The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

and you have data to support this??

Clive Bundy. Etc., etc., etc.

[unofan]

It really sounds like you are the one displaying unfounded prejudice against people you don't know and have never met!

Really? You pulled the proverbial 'you're racist for calling me racist' card in a non-ironic manner? That is farking hilarious

I seriously doubt there is much "racial" prejudice these days. The ethnic prejudices I see and hear expressed are directed more at Hispanics, not blacks.

1)Then you're either willfully ignorant or extremely sheltered. My job would not exist if your assertion were correct.

2) are you really asserting racism against Hispanics is somehow less bad than racism against African Americans? Because that's how your comment comes across.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

First, Fishy sez:

and you have data to support this??

It really sounds like you are the one displaying unfounded prejudice against people you don't know and have never met!

Then he says one paragraph later...

The most virulant and nasty discrimination I hear and see are mostly anti-Semitic. Jews are still the most convenient scapegoats and whipping boys. Anti-Semitism these days is far more severe and way way more widespread than racial animus, by far.


I seriously doubt there is much "racial" prejudice these days. The ethnic prejudices I see and hear expressed are directed more at Hispanics, not blacks.

Soooo.....you want others to live by a standard you apparently don't hold yourself to? Yup, you're a conservative all right.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Affirmative action was never "okay" and Scalia was scathingly clear on that point. It is clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th amendment.

Never okay? Clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th? Are you claiming that this case overturned Bakke?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Never okay? Clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th? Are you claiming that this case overturned Bakke?

No, I'm saying any decision that ever found affirmative action to be okay was more political than judicial. Like I said, I am sympathetic to the objectives and accept the arguments in favor of remedical assistance, I merely think this particular method is flawed. Sotomayor herself illustrated one of the problems when she noted that, on a job interview, she was asked whether she actually was qualified to attend Yale Law, or "merely" was admitted because she was Puerto Rican. "the soft bigotry of low expectations" is a perfectly apt phrase to describe how insidious affirmative action actually is in practice. It doesn't help the people it purports to help while it discriminates against others who themselves did nothing to "deserve" that discrimination.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Well, the whole Clive Bundy thing doesn't really help your argument right now....

One racist old man is an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

It was asserted that, absent affirmative action, state governments would start passing laws to discriminate against minorities. I asked for any evidence that any state government would (a) even attempt to pass a law to discriminate against minorites, or (b) any sense that such an attempt might ever be successful.

I doubt that the person who made that assertion himself even believes that a state government would try to pass laws to discriminate against minorites, in this day and age. I suspect it was typical left-wing hyperbolic exaggeration.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

No, I'm saying any decision that found affirmative action okay was more political than judicial. Like I said, I am sympathetic to the objectives i merely think this particular method is flawed. Sotomayor herself illustrated one of the problems when she noted that, on a job interview, she was asked whether she actually was qualified to attend Yale Law, or "merely" was admitted because she was Puerto Rican. "the soft bigotry of low expectations" is a perfectly apt phrase to describe how insidious affirmative action actually is in practice. It doesn't help the people it purports to help while it discriminates against others who themselves did nothing to "deserve" that discrimination.

Not so "clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th Amendment" then?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Meanwhile, the Aereo case promises to be very, very interesting. Frankly, as far as I understand the technical details, it looks like Aereo is merely leasing antennas to people who cannot install them to capture over the air broadcast signal that is supposed to be freely available to anyone with an antenna anyway.

The complaints from broadcast networks about Aereo are the same complaints we heard from buggy manufacturers about automobiles, or from typewriter manufacturers about word processors. This new technology is going to take away our profits. I know, let's ask government to protect our profits by restraining the competition!


For example, where we live, it is hard to get over the air signals. Because the broadcast signals are now in HD, you need a directional antenna (one that rotates). and then everyone has to watch the same channel at the same time (you have to rotate the antenna in a different direction to capture each different station).

Suppose we lived on a hill and all our neighbors lived in a valley. I said, "hey, neighbors, would you like to watch broadcast TV? If you do, I'll install an antenna for you and run a wire to your house, and you pay me a monthly fee to maintain the antenna for you." So that each neighbor can watch whatever channel they want , I have a separate antenna installed for each one who agrees, so that each can rotate it as necessary to pick up the signal they want to see.

That's Aereo. Except that instead of running a wire to the house, they use the internet.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not so "clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th Amendment" then?

