Jump to content

sotomayor claims AA ban tramples on the rights of minorities


Recommended Posts

can you believe this dumbazz is a scj ? she doesnt think minorities can compete with normal people..

without special help... can you define "equal" ?

she needs to be taken out...

High Court Upholds Mich Affirmative Action Ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment.

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. "But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

At 58 pages, Sotomayor's dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with Kennedy.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

Similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education are in place in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California's top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state's growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

The case was the court's second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can you believe this dumbazz is a scj ? she doesnt think minorities can compete with normal people..

without special help... can you define "equal" ?

 

she needs to be taken out...

 

High Court Upholds Mich Affirmative Action Ban

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

 

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment.

 

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

 

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy said.

 

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. "But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

 

At 58 pages, Sotomayor's dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with Kennedy.

 

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

 

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

 

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

 

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

 

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

 

Similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education are in place in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

 

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California's top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state's growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

 

The case was the court's second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.

 

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

So in essence, she is asserting that there is a genetic flaw in the makeup of minorities. That's about as racist as they come. Minorities wishing to better themselves should be extremely offended by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence, she is asserting that there is a genetic flaw in the makeup of minorities. That's about as racist as they come. Minorities wishing to better themselves should be extremely offended by this.

how else could equal "trample" ?

 

what exactly are..."minority rights" ?

 

do you remember when libloons wanted a "color blind society" ?

 

sonya "soildmyunderwear" is the worst excuse for a judge...

 

affirmative action judge appointed by the affirmative action food stamp prez...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip ...

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. "But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday.

Justice Sotomayor is absolutely correct and the majority often tramples on the rights of the minority, especially their economic rights. This is best illustrated by the systemic economic discrimination of our government against upper income wage earners who are forced to bear a very heavy tax burden while lower income wage earners, the majority, not only pay no income tax, they actually enjoy a negative income tax rate because of various funded tax credits.

 

It is, however, highly unlikely that Justice Sotomayor is capable of applying this principle in a consistent manner without regard to her own personal bigotries and prejudices as evidenced by her opinion in this very case.

 

I would also note that in Michigan, black and Hispanics may be racial minorities, but almost all black voters voted with the Democratic majority that elected President Obama and a significant majority of Hispanics did so as well, that is they are part of the very democratic majority that has long favored government policies that discriminate on the basis of race in favor of racial minorities. Racial minorities, acting within a political majority, have long used the coercive powers of government to discriminate on the basis of race against the racial majority that is in the political minority.

 

I respectfully submit that not only should the government not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, the government should not even be trusted to collect data on race as this data has long been used as the basis of racial discrimination on the part of government. If the government is not going to discriminate on race, then the government has no legitimate interest in even knowing the race of an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence, she is asserting that there is a genetic flaw in the makeup of minorities. That's about as racist as they come. Minorities wishing to better themselves should be extremely offended by this.

exactly! Damn! How many times i and others have pointed-as you just did-that affirmative action and its supporters validate whites as genetically superior to blacks crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my response. An oldie but a goodie from Fred Reed:

January 6, 2010

On the website of WLOX 13, “The Station for Southern Mississippi,” I find the story of Gabe Stabler, eight years old. Because he came home crying from the first grade every day, his parents put a tape recorder in his back pack to see what really went on in class. From the tape we learn much about his teacher, a Ms. Williams, and about affirmative action, and about the United States today:

 

Gabe: "I don't know what to do on this."

Ms. Williams: "Well, you'd better find out. It's not hard. Nobody else didn't have to ask no questions bout it. You know what to do, you just want somebody to just sit there and pet you about it, but I ain't gonna do it. You know how to go in that lunch room and tear that food up every day. Ain't nothing hard bout that sheet."

Following this Miltonian eructation, we have:

Ms. Williams: "No, do your work. She ain't goin to be sittin up in here wanting somebody to help her every time she, cause she don't wanna apply herself to her work. You know how to go in that cafeteria and enjoy that lunch and breakfast every morning."

Then, waxing ever more lyrical, even Ciceronian,

Ms. Williams: "Where this go?"

Child: "I colored that yesterday."

Ms. Williams: "It shouldn't of got changed at all, that ain't nothing to be proud of."

Ms. Williams clearly is barely literate, and should be in the first grade instead of teaching it. Gabe speaks better English than she does. In a country not sliding into degradation, a restraining order would keep her from coming within a hundred yards of a school.

Why do we permit this sort of thing? Ms. Williams is black. The story carefully doesn’t say so, but it doesn’t have to. Only the black uneducated speak as she does.

