Kagan is out, so blue team might get ed.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10...admission.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...xas-at-austin/
Kagan recusing probably won't make any difference. I expected affirmative action was going to lose anyway. The JINOs would say "there's no affirmative action in the Cons ution or original intent".Kagan is out, so blue team might get ed.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10...admission.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...xas-at-austin/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-07-2012 at 05:19 PM.
I had hopes that Roberts might surprise some people again.
SCOTUS watchers said, on his ACA ruling, that they figured he didn't want his court to be known for killing ACA, and that they expect no more surprises from Roberts, just more of the same JINO extremist crap, where ins utions-trump-citizens all the time.
After all he and other JINOs are Catholic, and we know the Catholic Church, which I'm pretty sure affects their judicial thinking, protected its own ins ution for decades, centuries?, at the expense of minors abused by priests.
btw, there's a big scandal in NY because someone came out as being abused by a rabbi. The Jewish community has effectively destroyed the person within the Jewish community.
Expect to see a lot of activists and hippies from minority groups get pissed if they get these handouts taken away. Personally, I will laugh and it will be an evil laugh a la Megatron G1 laugh.
LOL @ the 14th amendment applying to college admissions for whiteys but not to rights for the gays.
The bottom line is that those who think some classes of people need extra help, means that think they are inferior.
Quota based systems need to end. We all need to stand up for equal rights.
Like your mother?
My oh my...
What idiotic assumptions.
There simply should not be favoritism by race, sex, etc.
Here is an article that has some wise words:
It’s time for the Supreme Court to negate affirmative action
A couple selections:
Conkling explained the drafters “vitalized and energized a principle as old and as everlasting as human rights … not for a few, or for a race, but for man.” Nothing in the early history of the 14th Amendment suggests it could ever be used to create preferential treatment based on race, either for college admission, hiring or noncompe ive, no-bid federal contracts.“What is this but declaring that the law in the states shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the states …?” That is the same question Ms. Fisher is asking today. The high court should return the 14th Amendment to the purpose its authors intended and strike down race-based preferences.
"race-based preferences"
like Joe Arpaio's gestapo harassing Hispanic citizens?
like NYPD, etc, stopping, and often "frying", Ms of blacks, hispanics?
This is a tough one for me. OOH I don't see any real argument for affirmative action, from a logical standpoint. Race or credence or affiliation or gender shouldn't ever matter, especially on an individual vs individual basis. Yet the reality of life paints a much more ambiguous picture. Minorities need help compared to whites, it's just that simple, and I can't think of a much more effective means than a "quota" type of system.
If someone put a gun to my head I think I'd have to side with the white guy on this one, but not without many reservations and truth be told, some guilt.
Are you admitting to be a racist? Did you know the definition of racist is believing one race is better than another?
Such an inference is silly, as is your second question. Minorities' socioeconomic status overall, compared to whites is why I say that. Which, if you were up to date you'd know, is why this is even a debate at all. If minorities were in the exact same places as whites socioeconomically, then it would be a clean cut case.
Let me get this strait.
You have minorities competing in the same scholastic events, and they still need help?
Seems like under such situations there is not a socioeconomic disparity. Don't forget. A very large number of whites also live in similar conditions as minorities.
Are you sure, that your form of racism, is feeling inferior? And resenting whites?
Strait? As in George Strait?
Minorities consistently score lower across the board on IQ tests and in scoring averages overall. They are poorer than whites, sometimes much poorer. Their overall wealth is much lower.
Despite these facts I'm still on "your" side. There's not much an argument for affirmative action, logically speaking. But whites are much more well off than minorities, over all. I think that will change and even out regardless of affirmative action within the next 50-100 years.
And if you want to imply how I think or feel, feel free. I couldn't care less.
So taking what amounts to racist action against whites is the solution?
All whites colleges will be amazing places.
Do you really believe blacks and other minorities cannot compete on a level playing field?
Of course not.
But I also don't live in a fantasy land where the secondary education available in economically downtrodden areas is equal to the educational opportunities available in more affluent areas.
I agree with you, in principle, that race shouldn't be a significant factor in college admissions. But I do think that colleges should take into consideration the socio-economic cir stances from which applicants come and weigh that as part of the admission criteria. If the question is always -- and only -- whether Student A has better grades and test scores than Student B, there's an extremely high probability that only those who are able to avail themselves of the educational opportunities that affluence can afford will be admitted to colleges.
When the scholastic criteria is equal, I don't have a problem with selecting by some other criteria as a tie breaker. In this case, the college admitted less qualified minorities over a better qualified white student. Punishing a person because of their race.
"Punishing a person because of their race"
.... whites to blacks, "400 Years"
Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right? Three lefts do, but two wrongs do not.
The necessary consequence of allowing that consideration to only be a tiebreaker is that you ensure that kids from better scholastic backgrounds -- from areas of greater affluence -- will be preferred in collegiate admissions. Even if you take test scores out of the equation, a kid with an A average from a terrific school isn't scholastically equal to a kid with an A average from a school in a less affluent area; the A average in the better school is (or will likely be deemed) scholastically superior to the kid with A average in the mediocre or poor school. If your sole criteria is a blind look at grades and test scores, poor kids -- particularly in Texas, where school funding isn't equalized -- won't be going to good colleges unless they are absolutely exceptional.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 10-08-2012 at 06:45 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