You have eyes and a brain, right?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]

you tell me: how does restricting admissions for white people provide them "equal protection", no matter how noble the sentiment behind it?




Like I said, I do agree with the motivation behind affirmative action, I merely think that giving one group preferential treatment must necessarily be unequal to those who do not receive preferential treatment.

You want to help? give remedial assistance to raise everyone up to the same standards. Don't lower the standards for some but not for others.




It is the typical problem we face over and over. Do we build up those who need help? or do we tear others down under the guise of "equality." I just don't see how tearing other people down helps anyone. Lots of people are quite happy to tear other people down. I'm not one of them. I think it is spiritually and morally bankrupt to do so. I'd prefer to build everyone up instead.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You have eyes and a brain, right?



you tell me: how does restricting admissions for white people provide them "equal protection", no matter how noble the sentiment behind it?




Like I said, I do agree with the motivation behind affirmative action, I merely think that giving one group preferential treatment must necessarily be unequal to those who do not receive preferential treatment.

You want to help? give remedial assistance to raise everyone up to the same standards. Don't lower the standards for some but not for others.




It is the typical problem we face over and over. Do we build up those who need help? or do we tear others down under the guise of "equality." I just don't see how tearing other people down helps anyone. Lots of people are quite happy to tear other people down. I'm not one of them. I think it is spiritually and morally bankrupt to do so. I'd prefer to build everyone up instead.

You're right, I don't have a brain or eyes. Must not, because I don't see anything in black and white in the 14th mentioning affirmative action. Or alienage. Or gender. Or strict scrutiny. Or intermediate scrutiny. Or rational basis. Or penumbras. Or countless other terms of art, concepts, or doctrines used by our Supreme Court for many generations to interpret this clause.

I made no statement regarding the efficacy or constitutionality of any form of affirmative action, as you can see if you read the 30+ words in my two posts. Just trying to slow the flow of sloppy constitutional analysis a little.

[joecct]

I was in an accident but was wearing my seat belt and it saved my life. It worked. Guess I don't have to wear my seat belt anymore.

In NH you would have a choice. In the other 55 states, you must wear them under pain of fine, imprisonment or both.

I would leave it up to each adult in the car. But if you're killed in an accident, don't expect the insurance to pay off. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I made no statement regarding the efficacy or constitutionality of any form of affirmative action, as you can see if you read the 30+ words in my two posts. Just trying to slow the flow of sloppy constitutional analysis a little.

I don't quite understand how it is so difficult to get. Maybe this will help certain people out...

Affirmative Action is discrimination on the basis of race. In order to have a Constitutional law that discriminates on the basis of race it must pass strict scrutiny. In order to pass strict scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling governmental interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized (and just affirmed last term in Fisher) that one compelling governmental interest surrounding Affirmative Action is diversity in the classroom. If the law is narrowly tailored to meet the goal of diversity in the classroom (ex. there is no other "race neutral" way to accomplish the goal), it passes strict scrutiny, and therefore passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't quite understand how it is so difficult to get. Maybe this will help certain people out...

Affirmative Action is discrimination on the basis of race. In order to have a Constitutional law that discriminates on the basis of race it must pass strict scrutiny. In order to pass strict scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling governmental interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized (and just affirmed last term in Fisher) that one compelling governmental interest surrounding Affirmative Action is diversity in the classroom. If the law is narrowly tailored to meet the goal of diversity in the classroom (ex. there is no other "race neutral" way to accomplish the goal), it passes strict scrutiny, and therefore passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

Thanks, FS. Another example would be the constitutionality of a law permitting race-based exclusion and internment of Japanese people, including a Mr. Korematsu.

[Priceless]

One racist old man is an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

It was asserted that, absent affirmative action, state governments would start passing laws to discriminate against minorities. I asked for any evidence that any state government would (a) even attempt to pass a law to discriminate against minorites, or (b) any sense that such an attempt might ever be successful.

I doubt that the person who made that assertion himself even believes that a state government would try to pass laws to discriminate against minorites, in this day and age. I suspect it was typical left-wing hyperbolic exaggeration.

I'm sure the wave of new voting laws that were introduced within minutes of the SCOTUS decision that racism had ended were to make it more difficult for old white men to cast a ballot.

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm sure the wave of new voting laws that were introduced within minutes of the SCOTUS decision that racism had ended were to make it more difficult for old white men to cast a ballot.

Asking for a photo ID in order to vote is racist? Care to elaborate for us a little Rev Al?