Jump to content

US Supreme Court declares race-based affirmative action unconstitutional


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JWB said:

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

Well, both were successful at their respective cons, for shame of the American society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Murph said:

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

Wasn't it also originally invented to keep the pesky, overachieving joos out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Wasn't it also originally invented to keep the pesky, overachieving joos out?

They just didn't let those people in, or at least not too many.  Elite colleges used to be gentleman's clubs even more than educational institutions so they wanted to ensure the right people from the right families were admitted before letting commoners in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest, all that letting the Jews in, unreservedly, did was trade one control of one group for another.  Except the original group in control, WASP's, actually created the thing.  S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the upper crust created a networking club to amplify social stratification under the guise of education. Which seems to be exactly what Affirmative Action helped with, by accepting rich black kids from Africa to fill the quota, rich black kids from American alumni parents (to fill quota, and bank accounts).

I'm not worried though, surely they will invent other mechanisms to continue their in-breeding program in a legally acceptable way. After all, Harvard lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2023 at 9:16 AM, DKTanker said:

The same holds true for cakes and website designs.  Why should I have to prove anything to anybody?  Why can't I just say no?  My business, my choice?  What next, religious borrowers refusing to pay interest on loans because their religion finds usury of any amount a sin, and SCOTUS upholding their demand?  The first amendment was supposed to ensure the state is neutral with regards to religion, not grant favorable status that is not afforded to all others.  In other words, we should all have freedom of, and from, association, or none of us should.

I suggest you listen to Ben Shapiro’s talk from the last Daily Wire podcast. 
 

He draws clear distinctions between the difference of freedom of association, freedom of speech, compelled speech, the public accommodation statutes relating to providing services to someone of a protected class. 

Someone asking for a room or a dinner is different than demanding that someone be compelled to write the message you desire that conflicts with their own views  

No you can’t not bake a cake for a protected class. On the other hand, you can’t be  compelled to write a pro gay or pro religion message on the cake. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like equivocating bullshit, as to be expected from the littlest chickenhawk.   

Private individuals should be able to do all the discriminating they want, in any way they want.  Government can't, since there's no alternative to government, generally.  Government=public accommodation. 

The basic premise of freedom is that you're not entitled to someone else's stuff, which is the fundamental basis for the ACTUAL APPLICATION of all this "civil rights" bullshit.  They went from Jim Crow laws saying private individuals must discriminate to laws saying private individuals can't discriminate.  Both are fucked up.

And "protected classes?"  What the actual fuck!  The very concept shits on the entirety of the American concept and is intrinsically loathsome.  S/F...Ken M 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2023 at 9:36 AM, sunday said:

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.

I espouse the interpretation that is both strict, words have meaning, and one that also doesn't grant special privileges to "approved" groups.  Either everyone gets to enjoy privileges of choosing their own association, or no one.  The same thing goes with freedom of speech.  In this country we are all supposed to enjoy freedom of speech however, as it turns out state approved media outlets enjoy a higher level of freedom of speech than the hoi polloi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2023 at 4:56 PM, Ssnake said:

Wasn't it also originally invented to keep the pesky, overachieving joos out?

Legacy admissions predates the anti-Jewish behavior, in fact it predates the European Jewish immigration wave. 

It's those qualitative factors that were used ("Parent's college?" "Father's vocation?"*) against Jews, along with simple guessing of ethnicity based on last name**. Decades later, similar qualitative factors used against those with Asian-sounding names. Arguments such as "Wouldn't fit in" and "lacks people skills" are common. There are Asian-American parents who change their child's legal name to sound white, so they have a better shot at getting into the Ivy League unis. 

I once read there was a certain amount of discrimination against Italian-Americans between the wars, but there's not much to go on. It does sound credible.

* In the '93-94 timeframe, I was looking at elite business schools to pursue an MBA. Several of their app forms demanded father's vocation. WTF does that have to do with my ability to learn and do financial accounting? 

** Recall the diarrheal discharge from the left when the name of the guy who shot Trayvon Martin was Zimmerman. I half suspect same thing with Rittenhouse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DKTanker said:

I espouse the interpretation that is both strict, words have meaning, and one that also doesn't grant special privileges to "approved" groups.  Either everyone gets to enjoy privileges of choosing their own association, or no one.  The same thing goes with freedom of speech.  In this country we are all supposed to enjoy freedom of speech however, as it turns out state approved media outlets enjoy a higher level of freedom of speech than the hoi polloi. 