The proper response from parents would be fury. The discovery that this creature is attempting to turn their children into the equivalent of farm animals ought to result in the lynching of the school board of Mississippi. A civilized people with backbone will not allow their their offspring to be made into gurbling iPodded peasants. But we are not such a civilization.

Why is it happening? “Affirmative action.” Since Ms. Williams does not speak the language of the country, the only possible reason for hiring her is that she is black. She is not just slightly unqualified, allowing an expectation that she might catch up—this being the founding fantasy of “affirmative action”—but absolutely unqualified.

The pattern repeats endlessly. Today I have read that the Chicago police contemplate eliminating their entrance examination on the grounds that not enough blacks pass it. Firemen of my acquaintance tell of women too weak to handle a hose, of female paramedics who can’t carry a stretcher. While I was on the police beat at the Washington Times, I encountered a tiny policewoman who never had to drive the paddy wagon because her feet didn’t reach the pedals.

On intercity buses there once were signs, and probably still are, saying, “Seating is without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” Today everything seems to be with regard to nothing else. Anything, everything, must be done to keep the affirmative-action classes happy.

This rush to degradation is not new. In 1981 in Harper’s I wrote, in a piece on race in education, “The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers' colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida (which includes St. Petersburg and Clearwater), cited in Time, June 16, 1980. To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.'s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places.”

If you think it desirable to have black teachers, as I do believe it desirable, then get those who are fit to do the job. Plenty of blacks speak English. If you can’t find enough, then do without. The same applies to women who can’t carry stretchers. Fat chance, though.

What price do we pay for this total abnegation of responsibility, civilizational self-respect, reason? One price is a quiet contempt for blacks, and hostility toward them. Competent blacks are no problem, but “If he doan be eatin dis sangwidge…” doesn’t cut it. Women make perfectly good paramedics, but what is anyone, fellow crewman or patient, supposed to think when she can’t lift the stretcher? (Answer: Scorn, anger.) What does a patient think on seeing a black doctor come his way? “Oh god….” The doctor may have gotten through medical school on ability but, given affirmative action, you figure he probably didn’t. Blacks know this of course, and resent it. Knowing that they are despised, they say the hell with it, and content themselves with just getting by. This is useful?

The suspicion of affirmative action pervades American life. After Katrina, a friend in federal employ visited FEMA. It was, he said, very heavily black, on which fact he blamed the disastrous performance of the agency in New Orleans. Was he right? I don’t know. In the absence of affirmative action, the question would not be asked.

Thus the defining principle of American politics arises: If you don’t think in racial terms, if you look only to ability, you are a racist. Count me in.

This leads to another question, seldom asked and never answered: how much does affirmative action really cost the country? If you hire someone to do a job who can’t do it very well, it doesn’t get done very well. This doesn’t strike me as a profound thought, but it seems to elude many people. In the case of Ms. Williams, the damage is great and clear. It isn’t always so stark. When you regularly pass over the first 135 people, all white, on a test for promotion to sergeant in a police department, so as to get to the blacks and Latinos, what kind of police department do you get? If you hire reasonably good female engineers because they are female, instead of very good males, the consequences are less obvious, but there.

And when it becomes a firing offense to notice, the result is a permanent, irremediable drop in the quality of the work force. I don’t suppose it really matters though. The only serious economic competitors the US faces are, oh, Japan, Korea, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil, and the European Union. Piece of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Sotomayor is absolutely correct and the majority often tramples on the rights of the minority, especially their economic rights. This is best illustrated by the systemic economic discrimination of our government against upper income wage earners who are forced to bear a very heavy tax burden while lower income wage earners, the majority, not only pay no income tax, they actually enjoy a negative income tax rate because of various funded tax credits.

 

It is, however, highly unlikely that Justice Sotomayor is capable of applying this principle in a consistent manner without regard to her own personal bigotries and prejudices as evidenced by her opinion in this very case.

 

I would also note that in Michigan, black and Hispanics may be racial minorities, but almost all black voters voted with the Democratic majority that elected President Obama and a significant majority of Hispanics did so as well, that is they are part of the very democratic majority that has long favored government policies that discriminate on the basis of race in favor of racial minorities. Racial minorities, acting within a political majority, have long used the coercive powers of government to discriminate on the basis of race against the racial majority that is in the political minority.

