Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
The Supreme Court ruled on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It ruled 8-1 on the law. The dissent? Clarence Thomas. While the other justices weren’t wild about the law’s application, they voted to uphold it – even Scalia. The holdout? The lone black justice on the court.
And then Thomas acts befuddled and outraged because he is not embraced by black Americans, and will never be anything close to Justice Marshall.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Huh. I thought Thomas was nothing but a lap-dog for Scalia. Seems to me he would have voted with the majority if that were the case.
Of course, liberals were all wetting their pants expecting another 5-4 decision that would have struck down section 5, but that didn’t happen.
LOL,
Thomas has shown himself to be a great defender of the Constitution. Blacks hate him because he judges them as equals under the law. Equals under the law and will not condone erosion of the law to allow legalized discrimination when blacks find themselves unable to compete on the merit of thier own abilities.
In related news the White House sent a letter to the House and Senate leadership stating the President’s intention to fire Justice Thomas after a 30 day suspension.
“SFC B”: “the White House sent a letter to the House and Senate leadership stating the President’s intention to fire Justice Thomas after a 30 day suspension.”
wait, I thought the letter said that the White House was going to increase the Supreme Court membership to 11 … cause everything’s better if it goes to 11 …
Congrats, NR: the first legitimatly entertaining thing you’ve written!!
OW, please tell your web host to stop the cleaning crew from unplugging your server every afternoon?
LOL,
Thomas has shown himself to be a great defender of the Constitution…. [disgusting racist comments omitted]
I used to think “LOL” meant “Laughing Out Loud”, but after seeing him start a million posts with it I have realized that for A.O. it is some special wingnut code (”Limboo Oreely Laffur”?) that means “what follows is total bullshit.”
There’s no reason the White House can’t do both.
OW, please tell your web host to stop the cleaning crew from unplugging your server every afternoon?
The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency!
So it’s not just me, then?
Tio Tomas does it again!!
“Blacks hate him because he judges them as equals under the law”
Yep, that’s a prime example of a disgusting racist comment. In all fairness perhaps the next sentence should have been amended to “…unable or unwilling to compete…”.
Blacks hate him because he judges them as equals under the law.
I’m sure you have polling data or some source other than your descending colon on that…
No? Q’elle surprise.
Do you know any Black citizens? Because your opinion does not fit my experience.
Disparate impact is cool as long as it affects somebody else, right AO?
Repack,
And what pray tell does your experience tell you about why blacks hate Thomas?
I do indeed know some blacks but most of my impressions of thier feelings towards Thomas have come from media interviews, clips, and published writing.
Around these parts we call (…) an ellipsis.
Quaker,
Perhaps you could expand on how disparate impact effects the relationship between the bulk of the black community and Judge Thomas.
Do what now?
And what pray tell does your experience tell you about why blacks hate Thomas?
He supports the Republican agenda of denying voting rights and he voted on the wrong side of Bush v. Gore.
There must be a reason why Black Republicans are somewhat rarer than whooping cranes. What do you suppose it is? The most prominent Black Republicans are crazies Keyes and Steele, and who would want to be associated with them?
Justice Thomas is now competing for the Worst Supreme Court Justice Award.
And to think, I thought Scalia had it all sewn up…
A week before in Bush vs Palm Beach the Supreme Court voted unanimously against Palm Beach. They then voted 7-2 against Gore. The Republican agenda of denying voting rights seems a little vague. Of course viewed against the backdrop of the Democrat’s citizenship optional view it might seem that way.
The right wing Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 not to count the votes and let the clock run out in favor of Republican Bush.
It was a selection, not an election.
Why do right wingers hate democracy?
Amused Observer
Here is the thing, if its all about just following the Constitution and thats what all Supreme Court justices are supposed to do then every single decision should be unanimous, no?
Of course not because they have to actually INTERPRET the fucking Constitution and Clarence Thomas’ eagerness to, at every turn, interpret the Constitution as giving the absolute minimum protection to minorities in general and blacks in particular THAT’S why we hate that sellout muthafucka.
