes are as much as four times as likely to be admitted as other similarly qualified applicants.
· Many selective schools make big dollar donations a factor in admissions. Journalist Daniel Golden reported that Harvard’s formal system for advancing children of its wealthiest donors, resulted in, “an astonishing enrollment rate of one child per major donor.”
· More than 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard between 2009 and 2014 fell into four preferential categories: athletes, legacies (the children of alumni), the children of big donors or faculty and staff children.
· Alumni children are up to eight times more likely to be accepted at elite colleges, according to one estimate. Another study at an unnamed elite Northeastern college found that so many legacy students had been admitted that they outnumbered the number of Hispanic students.
Just that sample of statistics should give us major concerns about equity in education. But the complaint brought by Lawyers for Civil Rights gives me some optimism for the future here. Affirmative action in education acted, in many ways, as a buffer to the advantage given to white students by historical discrimination and its reinforcement by consideration of legacy, donor, staff and athlete status (not many kids in my East Los Angeles high school had access to elite sports like crew or gymnastics). Now that affirmative action is gone, it’s time for a raw conversation about the lasting impact of historic discrimination in education. If Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been upset about the use of critical race theory to explain discrimination in the legal system, just think about how this is going to set him off!
joycevance.substack.com
This tweet is among the many reasons I adore my (Princeton/UVA educated) husband, who doesn’t have any problem calling out discrimination, unlike the conservative wing of the Supreme Court.
It didn’t take long for the group Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston to swing into action after the Court decided the pair of cases, aimed at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that prohibited explicit consideration of race in the application process. A group of students have filed a complaint with the Department of Education, challenging Harvard’s use of legacy and donor status to give applicants a preference in admissions.
This is not a lawsuit filed in federal court, it’s a complaint filed with an executive branch agency. That was the right approach here, and it’s worth taking a moment to understand why, as challenges of this type begin to percolate. Why not just file a lawsuit in federal court?
The affirmative cases the Supreme Court just decided alleged Harvard and the University of North Carolina engaged in intentional discrimination, the affirmative use of race as criteria for admissions. Individuals are entitled to challenge intentional discrimination in court under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. But challenges to legacy status, at least so far, aren’t about intentional discrimination. They’re “disparate impact” claims, which means they are objections to a law or practice has the effect of discrimination against certain protected groups, here, Black students and other minorities, regardless of the intent of the people who adopted the approach. We see disparate impact claims frequently in areas like employment and the adoption of laws and practices that make it difficult to vote or to register to vote.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin both in and outside of the classroom. It applies to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories. But there’s a hitch. A 2001 Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Sandoval, questioned whether there was any private right—whether individuals could file lawsuits like the plaintiffs in the affirmative action cases did on their own behalf—for disparate impact claims under Title VI. Sandovalmeans that disparate impact claims like the ones here must be brought by a plaintiff like the Department of Education. So, bringing this complaint directly to the Department of Education is a first step towards officially teeing up the issue. It’s likely the Department will receive complaints from additional groups identifying additional institutions of higher education.
The Department of Education has an office that is specifically tasked with working on issues like this and filing lawsuits where appropriate, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). For almost six decades, the OCR at Education, working with DOJ lawyers, has enforced Title VI the regulations that implement it. My experiences working with OCRs across federal agencies as the U.S. Attorney in North Alabama taught me that these folks are committed professionals. The OCR at Education has a demonstrated commitment to their mandate of ensuring equal opportunity for students who experience discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. They work with a laser focus.
The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights has been tracking statistics on preferential admissions that lay bare the disparate impact practices like legacy consideration result in:
· At Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Cornell, University of Southern California and the University of Virginia, legacies are “admitted at twice the rate of other applicants.
· The vast bulk of recruited athletes getting a leg up in admissions are in sports like crew, fencing, squash, and sailing, sports that aren’t offered at public high schools or available to most low-income students, particularly students of color. Student athletes are often admitted despite having weaker academic credentials than other students, with one analysis of 90,000 students at selective colleges and universities estimating that recruited athletes are as much as four times as likely to be admitted as other similarly qualified applicants.
· Many selective schools make big dollar donations a factor in admissions. Journalist Daniel Golden reported that Harvard’s formal system for advancing children of its wealthiest donors, resulted in, “an astonishing enrollment rate of one child per major donor.”
· More than 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard between 2009 and 2014 fell into four preferential categories: athletes, legacies (the children of alumni), the children of big donors or faculty and staff children.
· Alumni children are up to eight times more likely to be accepted at elite colleges, according to one estimate. Another study at an unnamed elite Northeastern college found that so many legacy students had been admitted that they outnumbered the number of Hispanic students.
Just that sample of statistics should give us major concerns about equity in education. But the complaint brought by Lawyers for Civil Rights gives me some optimism for the future here. Affirmative action in education acted, in many ways, as a buffer to the advantage given to white students by historical discrimination and its reinforcement by consideration of legacy, donor, staff and athlete status (not many kids in my East Los Angeles high school had access to elite sports like crew or gymnastics). Now that affirmative action is gone, it’s time for a raw conversation about the lasting impact of historic discrimination in education. If Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been upset about the use of critical race theory to explain discrimination in the legal system, just think about how this is going to set him off!
Legacy Status and the End of Affirmative Action
It’s easy to understand why minority students would be up in arms over the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action, while permitting practices like legacy-based admissions to continue. I am too. Our common sense tells us that giving college applicants a bump up in the process because...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,213
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,214
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,215
Trump marks Independence Day by sharing vulgar attack on Biden
The profanity-laced message expressed a common sentiment among Trump supporters
www.independent.co.uk
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,216
Josh Hawley Busted After Using Fake Founding Father Quote To Push Religious Agenda
The Missouri senator gets called out on Twitter over a quote he falsely attributed to Patrick Henry.
Last edited:
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,217
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,218
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,219
Jewish quotas were at the heart of Supreme Court affirmative action ruling - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
The winning litigant and two conservative justices cited the 20th-century quotas in the landmark case.
www.jta.org
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,567
- 12,083
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #1,220
(full article online)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Marjorie Taylor Greene Declines To Challenge Jon Ossoff In Georgia Senate Race.
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