 

I respectfully submit that not only should the government not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, the government should not even be trusted to collect data on race as this data has long been used as the basis of racial discrimination on the part of government. If the government is not going to discriminate on race, then the government has no legitimate interest in even knowing the race of an individual.

you need mental health help, seriously...you might wanna check your ACA health insurance policy to see if you can get some, you brain is broken

 

this board has become a small group of rightwing, heterosexual, protestant (Christ hating) racist morons who are angry that they are rapidly becoming the minority...You are a sad group of whiners...The world is passing you by and some of you are smart enough to know it, therefore all the hate and whining and complaining.

 

You managed to get some criminals on the SC to do your bidding for you (actually they are doing the bidding of billionaires who laugh at you), but they will be gone someday soon and the adults will take over once again.

 

Enjoy your little bit of power while you can, although you dont have much power, do you, given OBAMA WAS ELECTED TWICE

 

:D:D:D

 

sad, pathetic, bigot morons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Sotomayor is absolutely correct and the majority often tramples on the rights of the minority, especially their economic rights. This is best illustrated by the systemic economic discrimination of our government against upper income wage earners who are forced to bear a very heavy tax burden while lower income wage earners, the majority, not only pay no income tax, they actually enjoy a negative income tax rate because of various funded tax credits.

 

It is, however, highly unlikely that Justice Sotomayor is capable of applying this principle in a consistent manner without regard to her own personal bigotries and prejudices as evidenced by her opinion in this very case.

 

I would also note that in Michigan, black and Hispanics may be racial minorities, but almost all black voters voted with the Democratic majority that elected President Obama and a significant majority of Hispanics did so as well, that is they are part of the very democratic majority that has long favored government policies that discriminate on the basis of race in favor of racial minorities. Racial minorities, acting within a political majority, have long used the coercive powers of government to discriminate on the basis of race against the racial majority that is in the political minority.

 

I respectfully submit that not only should the government not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, the government should not even be trusted to collect data on race as this data has long been used as the basis of racial discrimination on the part of government. If the government is not going to discriminate on race, then the government has no legitimate interest in even knowing the race of an individual.

 

damn fine post sir! lucid, logical, and loquacious-as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you need mental health help, seriously...you might wanna check your ACA health insurance policy to see if you can get some, you brain is broken

we have all noticed how effective this worn out crap you spew is

 

fkn coward cant address any issue, all you spew is racism and hate

 

aca is subsidies, not HC, not insurance...

 

stop lying, and get some new crap to spew...

 

you are getting very old, and tired...

 

is "creepy ass cracker" a racial slur ?

 

coward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would be great if a person was hired because of their skill. ability's, or education . and have nothing to do with race . but gallows you know damn good and well that's not real life , there are people like you out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aww crybaby mad that he isnt cool and wishes he was?

 

:D

 

keep jacking each other off, lord knows no woman with any decency would

 

(not attacking wives, i dont break rules here)

 

it is ironic that you pretend to know what is decent. you support a lying, deceptive, anti-american in the white house, and seek to undermine all that is decent. please refrain in the future from using the word "decent", as you don't ken its meaning

it would be great if a person was hired because of their skill. ability's, or education . and have nothing to do with race . but gallows you know damn good and well that's not real life , there are people like you out there

 

yep. liberals have made SURE race is kept in the forefront of ppls minds, instead of allowing merit to dominate. good job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it is ironic that you pretend to know what is decent. you support a lying, deceptive, anti-american in the white house, and seek to undermine all that is decent. please refrain in the future from using the word "decent", as you don't ken its meaning

 

yep. liberals have made SURE race is kept in the forefront of ppls minds, instead of allowing merit to dominate. good job!

Wow, thank god filthy disgusting garbage like you are about to become extinct, or at least in small enough numbers the human race will no longer have to deal with you...you really are a disgusting and horrible person....this is NOT my opinion, this is a basic fact...Fortunately you are close to no longer being a majority as white males, you have done more harm to this nation and life on planet earth than all others combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, thank god filthy disgusting garbage like you are about to become extinct, or at least in small enough numbers the human race will no longer have to deal with you...you really are a disgusting and horrible person....this is NOT my opinion, this is a basic fact...

 

hmmmm....seems a and e thought fine, upstanding, constitutionally savvy ppl like me are on the verge of extinction. then, they had their arse handed to them by millions of fine ppl just like myself.

 

looks like your simple minded hate of your obvious betters-fine ppl just like me-will not be satiated any time soon. i would suggest you seek therapy, but have no doubt you have been seeing a therapist for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I watch the hate come out of people who allege to be men, I worry that while we can work around the most ignorant and full of hate like most on this board, can we do that while simultaneously working to get rid of corrupt SC justices who were sent to the court solely to destroy all campaign financing and all voting rights? maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...