The same sorry bastard who benefited from affirmative action which you could make the case helped him actually get to be a frikkin Supreme Ct justice now thinks there is no reason for it. The same dickhead who probably benefited from the VRA or at the least had a relative who did now not only sees no reason for it but calls it unconstitutional which literally means it never should have been in place at all.
Now if you think black folks should love some asshole who consistently votes against our interests just because he is black then you are a fucking dumb ass who evidently doesn’t believe we can think for ourselves. Would you love someone who you felt was hurting your interests? Of course you wouldn’t. But the problem is cons love to try to make it seem like black folks are stupid mindless sub humans who have a hive mind and just follow which ever black person they put in front of us. But when we hate on Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas or Shelby Steele or Armstrong Williams because they happen to not give a shit about other black folks that messes up your whole meme so then you have to shift and say black folks just mindlessly follow Democrats. Make up your fucking mind.
But most of all how about you not try to school a black person about how black folks feel about Clarence Thomas next time.
sgwhiteinfla,
It appears you are cool with discrimination if it helps you. Too bad about that Constitution thing regarding equal protection. I don’t think blacks follow the Democrats mindlessly. I think they do it for the legalized discrimination that Democrats provide.
Right wing “Amused Observer”, please explain your theory of racial hierarchy again.
And please explain your theory of racial “breeds”.
And I was especially fascinated by your theory of White Pride.
I’m always fascinated to hear the viewpoint of a racist Sovereign Citizens like yourself who have no loyalty to our American Nation or We, the American People.
Perhaps you could help enlighten US on Republican spokesman Pat Buchanan’s White Nationalist support.
And don’t you think it’s fascinating that a White Nationalist supporter has a prominent position on both MSNBC and PBS?
As a right winger racist you must be proud of our corporate right wing media.
Yep, that’s a prime example of a disgusting racist comment.
Very good, A.O., admitting you are a racist shit-for-brains is the first step.
Being treated like an equal strikes you as racist Wilber?
@ Amused Observer,
“Equals under the law and will not condone erosion of the law to allow legalized discrimination when blacks find themselves unable to compete on the merit of thier own abilities.”
Please elaborate a little more about the ability(ies) of black people.
Quaker,
Perhaps you could expand on how disparate impact effects the relationship between the bulk of the black community and Judge Thomas.
Everyone,
I will admit that I have been drinking Maker’s Mark tonight, but I cannot figure out what the message is in the quoted words above.”
I would imagine if he puts his mind to it, a black person ought to be able to do anything anyone else can and should be treated as such.
Being treated like an equal strikes you as racist Wilber?
No, what’s racist is a sweeping disparagement of an entire group that you define racially. The following, for instance…
Blacks hate him because he judges them as equals under the law.
PS: not that I’m picky, but for future reference it’s WilbUr, though your spelling does bring me a bit closer to my childhood hero: Wilver Dornell Stargell.
There are arguments against section five, but near as I can tell, there aren’t any good ones. They seem to boil down to ‘it’s a big pain’ and ‘we’re not racist anymore, we swears!’ I can’t say I’d be all that against extending section five to the fifty states, if it will make the whiners feel a bit better.
Amused Observer
Just keep living that dream of yours were the white men are the oppressed minority.
Its funny how its racist for a black man to favor politicians who help them, but its obviously not racist for white men like you to favor politicians who say oppose affirmative action which you think helps white men.
Your slip is showing.
sgwhiteinfla,
The legalized discrimination you favor erodes the Constitution and casts a dubious light upon any achievement a black makes outside of athletics or entertainment. Your support of legalized discrimination is hypocrital at best.
Shorter right wing racist “Amused Observer”: ‘blacks can run and dance’.
Right winger “Amused Observer” think the ‘erosion of the Constitution’ was the removal of the designation of other Persons as only three fifths of a Person.
The Republican Party isn’t just Proud of you, “A.O.”, the Republican Party is White Proud.
The legalized discrimination you favor erodes the Constitution
Is this sort of like how gay marriage is supposed to erode straight marriage?
casts a dubious light upon any achievement a black makes outside of athletics or entertainment
Horseshit. Affirmative Action might get you into college but it doesn’t solve your math problems or write your term papers for you.
casts a dubious light upon any achievement a black makes outside of athletics or entertainment
What have I asked you time and again, AO. Leave me some room! How can I mock you if you make yourself more ridiculous than any exaggeration I can offer?
