Reply With Quote
Racism will never be over. It's too great of a tool used by those it benefits most.
If government treated everyone as an individual instead of racial votes, would change. Whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us...affirm.html?hp
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board.”I guess it's all over now.
Tomorrow Justice Roberts will tell us how to end all war.“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in 2007, summing up his approach in one of the most memorable lines of his opinions.
Last edited by Darrin; 05-30-2009 at 11:17 AM.
Racism will never be over. It's too great of a tool used by those it benefits most.
If government treated everyone as an individual instead of racial votes, would change. Whatever.
As long as racist organizations such as MALDEF, NAACP, LULAC, LA RAZA, KKK, Democrat Party, etc... exist; racism will exist.
As long as black people yell at white people at gas stations....
you know Thomas Sowell was on Glenn Beck earlier this week and he commented on racism that really resonated with me. his whole segment was pretty good, but what he said was
"racism does not have a good track record. it's been tried a long time. you think by now we'd want put an end to it instead of putting it under new management."
so, so true.
The New Black Panthers get their voter intimidation case dismissed by the justice dept. this is pretty sick.. guess the Justice dept. is politicized..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1
The most overused phrase is that race is that it remains an incredibly complicated issue. It doesn't make it any less true.
The United States of America is a land of opportunity that denied that right of opportunity to generations of immigrants based on culture and skin color.
To suggest that our ins utions--schools, socioeconomic background, heath and safety, status, jobs, poverty and literacy rates--properly reflect the promise of this nation is to suggest that those generations deserved the treatment they received.
To suggest that our ins uations aren't affected by those policies is to turn a blind eye to the true ramificiations of social injustice and startling evidence between the rich, poor, and criminal in this country.
To suggest that this isn't an issue is to continue to deny the rights of the American people who live here. It then becomes a generational shift that throws away tons of lives as if they were trash heaped onto the earth by the scourge of racism itself. As accounts--fodder--for how horrible and egregious this country has been to its own kind. It is to cheapen the doctrine this country founded:
"All men are created Equal."
Remember that we must seek for all mankind--within our grasp--to restore the certain rights guaranteed by God.
Your responses to this thread sicken me.
I hope it's not swine flu.
Something much more deadly.
Preemptive strike on gas station/corner store racial tension expertly demonstrated:
Last edited by Fpoonsie; 05-31-2009 at 06:31 PM.
a majority of minorities don't like republicans... I wonder why.....
5,4,3,2,1,..
It's the democrats fault..
BoniVore leaves out the Repugs from his list of racist orgs.
Repugs have played the racist game so hard in the South for decades that they are now insignificant anywhere but in the south.
Now the Repugs cynically play the macaca card with Jindal and the black card with RNC chairman. Hard-line Repugs extremists throw up in their mouths just thinking about those two.
I'm not racist. I hate everyone equally.
The conservatives have successfully been steroptyped by the left as racists. When you are not racist, but you are labeled as a racist and looked upon as a racist, you start to develop a dislike for those who are buying into the demoncat's game.
It is disgusting how the far-left has aimed to make a large portion of the black community dependent on the government. It's a shame. But what do I care
I'm rich honk honk
You know, that logical chain doesn't make sense. Technically, it would require racist people to form those organizations. So racism must have come before the organizations, implying that the dismantling of those organizations would not end racism.
I love how you imply that the Democratic party is somehow racist, as if it's one of their planks of government, but the Republican party is somehow not. If you stopped making asinine statements like this, then maybe people would actually value your opinion.
And Faith takes the bait, hook line and sinker. Congratulations!The conservatives have successfully been steroptyped by the left as racists. When you are not racist, but you are labeled as a racist and looked upon as a racist, you start to develop a dislike for those who are buying into the demoncat's game.
It is disgusting how the far-left has aimed to make a large portion of the black community dependent on the government. It's a shame. But what do I care
I'm rich honk honk
are there any examples of what Sotomayor has done specifically that deals with racial quotas?
The Ricci case seems to be the main (and only) one.
interesting.
it appears that the Ricci case will make it's way to the Supreme Court some time this month.
If she is on the Court by the time the case comes up, I wonder if Sotomayor will again rule against him again.....
hopefully Ricci wins this time. From what I gather from the info given, I hope the guy wins.
.....The Ricci Case
In 2003, the New Haven fire department had several vacancies for new lieutenants and captains. Candidates for promotion had to take a written and oral test. Candidates had three months to prepare. Ricci gave up a second job to study. Because he is dyslexic, Ricci paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He studied 8 to 13 hours a day. And he succeeded. Ricci's exam ranked sixth among the 77 candidates who took the test.
But New Haven's civil service board ruled that not enough minorities earned a qualifying score. The city is more than a third black. None of the 19 African-American firefighters who took the exam earned a sufficient score. The city tossed out the exam. No promotions were given. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued New Haven for discrimination.
In 2006, a Federal District Court ruled that the city had not discriminated against the white firefighters. Judge Janet Bond Arterton argued that since "the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," no harm was done.
But in reality, the decision meant that Ricci and other qualified candidates were denied promotions because of the color of their skin. This is the essence of discrimination. The exclusion of a person from earned advancement because of his or her race. The Ricci case exemplifies decades of faulty policy that mistook equal opportunity for equal outcome.
When the case came before the three-judge panel of the New York federal appeals court, Arterton's ruling was upheld in an unsigned and, as the New York Times described it, "unusually terse decision." One of the judges who upheld the ruling was Sotomayor.
Judge Jose Cabranes' dissenting opinion noted that the ruling "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal" and "contains no reference whatsoever to the cons utional claims at the core of this case," concluding that the "perfunctory" actions of the majority in their decision "rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
As Slate's Emily Bazelon wrote, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed."
In April, the Supreme Court took up the case in oral argument. The ruling is expected in June. Most legal scholars expect Ricci to prevail. But the debate over affirmative action will continue.
Discrimination against white males, termed "positive discrimination," is at the essence of affirmative action law and policy.
Affirmative action made sense at its inception. Rampant discrimination against minorities and women only began to subside in the 1960s. Much, though not all, has changed. Now it comes to us to decide whether affirmative action should change as well.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ge__96703.html
Racism will exist as long as the likes of Jesse Jackson says it's there.
They have to make money somehow. It's all they know! What would they do for a job if racism disappeared?
Blake, Winehole posted her data about cases dealing with race in the other thread about this. Interesting stuff.
See also Greenwald's in depth take on the Pappas case here.
The facts of Pappas are simple. The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail. Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests. The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees. He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed.
The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights. On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case. But not Sotomayor. She wrote a dissent emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was en led to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. This is the crux of her ruling:
In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48. The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and does not give due respect to the First Amendment interests at stake.As someone who has a lot of respect for those who defend the First Amendment rights of people expressing despised views -- that, after all, is where First Amendment rights are typically abridged -- this dissent of hers substantially elevates my view of her as a judge. It's not easy to be the only one of four federal judges in New York to rule in favor of a white racist NYPD employee on First Amendment grounds. More important, standing alone, Sotomayor's dissent ought to put an end to the obnoxious and inflammatory claim that she has a "race-based" approach to the law whereby she ignores legal principles in order to rule against white males and in favor of racial minorities.
I'm surprised there's not already a law stating that you can be fired for racist opinions like that made public. For instance, in the military I know you can't be a part of any group that espouses racism or similar philosophies.
I guess the military is a different beast altogether.
See! That proves it! She's racist!It's not easy to be the only one of four federal judges in New York to rule in favor of a white racist NYPD employee on First Amendment grounds.
The military has its own code of justice, so yes.I guess the military is a different beast altogether.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
