US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[Fez]

Yeah, america totally doesn't have an issue with racism anymore......

It does, but I don't think affirmative action is the way to address it.

Regardless of that, I think the decision makes a lot of sense. Just because states can use affirmative action doesn't mean they have to, and that's all the decision said. The court had the opportunity last year to strike down affirmative action as unconstitutional, and did not. So it would seem that they're fine with it existing, just not with requiring that states have laws using it. Which works for me, there's no constitutional right to a college eduction.

I do think the country needs to do a lot more to increase minority enrollment in college, but I think the way to do that is through improving high schools, lowering tuitions/increasing non-loan tuition assistance, and generally improving economic conditions.

[Mazigh]

Yeah, it's too bad they weren't white. Then the police wouldn't have engaged as we've literally just seen.

Hell, they dropped a fucking bomb on the black criminals. In a residential neighbourhood.

Remember Ruby Ridge? If that man's wife son and dog were white then the police snipers would not have shot them If those people at Waco were white then the government would not have burned them alive either By the way you do know black supremacists hate Jews right? Yet you still fawn over them It isn't a disagreement with the state of Israel or opposition against Jewish privilege It is them wanting to start an actual genocide

[TrackerNeil]

This is yet another nail in the coffin of an old monstrosity that has long outlived its usefulness. It'll take a long time to finally die, but with Breyer switching sides, I think we're getting there.

So granting preferences to ethnicities who have suffered decades or centuries of institutional discrimination is a monstrosity, but granting preferences to certain athletes or the children of alumni is just jim-dandy? Right.

[Wise Fool]

Remember Ruby Ridge? If that man's wife son and dog were white then the police snipers would not have shot them If those people at Waco were white then the government would not have burned them alive either By the way you do know black supremacists hate Jews right? Yet you still fawn over them It isn't a disagreement with the state of Israel or opposition against Jewish privilege It is them wanting to start an actual genocide

Ruby Ridge and Waco only show that the cops do use force against white people, because no one says that they never do and they're 100% discriminatory. They also show that there's a bias here because while right-wingers speak lovingly of Ruby Ridge and Waco as quintessential examples that easily spring to mind, nobody can even think of that time police dropped a bomb against anarcho-primitivist black people let alone constantly bring it up. Of course you justify it by saying they're "black supremacists" who "hate Jews" and also criminals and terrorists, but the same thing has been said about Not-Ted Bundy. It seems both parties violated the law, but only one got the bomb and bloodshed treatment and faded into convenient, unsung obscurity and ignored by right wing press and political interests in the country.

You get bonus points for vaguely implying that Jewish genocide is a bad thing, but I took a point off for bringing up the Jews again.

[Tempra]

The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action in a 6-2 decision (Kagan recused herself, Breyer joined the majority).

Importantly, the decision doesn't touch on the constitutionality of affirmative action, and instead just stated that the state supreme court didn't have the authority or precedent to overturn this specific law.

ETA: The law itself did not ban affirmative action. Instead it said that a referendum on whether to ban affirmative action would have to go before the voters. The referendum passed during the next election.

Surprised this has not been discussed more. Great decision, especially for those that believe in judicial restraint. The writing is on the wall that AA is going the way of the dodo in the very near future.

Sotomayor's 58 page dissent was...something else, page after page of illogical rationalization and, frankly, downright offensive. Roberts' epic 1.5 page takedown of her dissent was a wonderful read in contrast.

[Shryke]

Remember Ruby Ridge? If that man's wife son and dog were white then the police snipers would not have shot them If those people at Waco were white then the government would not have burned them alive either By the way you do know black supremacists hate Jews right? Yet you still fawn over them It isn't a disagreement with the state of Israel or opposition against Jewish privilege It is them wanting to start an actual genocide

WTF is with you and the jews? Who's fawning over anyone? Also, the government didn't burn anyone alive at Waco, the Branch Davidians did. Ruby Ridge was also a long stand-off. They didn't open with straight tear gas like with the black group mentioned who's major crime at the start was being a nuisance neighbour.

When this escalated to a stand-off, they went with tear gas and bombs. Rather then a stand-off or backing down as we've seen here.

White domestic terrorism in the US gets kid gloves and support from a major political party instead.

[Shryke]

Surprised this has not been discussed more. Great decision, especially for those that believe in judicial restraint. The writing is on the wall that AA is going the way of the dodo in the very near future.

Sotomayor's 58 page was page after page of illogical rationalization and, frankly, downright offensive. Roberts' epic 1.5 page takedown of her dissent was a wonderful.

Robert's reply reads like his usual shit on race. It's Colbert's "I don't see race" bit, taken seriously.

[Fez]

The writing is on the wall that AA is going the way of the dodo in the very near future.

I don't think so. Not after SCOTUS had the perfect opportunity to do so in Fisher v. University of Texas last year. I think the court is content to just say that states can ban it if they want. Now, this may lead to some more states doing away with AA laws (right now eight states, including Michigan, have AA bans; California has banned AA since 1996), but it seems unlikely that all states will follow suit.

ETA: The full list is: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington.

[Mudguard]

Robert's reply reads like his usual shit on race. It's Colbert's "I don't see race" bit, taken seriously.

Did you ready his reply? It seemed pretty reasonable to me. How is his reply like Colbert's "I don't see race" bit?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Getting a little tired of the racial equivalency thing as it is applied to the Bundy event. What are we saying? That the Feds should've went all MOVE on Bunkerville? I don't think any of us wanted to see that happen again.

[Summah]

ETA: The full list is: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Right, so the two states leading the competition for most racist state award have gotten rid of AA, that's just great.

