US Supreme Court declares race-based affirmative action unconstitutional

[sunday]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

I can see a future, immoral court ruling that state that all "religions" are justified and must be recognized as such.

I think that is not in the future, but some years past.

Two examples of religions made out of thin air after the American Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wicca

Quote

Wicca originated in the early 20th century, when it developed amongst secretive covens in England who were basing their religious beliefs and practices upon what they read of the historical witch-cult in the works of such writers as Margaret Murray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

Quote

The Church of Satan was established at the Black House in San Francisco, California, on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, by Anton Szandor LaVey, who was the church's High Priest until his death in 1997.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by sunday

[Rick]

12 minutes ago, sunday said:

Those, at least, absurdities, could explain some trends

https://www.rt.com/news/579053-us-veterans-discourage-military-enlistment/

 

Go woke, go broke!

[Rick]

6 minutes ago, sunday said:

I think that is not in the future, but some years past.

Two examples of religions made out of thin air after the American Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wicca

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

 

I think that the information you supplied would be applied to these cults as one "reason" that such immorality will be allowed to exist in a future court ruling.

[Ivanhoe]

[sunday]

https://www.revolver.news/2023/07/berkeley-law-dean-secretly-filmed-while-bragging-about-undercover-anti-white-anti-asian-policies/

Quote

On Thursday, a video was released online showing Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of University of California, Berkeley Law, admitting that he’s been secretly favoring certain candidates in faculty hiring based on the color of their skin. The Dean was filmed on the sly admitting to everything. Ironically, he states in the video that if he were ever questioned under oath, he would deny ever saying any of this. Clearly, he had no idea one of his students was filming him.

Investigative reporter Christopher Rufo shared the video on Twitter and said this about Mr. Chemerinsky’s disturbing revelation:

 

[sunday]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sopranos-star-michael-imperioli-forbids-231049313.html

Quote

“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus,’ ‘Goodfellas’ or any movie or TV show I’ve been in,” Imperioli wrote Saturday morning. “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”

 

[sunday]

[Yama]

21 hours ago, sunday said:

I think that is not in the future, but some years past.

Two examples of religions made out of thin air after the American Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wicca

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

Two? There are hundreds. But what does it matter how 'old' it is, as long as enough people believe in it? I'm sure plenty of people at the time thought Mormonism and JW as nonsense 'made out of thin air' (and still do), yet they're major, legitimate religious movements nowadays.

[Skywalkre]

Saw an interesting comment by a pundit discussing the affirmative action ruling - "you'll likely end up with better liberal policies at many of these institutions due to a conservative court ruling."  What did they mean?

Not taking race into consideration has already been the case for colleges in certain states that outlawed that years ago.  These schools still wanted to bring in as diverse a student body as possible (which is still fine under the SCOTUS ruling) so instead of just simply looking at race many put in the work to get a broader picture of their applicants and started taking into consideration where they fell on the socioeconomic spectrum.  If you bring in a lot of folks at the bottom of that you'll inevitably bring in a lot of minorities... and this is exactly what some of these schools have started doing.

I saw an interview with a researcher who was a witness for the plaintiffs in the original case... and it sounds like some schools were just being lazy or even deceitful as was apparently the case with Harvard.  They were grabbing a 'diverse' freshman class every year as measured just by race... but it turns out they were mostly just grabbing the wealthy minorities and parading around going "look, we're diverse!"

This could actually be an instance folks regretting what they wish for.  Many of these school officials and experts I saw interviewed in the last week said schools will more and more be moving away from GPA and standardized tests (which is going to hurt the Asian contingent who were pushing for this ruling) and instead looking at a much broader view of every applicant when making their decisions.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Skywalkre

[rmgill]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:04 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

What happens when they use it as an excuse to stack the court?

You keep using those words. They don't mean what you think they mean. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Not taking race into consideration has already been the case for colleges in certain states that outlawed that years ago. 

No, if that were the case then this case would not have been necessary. It's a public secret that race plays a big part. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

These schools still wanted to bring in as diverse a student body as possible (which is still fine under the SCOTUS ruling) so instead of just simply looking at race many put in the work to get a broader picture of their applicants and started taking into consideration where they fell on the socioeconomic spectrum.

They literally argued that if they stopped taking race into account then the number of black students would drop. This was echoed in Biden's friend of the court brief that argued that race must be taken into account to support diversity for the Military Academies (USNA & West Point). 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

  If you bring in a lot of folks at the bottom of that you'll inevitably bring in a lot of minorities... and this is exactly what some of these schools have started doing.

