SCOTUS Rules On Race As A Placement Factor

[RetiredGySgt]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Continue your lies, I bet your credability on this board is somewhere around ZERO. Your a bigot and a moron.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Continue your lies, I bet your credability on this board is somewhere around ZERO. Your a bigot and a moron.

Not lies, Gummy. It’s called “artistic freedom.”

This is where the central truth of a matter is maintained even though the writer uses poetic licence to get his point across.

I see you are wisely not disputing any of my basic FACTS about the abominable Moron religion.

As for my credability, (sic) I'd be horrified if the credulous conservative clowns here ever commended me!

 

[red states rule]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Continue your lies, I bet your credability on this board is somewhere around ZERO. Your a bigot and a moron.

One of the lefts best and brightest

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not lies, Gummy. It’s called “artistic freedom.”

This is where the central truth of a matter is maintained even though the writer uses poetic licence to get his point across.

I see you are wisely not disputing any of my basic FACTS about the abominable Moron religion.

As for my credability, (sic) I'd be horrified if the credulous conservative clowns here ever commended me!

I didn't dispute them because they are outrageous lies. You made the crap up. The only truth in the post is that early Mormons believed in multiple wives and were driven out of lands they LEGALLY purchased by mobs of idiots. Joseph Smith was a "criminal" only in the sense that these people arrested him for his religious beliefs and then murdered him for them.

 

[red states rule]

One thing is being ignored by the those having a temper tanrum over the SC ruling

Race one factor in admissions
The Supreme Court made the right ruling, but schools should continue to diversify enrollment.
By The Denver Post Editorial Board
Article Last Updated: 06/29/2007 10:01:17 PM MDT


Critics who voiced instant outrage at the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down explicitly race-conscious school assignment plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., should take a deep breath, then reconsider it in the light of history.

The high court's 5-4 ruling did ban the use of racial quotas, even when invoked to aid racial minorities. But it did not reverse or eviscerate the historic 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, as some critics charged.

A fairer reading of the decision - at least, the concurring opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the decisive fifth vote - would place the latest ruling squarely in the line of the 1978 Bakke decision and the 2003 Gratz vs. Bollinger decision. Both cases limited the use of race in college admissions policies but did not ban it outright. As such, both rulings fell within the philosophy of The Denver Post, which has long believed race can be considered as one factor aimed at producing a diverse and productive learning environment but not be the only factor.

Far from overturning Brown, Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion paid homage to it by concluding that the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

That is the exact opposite of the vile 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson decision that blessed "separate but equal" treatment of blacks.

for the complete article
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_6263553

 

[William Joyce]

WJ, your paraphrasing is more than a little off, surely it was unintentional:

​

Yeah, it didn't work so well.

If you unpack what Roberts is saying, it gets at the absurdity of making race irrelevant by making race relevant. The left's formula is:

1. Race does not exist, and if it does, it shouldn't be relevant.
2. To support this idea, we're going to take race into account. Obviously, the formula doesn't work very well, as Roberts seems to say. It's a "duh," if you will.

But there's a way to make the left's formula consistent. That is, recognize that if your goal is advance black interests, taking race into account is OK. If that isn't your goal, it's not. Now test this out, and you'll see it works perfectly, every time, to explain how this or that racial or other policy is treated in the liberal-conservative debate. It explains how Linda Greenhouse of the NYT this morning comes to call the court's decision a "conservative" one, despite the main precedent cited being Brown v. Board.

Here is what I am seeing: the laws, the policies, everything we say and attempt to do assumes that blacks will eventually achieve educational parity with whites. To liberals, it will happen when blacks get enough money, and white "racism" goes away. To conservatives, it will happen when blacks study hard enough, and get better "family values."

To me, it will never happen in this lifetime or the next, because black intelligence has an upward bound. Thousands of years of separate evolution have made for an average IQ of whites 15 points higher than blacks. It's as if we're fighting over laws to make women as tall as men. (To liberals, women are shorter because of sexism. To conservatives, it's because women just aren't trying hard enough).