[Shryke]

Did you ready his reply? It seemed pretty reasonable to me. How is his reply like Colbert's "I don't see race" bit?

Did you? It's the same shit he's always pushed on race. "Dealing with racial discrimination directly reinforces racism. The best way to fix the issue is to not acknowledge it."

[Shryke]

Getting a little tired of the racial equivalency thing as it is applied to the Bundy event. What are we saying? That the Feds should've went all MOVE on Bunkerville? I don't think any of us wanted to see that happen again.

That white domestic terrorism, of which the militia movement involved in the Bundy event is most definitely a part, gets a pass in american politics. It's treated with kid gloves. Because one of the major political parties/movements in the country backs it.

I'm tired of it happening too, but it's not going away. It's only gotten worse since the last burst of this kind of bullshit in the 90s. The right-wing is backing this shit MORE this time.

It's very much big news that people taking arms against the federal government over an open and shut case decided frequently already in the courts have the backing of a major party. That's fucking crazy.

[Mudguard]

Did you? It's the same shit he's always pushed on race. "Dealing with racial discrimination directly reinforces racism. The best way to fix the issue is to not acknowledge it."

You clearly didn't read his reply, because he makes no such statements.

[Tempra]

Robert's reply reads like his usual shit on race. It's Colbert's "I don't see race" bit, taken seriously.

Not really.

He rightfully points put that Sotomayor's questioning the openness and candor of her opponents is detrimental to the debate. Scalia called her out on her comparison between those favoring bans on racial preferences with those supporting Jim Crow laws. Roberts further points out how illogical her argument is. Apparently, if a governing board of a university determines racial preferences are counterproductive, that is a okay. Every one else who may question the use racial preferences? They don't take race seriously! The coup de grace was pointing out how disingenuous Sotomayor is when she suggests the virtues of racial preferences should not inform the opinion of the court after expounding for 11 pages on her preferred policy preference that colleges take into account race for admissions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

That white domestic terrorism, of which the militia movement involved in the Bundy event is most definitely a part, gets a pass in american politics. It's treated with kid gloves. Because one of the major political parties/movements in the country backs it.

I'm tired of it happening too, but it's not going away. It's only gotten worse since the last burst of this kind of bullshit in the 90s. The right-wing is backing this shit MORE this time.

It's very much big news that people taking arms against the federal government over an open and shut case decided frequently already in the courts have the backing of a major party. That's fucking crazy.

I don't think it's getting a pass. I think in this case the Feds made the prudent play. Sit and wait and don't turn this squatter into a martyr. Sooner or later, his armed friends will go home, and you can arrest and try them individually.

Let the yahoos and Faux Newsies back it, it's not going to change the end result. I strongly believe that the law will be carried out eventually, and Mr. Bundy will get his day in court.

[Summah]

Black supremacist criminal terrorists with stolen guns get in a gunfight with the police My what a sad story :crying:

That is how they were described so that is what I will call them

Really? Because the article that I clicked on (the only link provided that I saw) said that MOVE was a black liberation group, so you think black liberation group = black supremacist criminal terrorists? That's interesting. Also I didn't feel like finding and quoting this one, but you do realize that not all black liberation/separatist/power/nationalist groups etc are antisemitic, don't confuse the Nation of Islam with other groups. Perhaps you would prefer if I instead took the Nation of Islam to accurately represent everything Muslims from all over the world believe and do.

[Shryke]

You clearly didn't read his reply, because he makes no such statements.

Yup, he did:

But it is not “out of touch with reality” to conclude that racial preferences maythemselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and—if so—that the preferences domore harm than good.

A large part of Sotomayor's dissent is talking about Robert's view on this very point and how full of shit he is.

Not really.

He rightfully points put that Sotomayor's questioning the openness and candor of her opponents is detrimental to the debate. Scalia called her out on her comparison between those favoring bans on racial preferences with those supporting Jim Crow laws. Roberts further points out how illogical her argument is. Apparently, if a governing board of a university determines racial preferences are counterproductive, that is a okay. Every one else who may question the use racial preferences? They don't take race seriously! The coup de grace was pointing out how disingenuous Sotomayor is when she suggests the virtues of racial preferences should not inform the opinion of the court after expounding for 11 pages on her preferred policy preference that colleges take into account race for admissions.

It's not a detriment to the debate because we should be questioning their candour considering how full of shit they are wrt issues of race in america.

On the subject of who gets to decide on policies related to AA, Sotomayor is saying the board of governors can decide what they want to do, her objection is to voters constraining that decision. From what I saw anyway.

[Shryke]

I don't think it's getting a pass. I think in this case the Feds made the prudent play. Sit and wait and don't turn this squatter into a martyr. Sooner or later, his armed friends will go home, and you can arrest and try them individually.

Let the yahoos and Faux Newsies back it, it's not going to change the end result. I strongly believe that the law will be carried out eventually, and Mr. Bundy will get his day in court.

This is itself the problem. This is exactly what I'm talking about. These are the people giving them a pass. They are not just Fox News, they are sitting members of Congress.

It's also part of why the feds backed off like they wouldn't have for, say, a black group. Because these white domestic terrorists have political backing so they must be dealt with more carefully.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It's also part of why the feds backed off like they wouldn't have for, say, a black group. Because these white domestic terrorists have political backing so they must be dealt with more carefully.

I don't believe that had much or anything to do with why they backed off. They saw a bunch of armed folk mixed in with a bunch of women and they decided the situation was a potential powderkeg. Honestly, I believe this is a positive thing. They've learned from Waco and the like. I don't really care what the reasoning is to not kill people. It's a net gain, regardless of the reasoning. This is justice deferred, not justice avoided. I have all faith that this will end with Cliven Bundy in a jail cell.