I agree with you in that there is too much government in our lives. The answer is not the courts, but the voters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2023 at 10:05 PM, EchoFiveMike said:

Sounds like equivocating bullshit, as to be expected from the littlest chickenhawk. 

It's nuance. I don't expect you to get nuance. I say this in the most polite way possible. 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:05 PM, EchoFiveMike said:

Private individuals should be able to do all the discriminating they want, in any way they want. 

That's one of the nuances. That's freedom of association. There's a clear point to be made about the possible over extension of what the civil rights act makes illegal under what was actually passed under the 14th amendment. Government vs corporation. But this is going to be a slow walk back and not a rapid one. 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:05 PM, EchoFiveMike said:

Government can't, since there's no alternative to government, generally.  Government=public accommodation. 

The current theme is that a restaurant or hotel also accounts to 'accommodation'. 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:05 PM, EchoFiveMike said:

The basic premise of freedom is that you're not entitled to someone else's stuff, which is the fundamental basis for the ACTUAL APPLICATION of all this "civil rights" bullshit.  

That's part of the balance test. 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:05 PM, EchoFiveMike said:

And "protected classes?"  What the actual fuck!  The very concept shits on the entirety of the American concept and is intrinsically loathsome.  S/F...Ken M 

Arguably, contrived. Yes. But that's the legal stricture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuance=can't be honest.  The core problem we have, is motherfuckers can't be honest, because of all manner of rationalizations, often revolving around "being nice."

You give undue credence to words on paper written by illegitimate swindling fucks just because they managed to follow some process, self-affirmed by the same swindling fucks.  It's standard GOPe SOP for surrender.  "Well...we gave it the honest try, guess we just have to get on our knees and suck their dick."  And in most cases, it's just surrender due to precedent; they swindled Grandpa and Dad, so I guess I'll get swindled too.  

Sure, we all generally obey this bullshit, but let's not delude ourselves why.  No pretend world.  It's the motherfuckers with guns and pencils who will throw you in prison or kill you, take all your worldly goods and write you out of history afterwards.  S/F....Ken M 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Sure, we all generally obey this bullshit, but let's not delude ourselves why.  No pretend world.  It's the motherfuckers with guns and pencils who will throw you in prison or kill you, take all your worldly goods and write you out of history afterwards.  S/F....Ken M 

Sadly, E5M is right here.

Lots of historical precedents, from the eradication of Catholicism in England and Lutheran Germany, to the Slovenian independence, through the Russian Bolshevik revolution and what happened to Marcos Pérez Jiménez regime in Venezuela.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6th Court of appeals in very rare Saturday opinion, stops Obama pro child molesting, pro child genital mutilation judge from blocking Tennessee's law on stopping this horrific practice.  Once more decency triumphs over the left:  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/4/2023 at 8:43 AM, rmgill said:

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.

Right... never said it wasn't happening.  That's you misreading what was originally stated and just trying to save face now.  That's not my problem.

On 7/4/2023 at 8:43 AM, rmgill said:

It's baked into the cake for how it is in fact worked. They DO lower the standards.

Some schools have in the past, yes.  Now and going forward it's not a given standards have to be lowered to let in folks on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.  That's just disingenuous to imply that's the only way to make that happen.

Schools focusing on what really matters... and helping folks from disadvantaged upbringings get into college is a wonderful thing.  This is something everyone should be celebrating.

On 7/4/2023 at 8:43 AM, rmgill said:

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.

Damn... she knows what goes on in every admissions office?  Sounds like she should have been the star witness for this case.  🙄

We know almost nothing about the men in your example outside of their race.  Even with race playing a part in many schools today it is not the only factor.  To just wave off all the possible other reasons (and possibly ignore failings in your nephew's college admissions) is just lazy.  There's only one thing that should be going on here and that's congratulating his friends for getting into the schools they did (especially the guy going to MIT... that opens a lot of doors for that young man).

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The social media ruling was interesting.  Saw an interview with a lawyer representing Louisiana and she actually held up well against a very aggressive liberal journalist and made a solid case.  Contrast this with a similar interview I saw regarding the "independent state legislature theory" case (that lawyer was a nutjob) where even a conservative SCOTUS shot that down 6-3.  The counter interview was equally good, though... so I'm curious to hear more about this case as it progresses.  The judge making the ruling was a Trump appointee (kind of sad this now plays into every decision we hear) but Trump appointees have been overwhelming solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...