USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Alito could always write a concurring opinion if he actually agreed with the result, but not the opinion itself.
And yes, the Justices definitely talk to one another before the opinion comes out.
Alito could always write a concurring opinion if he actually agreed with the result, but not the opinion itself.
And yes, the Justices definitely talk to one another before the opinion comes out.
P
Priceless
Guest
When talking to people in these threads I find the simple approach works much better than a prolonged dissertation on the matter at hand.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I get where you're coming from re: simplicity, but that analogy was just stupid. Car accidents are random, nearly completely independent events. For your analogy to work, we'd have to live in a society that was randomly in danger of slipping back into slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow at any time but for the "safety belt" that affirmative action provides. Not your best effort.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
P
Priceless
Guest
Without the protection of the Civil Rights Act (which we're slowly chipping away at) yes, quite a few states would slip back to Jim Crow status.
unofan
Well-known member
Scalia doesn't like it, but he recognizes it's the law, however begrudgingly.
That's directly from Scalia's concurrence. He acknowledges it is permitted, if only barely.
unofan
Well-known member
Your guess is as good as mine as to what they discuss in conference. But historically, lone dissents are based on strongly held personal beliefs about the law, not token votes for the other side.
Alito is a former u.s. attorney, assistant ag, and assistant solicitor general before going to the bench.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
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!
Don't forget, the state that shows the highest level of "discrimination" in voting patterns is Massachusetts.
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.
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!
Don't forget, the state that shows the highest level of "discrimination" in voting patterns is Massachusetts.
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.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Well, the whole Clive Bundy thing doesn't really help your argument right now....
Well, the whole Clive Bundy thing doesn't really help your argument right now....
ScoobyDoo
NPC
unofan
Well-known member
Really? You pulled the proverbial 'you're racist for calling me racist' card in a non-ironic manner? That is farking hilarious
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.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
First, Fishy sez:
Then he says one paragraph later...
Soooo.....you want others to live by a standard you apparently don't hold yourself to? Yup, you're a conservative all right.
First, Fishy sez:
Then he says one paragraph later...
Soooo.....you want others to live by a standard you apparently don't hold yourself to? Yup, you're a conservative all right.
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?
Never okay? Clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th? Are you claiming that this case overturned Bakke?
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
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.
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.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
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.
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.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Not so "clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th Amendment" then?
Not so "clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th Amendment" then?
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
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.
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.
- Status