Oh, very well.
Quaker,
Perhaps you could expand on how disparate impact effects the relationship between the bulk of the black community and Judge Thomas.
In spite of his own difficult upbringing, Justice Thomas would have us believe that disparate impact is something we only imagine. The “bulk of the black community” (as you infelicitously phrase it) lives a new day of disparate impact beginning with each and every sunrise. Justice Thomas tells them they’re imagining things.
Quaker: We each have self – made myths about ourselves. Just as many blacks believe they are perpetual victims (see John H. McWhorter for a reasoned analysis of this phenomenon), so, too, does Justice Thomas believe he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh believes himself to be a self – made man, and he grew up the son of an affluent lawyer in a medium sized town .
“Affirmative Action might get you into college but it doesn’t solve your math problems or write your term papers for you.”
But it does get you in ahead of someone who scored higher than you, legalized discrimination. As Orwell put it some animals are more equal than others. So you have a hard on over Thomas for not supporting legalized discrimination.
Quaker,
Mock away if you think it will gain you points. A case in point might be the controversial Ricci affair. All those black firefighters were hired but none of them can pass a test for promotion. This begs the question of how they got hired in the first place? Did they compete for those jobs even up or did they have a helping hand? See, it casts aspersions on what may have been honest achievements.
Athletics or entertainment are different. You can either throw, catch, or hit the ball or you can’t. Likewise either folks are buying the records or tuning in.
Mock away if you think it will gain you points.
I keep telling you—no room! Your comments are already more outrageous than anything I can invent.
All those black firefighters were hired but none of them can pass a test for promotion.
Amused, will you please STFU until you know some of the basic facts of the case?
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
You are such a complete idiot.
AO – it also begs the question was the test itself biased?
You see only white firefighters earning promotions, and assume the test is valid. You see a black man hired at all, and assume it’s because of affirmative action. Can you spare a moment for self-reflection and consider what may be wrong with this outlook?
And seriously, either you can run or you can’t? People buy your records or they don’t? And along the way, there is no bias in who the coach helps out more, who signs you to a record deal and promotes your record? Or, who gets encouraged to work harder at their education?
LOL Fafaroo,
When taking a test for promotion the object of the test is to score high enough to be eliglible for promotion. The plain fact you neglected to mention was based on thier test scores, the only people eliglible for promotion were white along with a single hispanic.
Amused, please. You should at least try to put a little distance between one comment and the other if your going to change your tune so radically.
The plain fact you neglected is that you wrote the following:
So first of all, you said no blacks passed the test.
That isn’t true.
Second of all, 27 whites did not pass the test.
Are we to assume that you are asking the same question of the white firefighters who failed to pass the test as you are of the black firefighters?
Also, since this needs to pointed out to you, Amused, not all the whites who passed the test scored high enough to be considered for promotion.
Are you also challenging their ability to be firefighters at all?
Fafaroo,
It doesn’t matter who is taking the test. The objective is the same.
“When taking a test for promotion the object of the test is to score high enough to be eliglible for promotion. ”
Call it passing if it makes you feel better but the objective of taking the test was not accomplished.
Tim,
You have valid points regarding patronage in athletics and entertainment.
As long as affimative action exists it will alter people’s perception of the accomplishments of those who benefited from affirmative action. How do you make a test on firefighting command biased? Ask Fafaroo, he already has the answers.
As for who gets encouraged to work harder at thier education, mentoring can be a great thing. But at the end of the day, you are responsible for what you get out of any educational opportunity.
Call it passing if it makes you feel better
No matter how one feels, passing is passing. To qualify for a promotion, a firefighter must first achieve the threshhold score on an exam. Whether or not that passing score puts the firefighter in line for a promotion depends on the number of positions open and the ranking of firefighters among those who passed.
You may try to redefine the word “passing” retroactively to make it appear that all black firefighters failed. That would beg the question why you would do so.
As long as affimative action exists it will alter people’s perception of the accomplishments of those who benefited from affirmative action. How do you make a test on firefighting command biased? Ask Fafaroo, he already has the answers.
Amused, keep digging. Please. The more you post, the more ill-informed and bigoted you sound.
You question the abilities of the black firefighters who didn’t score high enough on the test while remaining mute on all the white fire fighters who also failed to score high enough to qualify for promotions. Why is that, Amused?
Can you justify any of your comments in this thread based on the actual test results?
You know absolutely nothing about why the City decided to throw out the test results.
You don’t know that even the company which designed the test, told the city that its test was not designed for the purposes that the city had used it for:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-westfaulcon24-2009apr24,0,5548886.story
You don’t understand Title VII and what it requires, so you have no way of knowing that this admission, alone, from the test company itself would have put the city in jeopardy of a disparate impact lawsuit.
You don’t know that the city had also been informed before the test was given that there were other, more applicable tests available which were proven to show less disparate results:
As noted, this fact also would have increased the city’s liability.
The city could have corrected the problems with the test before it administered it but it failed to do so. This is why the city might have been liable in case of a suit.
It had nothing to do with meeting “quotas” or promoting people who were not qualified.
If the city had used another more applicable test, and the results were the same, it would not have been in any kind of jeopardy and it would not have had to throw out the results.
Go and read the actual Ricci decision and you will find that all of this was addressed in court.
Of course, you could have found out all of this yourself. But you didn’t even bother.
You started spewing cheap talking points completely untethered by the facts of the case, the law or even simple common sense.
It doesn’t matter who is taking the test. The objective is the same.
So, in other words, you are challenging the competency of all the white firefighters who failed to score high enough for promotion. Correct?
Perhaps, if pressed, right wing militant racist “Amused Observer” would concede that hundreds of years of slavery and almost 200 years of US government institutional racism was a problem, but his complaint is clearly that correcting for that problem is the real problem.
Recalcitrant racists like “Amused Observer” believe fanatically in what they believe, no logic, no empathy, no reason will likely ever get through to him.
Right wingers like “Amused Observer” are especially amusing (in a twisted, sad way) when they apply their Orwellian world view of hierarchically arranging ‘races’ and ‘breeds’ (something right winger “Amused Observer” has been extremely explicit about, essentially saying that ’some animals are more equal than others’) but then lay claim that others are being Orwellian even while what he/they are engaging in is Orwellian.
In white right wing “Amused Observer’s” world, racism is only a problem when he perceives it’s racism against white men.
If right winger “Amused Observer” had a shred of empathy or was capable of logic he would realize that what he’s angry about (or pretending to be angry about) is only the mildest corrective to the institutionalized racism against non-white males that he has otherwise alternately been indifferent to or supportive of.
If white right wing racist “Amused Observer” were a black man he’d be one seriously, perpetually angry black man.
Fafaroo,
Obviously the same criteria apply. However the spectre of affirmative action does not hover over the whites who took the test. Under affirmative action they initially had to score higher to overcome the legalized discrimination. This illustrates another negative aspect of affirmative action, it casts suspician on even the legitiamate achievements that blacks accomplish.
But by all means examine the results of the process that led to the intial hiring of the whole Dept. It is what it is, sunshine won’t hurt a thing. Let the chips fall where they may.
I’ve read summeries of the case and note that it was critisized for not actually addressing the constitutional questions it posed. A fact you fail to mention, perhaps because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
However the spectre of affirmative action does not hover over the whites who took the test. Under affirmative action they initially had to score higher to overcome the legalized discrimination.
No, they didn’t.
‘I’ve read summeries of the case and note that it was critisized for not actually addressing the constitutional questions it posed. A fact you fail to mention, perhaps because it doesn’t fit your narrative.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwander_rules
In the immortal words of Martin Luther King
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Seems like his dream is pretty straightforward and clear.
While rule number 4 has some possible reference to this case it is interesting to note the dissenting opinion of Judge Jose Cabranes when he stated 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 constitutional 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”
Obviously the same criteria apply. However the spectre of affirmative action does not hover over the whites who took the test. Under affirmative action they initially had to score higher to overcome the legalized discrimination.
Obviously not, Amused. You are leaping from one unsubtantiated assumption (no blacks passed the test) to another (all black firefighters in new haven were affirmative action hires) for no reason whatsoever.