Yes. But you do those students ZERO favors by lowering the standards to let them in. Unless of course you lower the standards for the tests to let them pass. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

I saw an interview with a researcher who was a witness for the plaintiffs in the original case... and it sounds like some schools were just being lazy or even deceitful as was apparently the case with Harvard.  They were grabbing a 'diverse' freshman class every year as measured just by race... but it turns out they were mostly just grabbing the wealthy minorities and parading around going "look, we're diverse!"

Yes. And now they're supposed to go back to grading students on merit and not race. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

This could actually be an instance folks regretting what they wish for.  Many of these school officials and experts I saw interviewed in the last week said schools will more and more be moving away from GPA and standardized tests (which is going to hurt the Asian contingent who were pushing for this ruling) and instead looking at a much broader view of every applicant when making their decisions.

My Nephew lives in Harlingen, Texas. All his nerdy friends are hispanic. He's the odd one out. He got a 1520 on the SAT. He got into NONE of the schools he applied to. Including Georgia Tech and MIT. His buddies did. He's going to UT Austin instead. They're going to Harvard, MIT, GA-Tech, CalTech, etc. 

[DKTanker]

On 7/2/2023 at 6:27 AM, Rick said:

The reason why the Supreme Court voted the way it did, page six onward sums it up. 

3. "...why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion). There are no state approved religions in the U.S. Period. You cannot make up a church or religion to get your way. This ruse would be recognized as such by a court, and to by honest, by just about any adult in the U.S. 

This: There are no state approved religions in the U.S. Period.

Is contradicted by this: You cannot make up a church or religion to get your way. This ruse would be recognized as such by a court, and to by honest, by just about any adult in the U.S. 

I get it, you enjoy a carve out of special exemption in the constitution and you don't want to share it.  

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

No

Yes.  I had heard about CA and MI in the reports I saw.  Looking it up further apparently nine states have banned race-based admission policies - Idaho, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Washington, California, and Michigan.

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Yes. But you do those students ZERO favors by lowering the standards to let them in. Unless of course you lower the standards for the tests to let them pass.

No one mentioned lowering the standards to let them in and just because you're poor doesn't mean you can't make it in an Ivy League school.  GPA has been a questionable metric for years now with grade inflation.

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

My Nephew lives in Harlingen, Texas. All his nerdy friends are hispanic. He's the odd one out. He got a 1520 on the SAT. He got into NONE of the schools he applied to. Including Georgia Tech and MIT. His buddies did. He's going to UT Austin instead. They're going to Harvard, MIT, GA-Tech, CalTech, etc. 

Cool story!

For starters, he'll be fine.  These great schools don't have any better of an actual education (many of them stream much of their classes for free).  All he'll be missing out on is the networking.  But the reality is if he's as smart as the only metric we've been given about him should make us believe... he'll do fine in life (he'll just have to work a little harder, probably... but what's wrong with that?).

It's not that race was the only thing going on with these decisions before this ruling.  Take MIT... I actually know a little bit about that process since I have some friends who graduated from there.  You have to do an interview with an alumni and said alumni writes a report and sends it in.  As smart as your nephew may be if he bombed that alumni interview that's going to hurt his chances.  I still remember plenty of post-interview discussions this wife gave where really smart folks (everyone she interviewed was smart... you need more than that to get into a place like MIT) bombed and she said as much in her little write-up.

We don't know the full details of his attempts at these other schools (is he a terrible writer?  that'll bomb a lot of admission attempts) nor the full details of his friends' attempts.  To hint it was just because they were hispanic is... intellectually dishonest.

[Rick]

9 hours ago, DKTanker said:

This: There are no state approved religions in the U.S. Period.

Is contradicted by this: You cannot make up a church or religion to get your way. This ruse would be recognized as such by a court, and to by honest, by just about any adult in the U.S. 

I get it, you enjoy a carve out of special exemption in the constitution and you don't want to share it.  

 Because you do not believe in God none of this will make sense to you.

Because the Founding Fathers correctly understood there is one God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Man's rights come not from government but from God. There is a power higher than government and that is God, and that these God-ordained truths and are not to be abolished by government, thus these recent First Amendment rulings favoring the individual over government.

It does not take much effort to take a look around the world and in the "blue" states of U.S. to see what occurs when the secular is favored over God. 

 

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, Rick said:

 Because you do not believe in God none of this will make sense to you.

Because the Founding Fathers correctly understood there is one God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Man's rights come not from government but from God. There is a power higher than government and that is God, and that these God-ordained truths and are not to be abolished by government, thus these recent First Amendment rulings favoring the individual over government.