I realize that what I have just said will not be accepted by most folks, because it's too scary a thought. But until something else happens to break this debate over why blacks aren't like whites, the insanity will continue. The main victims in all this are white, so who cares, right?

 

[red states rule]

When the libs won SC decisions by 5-4 margins they were happy

Now when they lose by 5-4 decisions.................


In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, June 30 — It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared.

By the time the Roberts court ended its first full term on Thursday, the picture was clear. This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small.

As a result, the court upheld a federal anti-abortion law, cut back on the free-speech rights of public school students, strictly enforced procedural requirements for bringing and appealing cases, and limited school districts’ ability to use racially conscious measures to achieve or preserve integration.

With the exception of four death penalty cases from Texas, where the state and federal courts remain to the right of the Supreme Court and produce decisions that the justices regularly overturn, the prosecution prevailed in nearly every criminal case, 14 of the 18 non-Texas cases.

Fully a third of the court’s decisions, more than in any recent term, were decided by 5-to-4 margins. Most of those, 19 of 24, were decided along ideological lines, demonstrating the court’s polarization whether on constitutional fundamentals or obscure questions of appellate procedure. The court’s last-minute decision, announced on Friday, to hear appeals from Guantánamo detainees required votes from at least five of the nine justices.

for the complete article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/w...xFjrC+cRrM1PzX3g&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

[red states rule]

NBC Hits Supreme Court's 'Shift to the Right'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on July 1, 2007 - 18:15.
On Saturday's NBC Nightly News, correspondent Pete Williams presented a one-sided look at the Supreme Court's "shift to the right," conveying complaints by liberals over recent court rulings, but without showing any conservatives who supported some of the court's recent right-leaning decisions. Williams began his piece by quoting liberal Justice Stephen Breyer's complaint that "It's not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," before playing a soundbite of the ACLU's Steven Shapiro: "Civil liberties and civil rights took a beating virtually across the board from race to religion to abortion to speech to the basic right to come into court and sue when you've been a victim of discrimination." Williams also found that Chief Justice John Roberts "has turned out to be more conservative than even some of the court's liberals thought he would be." (Transcript follows)

In spite of the absence of conservative voices in the piece, anchor Lester Holt introduced the report by referring to "both liberals and conservatives agreeing the court has moved to the right." Williams then began by highlighting liberal critics.

PETE WILLIAMS: When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional public school programs that enroll students based on their race, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke a line in dissent that could have summed up this entire term. "It's not often in the law," he said, "that so few have so quickly changed so much."

STEVEN SHAPIRO, American Civil Liberties Union: Civil liberties and civil rights took a beating virtually across the board from race to religion to abortion to speech to the basic right to come into court and sue when you've been a victim of discrimination.

fpr the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/node/13864

 

[red states rule]

Roberts Court Moves America Toward Sane Interpretation of First Amendment
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on July 2, 2007 - 08:45.
When it comes to the First Amendment, too many people in this country have a distorted sense of what that document actually means.

This is especially true of the liberal elite media which construe the First Amendment in the following manner: 1) Congress shall not make any attempt to censor or diminish the rights of any media outlet--except those dominated by the right. 2) Congress shall not restrict flag burning or any form of pornography. 3) Religious people do not have the right to express their religion in public. 4) Political speech is equal to money and therefore can be censored at whim.

To those who doubt that, take a gander at this recent Kansas City Star editorial, denouncing the new John Roberts court:


The result, made clear in rulings handed down this week and earlier, is empowerment for the powerful and callousness toward individuals.

The session will be remembered for a ruling that allows politicians, rather than women and physicians, to say whether a particular form of late-term abortion is appropriate.

The court’s session will likely be remembered at election time for a ruling this week that could open the door for unions, corporations and other interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on ads meant to influence voters but thinly disguised as pronouncements on “issues.”

Framed by Roberts as a victory for free speech, the ruling is a ticket for monied interests to drown out the voices of individuals and groups that heed campaign financing limits.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13869