You have no way of knowing the conditions or context under which ANY of the fire fighters were initially hired, white, black, hispanic.
And yet, here you are calling the hiring of the black firefighters into question because of a test for promotion that white fire fighters also took and failed or failed to pass with a high enough score to qualify for promotions.
It’s incredible just how far you seem willing to take this without a single supporting fact.
AO,
The phrase used by the legal expert on PBS last night re the voting rights case was ‘the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.’
Fafaroo,
We can quibble over the meaning of pass all we want. My reasoning on what constitutes passing or failure in a test taken for eligibility for promotion remains the same. I gather you would think a passing grade that did not qualify you for promotion in a test for the sake of promotion constitutes success.
“And yet, here you are calling the hiring of the black firefighters into question ”
Indeed, that is the ugly aspect of affirmative action. It casts a shadow upon the achievements of all who benefit from it.
What is incredible is how blind you are to the facts on the ground about not only this case but the whole notion of affimative action and the 14th amendment. There is not an asterick next to the words equal protection under the law.
Hick,
What was the concensus at PBS?
We can quibble over the meaning of pass all we want.
In other words, you will keep changing what it is you meant to say ad infinitum …
Indeed, that is the ugly aspect of affirmative action. It casts a shadow upon the achievements of all who benefit from it.
Again, you have no way of knowing that the black or hispanic fire fighters in the dept “benefited” from affirmative action when they were initially hired. Period. You’re just assuming they were because they are black or hispanic.
Now, if you personally assume that any black or hispanic in any job, anywhere got that job due to racial preference and not on merit alone, well, Amused, that’s your problem isn’t it? Why do you proceed from that assumption, I wonder?
What is incredible is how blind you are to the facts on the ground …
Says the guy who has gotten every basic facts of the case wrong from the beginning.
Fafaroo,
I have been quite clear about what I consider to be the objective of a test for eligibility for promotion and what metric I would consider success to be.
The assumption of benefits conferred by affirmative action exists because affirmative action exists. This case does nothing to dispell that assumption.
Fafaroo,
It’s best when dealing with Quaker to pin him down as tightly as possible. Your explanation of the minutia does little to change the bigger facts of the case.
The test was considered legally indefensible in the eyes of the city because minority candidates did not qualify in sufficent numbers to be considered for promotion, which contradicts a federal law which presumes that a test that does not generate significant numbers of minorities eligible for consideration of employment or promotion to be flawed.
By this reasoning if there had been sufficient openings to dip far enough on the list, no harm no foul. Or had suffient numbers of minorities scored high enough, no harm no foul. Furthermore an identical score in one year that fit the racial metric in that year would be acceptable but presumed to be discriminatory in another year based upon minority scoring.
All of which is in opposition to the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution would be easier for you to understand if you would read it. Search for the asterick in the 14th Amendment, let me know if you find it.
Sheesh.
AO, let’s imagine a test scenario in which black test takers all pass and become eligible. White test takers pass at half the rate of black test takers.
What sort of test would produce such a result?
Why Quaker that would be a test given to a group of people comprised of blacks and whites where the blacks pass at a rate double that of the whites.
Your explanation of the minutia does little to change the bigger facts of the case.
Oh mercy. Here you are in another thread on the same subject:
Listen, AO, it’s clear you still have no idea what the large or small facts of the case are. Nor have you bothered to read or understand the operative laws. It’s getting a little ridiculous at this point.
There is no federal law that “presumes” anything about the results of any test for employment. You’ve got it all fucked up and backwards.
Government agencies and courts are guided by what is called the “80 percent rule.” This is not a law, federal or otherwise, and it is not enforceable in and of itself. If a certain test result doesn’t pass the 80 percent test, it is considered a “presumptive” violation of Title VII, which is not in any way, evidence of a violation itself, it is merely an indicator that further investigation is necessary.
http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm
Somehow or other while you shifting your focus to the “bigger facts of the case” you jumbled all this up and came up with the stupid nonsense that this was “a federal a federal law” that somehow “presumes” something.
Now in the Ricci case, the city used the 80 percent rule to question their own test and the resulting investigation proved to them that the test was problematic for a number of reasons and so it could not be able to defend itself against any kind of disparate impact lawsuit.