It does not take much effort to take a look around the world and in the "blue" states of U.S. to see what occurs when the secular is favored over God. 

 

Indeed, not enough Atheists among your Founding Fathers to write a Laicist Constitution, but there was one Catholic* that helped to enshrine true freedom of religion.

*Jesuit-educated, even!

[Rick]

Continuing on how God will bless a nation who blesses him, the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner

"O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation! Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto - "In God is our trust," And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

 Because you do not believe in God none of this will make sense to you.

Because the Founding Fathers correctly understood there is one God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Man's rights come not from government but from God. There is a power higher than government and that is God, and that these God-ordained truths and are not to be abolished by government, thus these recent First Amendment rulings favoring the individual over government.

It does not take much effort to take a look around the world and in the "blue" states of U.S. to see what occurs when the secular is favored over God. 

 

Whose God?  Which God?  Or no God?  You have taken one word, creator, and interpreted it to give you the meaning you desire.  James Madison, a Deist, was the primary author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights.  He specifically used the term "Creator" to be interpreted as the reader would want.  You interpret it as the Christian God, he along with many of the other founders interpreted it as being the creator of the universe with no further divine revelation.  Moreover, Madison opposed chaplains for congress and the armed forces as they might cause religious exclusion and political disharmony.  Of this he was quite prescient.

[sunday]

51 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Whose God?  Which God?  Or no God?  You have taken one word, creator, and interpreted it to give you the meaning you desire.  James Madison, a Deist, was the primary author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights.  He specifically used the term "Creator" to be interpreted as the reader would want.  You interpret it as the Christian God, he along with many of the other founders interpreted it as being the creator of the universe with no further divine revelation.  Moreover, Madison opposed chaplains for congress and the armed forces as they might cause religious exclusion and political disharmony.  Of this he was quite prescient.

Seems you espouse the Masonic interpretation of the Constitution, DKTanker.

I think Rick could prefer the Christian one.

One beauty of your Constitution is that both interpretations have merits.

Edited July 4, 2023 by sunday

[rmgill]

13 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Yes.  I had heard about CA and MI in the reports I saw.  Looking it up further apparently nine states have banned race-based admission policies - Idaho, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Washington, California, and Michigan.

And yet we have a supreme court decision needed to deal with more than just those two. Just becasue its supposedly not allowed in a few states doesn't mean it's not happening. It is happening. 

13 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

No one mentioned lowering the standards to let them in and just because you're poor doesn't mean you can't make it in an Ivy League school.  GPA has been a questionable metric for years now with grade inflation.

It's baked into the cake for how it is in fact worked. They DO lower the standards. Again, you can look at the data. You can look at the arguments. You can look at the teeth gnashing going on right now from the left upset that now, black people won't be able to succeed. Hell, the justice that wrote a dissent specifically pointed to how she couldn't have succeeded if it weren't for Affirmative Action. That's lowered standards man. 

It is happening in ways despite what you contend. 

13 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

For starters, he'll be fine.  These great schools don't have any better of an actual education (many of them stream much of their classes for free).  All he'll be missing out on is the networking.  But the reality is if he's as smart as the only metric we've been given about him should make us believe... he'll do fine in life (he'll just have to work a little harder, probably... but what's wrong with that?).

Funny thing. My sister works in education the the area. One of her friends, I took her and her friend to swim meets. When I could drive and they could not. The friend in fact works in university admissions. She explained that yes, race is a factor in admissions and he likely didn't get in because of his race. 


Nicely done. You've done the "it isn't happening, it is happening but it's ok to it's happening and it's your fault" trick all in one post. 

[sunday]

40 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Nicely done. You've done the "it isn't happening, it is happening but it's ok to it's happening and it's your fault" trick all in one post. 

Any feet harmed, then?

[Murph]

I really have to hand it to the Democrat Party, it took them a while, but they found a way to get their slaves back.  I knew they could never give up their slaves, and would do anything to get them back.  

[urbanoid]

Well, I think that LBJ really said those words that are attributed to him.

[JWB]

On 7/2/2023 at 7:09 AM, sunday said:

Anton Szandor LaVey

Total con man and swindler.  Very similar to L. Ron Hubbard.

[JWB]

At least they are moving in the right direction:

 

[Murph]

I cannot disagree with them on that.  Legacy admissions are important for the $$$$ they bring in.  

 

Also just in This earthquake bomb from a Federal Judge:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf