The Politics of Affirmative Action: SCOTUS To Decide Today on Race Consideratons

[ScienceRocks]

What time will they vote?

 

[JoeB131]

The rest of this is complete and utter bullshit. Your argument is toast.

Oh, gee, BiPolar Boy, is this the part where you declare victory because you don't have a counter-argument?

Because that shit never gets old.

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

 

[JoeB131]

STOP

So then why were you claiming that it helps white people more?

WHITE WOMEN!!!!

Jesus, to I have to spell it out for you?

The question still stands. You're reaching. First it's race in general, then it's white women or minorities. Don't. Just don't.

Okay... let's try this again.

When WHITE MEN make the hiring decisions, they will hire other WHITE MEN.

Unless you say, "You have to have a certain percentage of women and minorities".

Then they will actually look for qualified women and minorities than just hire the first white guy who walks in the door.

Simple enough.

White women got more out of this because they were just easier to find and hire. I would even argue that we can ratchet back a bit on affirmative action based on gender, because the mission has been accomplished. In fact, there are more women in the work force then men now.

Race - not so much. Black unemployment is still too high and college admissions are still way too low.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What time will they vote?

All I know it is today, the exact time is as of yet unknown.

 

[TemplarKormac]

WHITE WOMEN!!!!

Jesus, to I have to spell it out for you?

The question still stands. You're reaching. First it's race in general, then it's white women or minorities. Don't. Just don't.

Okay... let's try this again.

When WHITE MEN make the hiring decisions, they will hire other WHITE MEN.

Unless you say, "You have to have a certain percentage of women and minorities".

Then they will actually look for qualified women and minorities than just hire the first white guy who walks in the door.

Simple enough.

White women got more out of this because they were just easier to find and hire. I would even argue that we can ratchet back a bit on affirmative action based on gender, because the mission has been accomplished. In fact, there are more women in the work force then men now.

Race - not so much. Black unemployment is still too high and college admissions are still way too low.

That basis is flawed. This is about reverse discrimination, not about gender discrimination. What are you trying to prove exactly? Your argument has nothing to do with my thread, Joe.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, gee, BiPolar Boy, is this the part where you declare victory because you don't have a counter-argument?

Because that shit never gets old.

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

Then have the balls to go out and break some laws in support of your positions. Man the barricades you gutless hack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, gee, BiPolar Boy, is this the part where you declare victory because you don't have a counter-argument?

Because that shit never gets old.

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

We all know you don't care about the constitution. For some reason, you think your interpretation trumps the law and the constitution. You idiot.

In the 1978 Bakke case, the justices ruled universities have a compelling state interest in promoting diversity, and that allows for the use of affirmative action. That issue involved a discrimination claim by a white man denied admission to law school.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

Then have the balls to go out and break some laws in support of your positions. Man the barricades you gutless hack.

I didn't think I'd get him to admit his disdain of the law and the Constitution in a thread like this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anybody else? While Joe's little tantrum was amusing, let's discuss the legal applications of whatever decision the court renders.

 

[martybegan]

Anybody else? While Joe's little tantrum was amusing, let's discuss the legal applications of whatever decision the court renders.

I am probably going to wait until I can read the transcripts of the Oral arguments. The court punted on a similar case in 1997 from california, so lets see what happens this time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anybody else? While Joe's little tantrum was amusing, let's discuss the legal applications of whatever decision the court renders.

I am probably going to wait until I can read the transcripts of the Oral arguments. The court punted on a similar case in 1997 from california, so lets see what happens this time.

Yeah, they punted this passed June too, I hope they grow a pair this time.

 

[editec]

That's a lie. Just how can you substantiate that?

A simple search on google would provide a lot on that.

Sally Kohn: Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others | TIME.com

The distinction here is "White Women." That is an opinion piece. Not white people in general. However, why does it matter who it helps more? Are you upset it's benefiting white people more than blacks? Looks as if to me affirmative action has backfired.

Do you NOT understand that most of the WHITE WOMEN it helped didn't need affirmative action in the first place?


But they were given benefits based entirely on the fact that they were women...not women IN NEED, simply women.

This is one of the gigantic FLAWS in the Affirmative Action system in the USA.

TRUE affirmative action would be based on NEED, not race or gender.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A simple search on google would provide a lot on that.

Sally Kohn: Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others | TIME.com

The distinction here is "White Women." That is an opinion piece. Not white people in general. However, why does it matter who it helps more? Are you upset it's benefiting white people more than blacks? Looks as if to me affirmative action has backfired.

Do you NOT understand that most of the WHITE WOMEN it helped didn't need affirmative action in the first place?


But they were given benefits based entirely on the fact that they were women...not women IN NEED, simply women.

This is one of the gigantic FLAWS in the Affirmative Action system in the USA.

TRUE affirmative action would be based on NEED, not race or gender.

Simple question:

Why was Joe arguing on a basis of race and it's effect on "minorities" then?

 

[Ernie S.]

The Supreme Court is set to decide on the matter of whether Schools and Universities should be allowed to consider race in their admissions process, today. My hunch is that it will be a 5-4 decision in prohibition. It explicitly violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

My guess would be 6-3

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh, gee, BiPolar Boy, is this the part where you declare victory because you don't have a counter-argument?

Because that shit never gets old.

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

Well then, by all means, lets pay reparations to all former slaves and fine all former slave owners.

Giving someone special treatment by virtue of his skin color is just wrong. As wrong as Jim Crow.
In fact, Affirmative Action is Jim Crow in reverse.

 

[Sunshine]

The Supreme Court is set to decide on the matter of whether Schools and Universities should be allowed to consider race in their admissions process, today. My hunch is that it will be a 5-4 decision in prohibition. It explicitly violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

I learned in law school not to try to outguess the SCOTUS. It cannot be done. The original purpose of AA was to 'right past wrongs against minorities.' Most of them continue to claim they are wronged in the present and in real time. On the other hand, they have been going to school with whites, using the same textbooks, etc. for 50 years. So, IMO, it could fall either way.

 

[Sunshine]

My OP and supporting posts are my argument. I don't need one, you do. I provided a legal and constitutional basis for my argument. Where's yours?

Guy, I've already established, when it comes to doing the right thing, I couldn't give two ***** about the law and the constitution.

The right thing is that we have 400 years of racial stupidity to make up for in this country.

We haven't fixed all the problems in 40. We've made progress, we aren't there yet.

Well then, by all means, lets pay reparations to all former slaves and fine all former slave owners.

Giving someone special treatment by virtue of his skin color is just wrong. As wrong as Jim Crow.
In fact, Affirmative Action is Jim Crow in reverse.

How many 'former slaves' and 'former slave owners' would you estimate we have today? If we have any, they would be pretty damn old.

 

[Katzndogz]

Affirmative action was never supposed to be permanent. It was even ended in California school admissions. The schools now simply use other criteria, like life experiences. They also separated the universities. Those like Berkeley and Irvine can charge more and use different criteria for admissions. The bottom rung like Riverside get the life experience of being raised in the ghetto by a single mother and have an arrest record. It's the same UC system, just different institutions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Supreme Court is set to decide on the matter of whether Schools and Universities should be allowed to consider race in their admissions process, today. My hunch is that it will be a 5-4 decision in prohibition. It explicitly violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

My guess would be 6-3

Here's the thing, one of the judges recused herself, so there may be just 8 judges voting on the matter, so a 6-2 is possible. Who knows.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Affirmative action was never supposed to be permanent. It was even ended in California school admissions. The schools now simply use other criteria, like life experiences. They also separated the universities. Those like Berkeley and Irvine can charge more and use different criteria for admissions. The bottom rung like Riverside get the life experience of being raised in the ghetto by a single mother and have an arrest record. It's the same UC system, just different institutions.

It was originally an executive order issued by John F. Kennedy.