It is not a blank check to negate the provisions of the amendment it is attached to, it is encouragement to pass laws that facilitate the process. Furthermore Constitutional law trumps Congressional legislation. If you examine the document a little more closely you will see this is almost boilerplate added to legitimize and encourage action. It is not a magic power card that negates the Constitution.

So a swing and a miss for Quaker. You can sell the concept here on the Oliver show though.

I appreciate your comment and the feeling behind it. Human nature is pretty much a constant. I believe it was the genius of the founding fathers to craft a Constitution that let 13 different colonies band together. A system of comprimises and checks and balances allowed this nation to overcome the worst proclivities of human nature and let the people shape the government that leads through the assent of the governed.

Affirmative Action erodes at the basic document that has made us what we are today. To formally approve of discrimination when such is outlawed makes a mockery of the concept of the rule of law. As it currently stands it penalizes merit and achievment and deprives us all of having the most qualified being in positions where we all benefit.

I am sympathetic with your goals but not your methods.

I realize that; I realized that before I posed the argument. If you didn’t see them as one and the same, you wouldn’t have printed it above as the last word on the legality of affirmative action. I don’t agree.

In an ideal situation they’d be one and the same. I think socioeconomic disparities between ethnicities are still too high to declare them in sync. And let us not make the mistake of declaring this ‘social engineering.’ Fafaroo has rightly pointed out that the playing field was previously anything but equal. THAT was social engineering. Affirmative action policies are an attempt to correct social engineering and get closer to that meritocracy, that free market of talent that you espouse.

But accepting the point you’re trying to make, what are you going to do? When subjective rather than objective criteria change the outcome under the law what are you left with?

In fact laws are decided via subjective criteria all the time, and they always have been. That’s why a SCOTUS exists to make interpretations. If laws were decided strictly via objective bean counting, we wouldn’t need interpreters.

I think perhaps what you are shooting for is the quote, possibly from a french man, regarding the equalities of it being illegal for the wealthy and the poor alike to sleep under bridges.

I don’t want everyone to die with the same amount of money. In fact we want the same thing, you and I. I’d like to see a free market of talent where the best, most able and creative can rise as high as their abilities will carry them. Where we differ is that you believe there aren’t unnatural barriers for people of various ethnicities/minorities, whereas I believe there are.

I think perhaps what you are shooting for is the quote, possibly from a french man, regarding the equalities of it being illegal for the wealthy and the poor alike to sleep under bridges.

The court’s already gone somewhat in your direction (to my dismay) and defined legal affirmative action almost as narrowly as it is possible to do so. If I recall it was O’Connor writing for the majority in the UofM case, so one can’t say the anti-AA position hasn’t attracted some support from moderate/left-of-center types. So in some respects I’m fighting a losing argument here.

But I’ll give it a shot anyway, in defense of the gutted, watered-down affirmative action that’s still at all legal. I’ll offer one of the arguments – Suppose you’ve got two runners scheduled to run a race, Billy and Joey, and it’s a government policy that before you run the race you have to break Joey’s leg. But after Joey’s leg has been busted, then the two policymakers have a fistfight and decide that no, the two runners need to be equally protected. One of the policymakers says that Joey needs medical care, but the other says NO WAY, Joey can’t be getting freebies that Billy doesn’t get.

Has Joey been equally protected? Has the race policy violated the spirit of its own law by adhering to the absolute letter? To the first question, I would answer no, and to the second question, I would answer yes.

Corrections to right winger Amity Shlaes’s fiction book:

Paul Krugman: “Amity Shlaes strikes again.”

Eric Rauchway: “Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.”

Eric Rauchway: “FDR’s Latest Critics.”
Jonathan Chait: “Wasting Away in Hooverville.”

Oliver Willis: “Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man” Is A Farce.”

The Neo-Right-Wing: Anti-scientific charlatans.

“I don’t believe you when you say you get pulled over once a month. Sorry. It’s an outrageous claim. You say that’s racism. I say this to you: slow down. Come to a complete stop. Use your turn signals. You’ll notice a dramatic difference in how often you’re pulled over.

You don’t believe me? Color me surprised. But that is your right.
My driving habits are well with in the law I have not had a moving violation in over 15 years. Not one point. Concidreing I was on the road at times over 8 hours at a time, I would say that puts me in the well above the average person.

And once again what is it with cons and numbers.

Once in a life time is far too much.

“If by chance you aren’t lying or greatly exaggerating, I’d seek legal advice. Cause that’s fucked up for anyone to get pulled over that often, white or black.”

Your right it is far too much I find it interesting that it is not till it COULD be happening to a white person do you see it as a problem.

Peace be with you

The single most audacious act was probably his attempt to pack the court. But that was a step too far.

Again, point me to the part where it says it is ok to nullify an individuals right to equal protection under the law. You can’t, because it is not there.

a modern construct by progressive judges

Relatively modern, I suppose, if the 1930s can be called modern. And the case that created the strict scrutiny test was decided 5-1. But hey, I bet those five were all commie pinkos!

Parthenon,
Compelling state interest is a modern construct by progressive judges who are faking thier way into doing something they want to do that is unconstitutional. See the 10th amendment and please find for me in the Constitution the right for the United States to nullify enumerated rights such as those guaranteed by the 14th.

‘Compelling state interest.’

Also, read a little more.

No, but you DID admit that you were once “trying to tear the nation down and destroying the foundation of her greatness”.

Again, it’s not the minorities fault that you’re a failure at life. Get over yourself.

Riiiight.

see also: incompetent Republicans Bush 2, Dan Quayle, Michael “Katrina disaster” Brown, Clarence “unqualified” Thomas, et al.

Has anyone read “Idiot America” chronicling the right wing’s subservience to ignorance?