There is a possibility that the city might have found that the test was perfectly fine and the results simply were what they were. In that case, the city could have defended itself against any discrimination lawsuits because it would not have been in violation of the law.
Again, Amused, let me spell this out for you: Racial disparity in test results is not in and of itself a violation of Title VII. That is not why the test results were thrown out. The test results were thrown out because the test itself was found to be flawed.
Of course, it’s clear now that even when you do some modicum of research you are incapable of understanding what you read.
You really should just quit while you’re behind.
Fafaroo,
The 80/20 rule is a generalization that predates all of this. An example is that typically 20% of a sales force generates 80% of the sales. Your link merely shows the guidelines used to thwart the equal protection clause.
You are a tenacious one though, gotta give you credit for that.
You neglected to paste my quote in context.
“You are blowing smoke again. The devil is in the details. The law is crafted in one way and policy is determined by regulators interpretation and often desire in another way. Affirmative Action when first crafted was specifically not supposed to have quotas, but in the end it did.”
You seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that affirmative action is a political creation that stands in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment.
All of the justification you can muster can’t change the fact that affirmative action is legalized discrimination.
This entire case revolves around the concept of attempting to equalize outcomes not opportunities. Our rights flow to us as individuals not as members of a group. We are equal under the eyes of the law which is bound by the Constitution to afford us equal protection of the law. Why do you think the lady with the scales is wearing a blindfold?
In the next week or so we shall see whether or not the Supreme Court upholds it’s oath to preserve the Constitution.
This entire case revolves around the concept of attempting to equalize outcomes not opportunities.
No it doesn’t. The entire case resolves around the concept of not administering, knowingly or unknowingly, a discriminatory test for employment purposes.
That you keep arguing otherwise is indication that you still have no idea what the facts of the case are and that even when presented with them, you simply ignore them and rehash the same shit you started with.
Your link merely shows the guidelines used to thwart the equal protection clause.
Again, the link shows the guidelines used to test for discriminatory hiring practices.
Amsued, you’re an utter and complete hack.
The 80/20 rule is a generalization that predates all of this.
I keep re-reading your last comment because it so full of stupid it’s impossible to catch it all in one reading.
Amused, you completely misunderstood whatever it was you read or your source completely mislead you, when you came up with this bit of nonsense:
There is no “federal law” that says or “presumes” any such thing.
I point this glaring error out to you and you come back with “The 80/20 rule is a generalization that predates all of this. An example is that typically 20% of a sales force generates 80% of the sales.”?
That’s what you have in response? And you think that’s an adequate reply? It’s a total non sequitur, man. Completely unconnected to the specifics of the discussion at hand.
Hell, man the first two sentences of your comment don’t have any relation to anything that follows. None. Zero. Zip.
You could have just written:
And you would have made as much sense.
You could have just written:
Gabba gabba hey
At least he would have demonstrated good taste in music.
Fagaroo,
“No it doesn’t. The entire case resolves around the concept of not administering, knowingly or unknowingly, a discriminatory test for employment purposes”
When the metric for discrimination is measured by how a specific group of citizens performs not as individuals but as members of a group you have a situation where the law can not be known before an act is committed. That is contrary to the rule of law and is in opposition to the 14th Amendment.
A panel of “experts” making subjective calls is a farce.
You refuse to square affirmative action with the 14th Amendment because you can’t. They are 180 degrees out from each other. When you erode any of your rights you erode all of your rights. Not that you care.
You refuse to square affirmative action with the 14th Amendment because you can’t.
Whether fafaroo can or cannot, the Supreme Court can and does allow for race to be a factor (sans quotas), so the question is moot. Quite simply, AO, there are subtleties which you either do not understand or are ignoring; although your passion for “all our rights” is duly noted and highly amusing following the past 8 years of unconstitutional mayhem.
I always enjoy that conservatives find only two acceptable uses for the equal protection clause, Bush v Gore and destroying affirmative action. For future reference, the purpose of the constitution is not to mandate white privilege.
A panel of “experts” making subjective calls is a farce.
There are objective facts in this case, Amused, and you have gotten almost all of them entirely wrong.
What exactly should we call that?