If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Having crippled voting rights and campaign finance reform, SCOTUS now takes the axe to affirmative action   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 679
    More: Obvious, campaign finance reform, U.S. Supreme Court, affirmative actions, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, suffrages, axe, campaign contributions  
•       •       •

6435 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2014 at 1:41 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



679 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-22 12:12:33 PM  
In another twenty years they'll take another stab at it, as Cacausians slide to under 50%...
 
2014-04-22 12:14:49 PM  
She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.

Clarence Thomas seen after the ruling:

www.bet.com
 
2014-04-22 12:28:12 PM  
19th Century, here we come, with Conservatives leading the backward march.
 
2014-04-22 12:32:54 PM  

MrBallou: 19th Century, here we come, with Conservatives leading the backward march.


The robber barons of the 1800's never had it so good.
 
2014-04-22 12:45:48 PM  
Foiled again Brooke, foiled again.
cmsimg.freep.com
 
2014-04-22 12:53:56 PM  
What y'all getting so riled about over college educations?  Where's your spirit? I don't hear no singin'. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.
 
2014-04-22 12:58:22 PM  
No they didn't. Look, this court is terrible, there's no need to exaggerate their terribleness.

All the court said in this case is that the constitution does not grant people the affirmative right to have affirmative action systems put in place. That's hardly nuts.
 
2014-04-22 01:01:45 PM  
blog.timesunion.com
 
2014-04-22 01:16:23 PM  
I'm not seeing a problem with this decision in any way, shape, or form.
 
2014-04-22 01:23:13 PM  
College admission--among other things--shouldn't be based off of race.  Either preferentially or discriminatorially.  And I think I just made up a word.  Anyway.

With that having been said, it would be nice if historically poorer (i.e.: larger percentage of minorities, for the most part) neighborhoods had better schooling (or whatever it takes) so *everyone* had equal footing in merit when trying to get higher education.

Not sure I explained my POV as well as I'd like.  I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and I just ate some hot curry.
 
2014-04-22 01:23:55 PM  
Also with *that* having been said, I can understand WHY we've had to have affirmative action. Because some people are just assholes.
 
2014-04-22 01:34:36 PM  
- Whatever happened to judging people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character?
- Do two wrongs make a right now?
- Does the American Dream include racial preferences?


/Married to a minority
 
2014-04-22 01:36:57 PM  

Johnny Texas: While a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites, there are twice as many whites living in poverty in the USA.  Why should we focus our efforts on the black areas, rather than attempting to help all poor people?


Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.
 
2014-04-22 01:46:03 PM  
Banning reverse discrimination is a good thing.
 
2014-04-22 01:46:08 PM  
Good
 
2014-04-22 01:47:56 PM  
Put me among the liberals who don't think skin color should enable you to have rights over another person.

Economic disadvantage? Maybe. Skin color? Absolutely not.
 
2014-04-22 01:48:09 PM  
Can the 13th Amendment be far behind!
 
2014-04-22 01:48:36 PM  
Subby appears to think that institutional racism is acceptable. Fortunately the Supreme Court finally got one right and said it's okay not to discriminate.

It's amazing how many people that claim to want equality actually really just want special privelages for their chosen group.

You want equality? I'm all in, how about a constitutional amendment banning discrimination altogether? Such an amendment would never make it past the special interests groups that profit off of the status quo.
 
2014-04-22 01:49:06 PM  

Johnny Texas: You can't solve it with letting unqualified applicants into college based on the color of their skin either.


You also can't beg the question by calling them "unqualified" as an assumption.

Johnny Texas: If an employer is going to discriminate, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it, unless it becomes blatantly obvious.


Again, this is just an assertion with no evidence at all. Who says we can't do anything about it?
 
2014-04-22 01:49:42 PM  
Good.  It's about time liberals stop being able to tell blacks that they're just not good enough to compete in the work force.
 
2014-04-22 01:50:43 PM  

8 inches: - Whatever happened to judging people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character?
- Do two wrongs make a right now?
- Does the American Dream include racial preferences?


/Married to a minority


Giving a hand to people who are coming from a lower starting point is not a bad thing. Maybe it should be based more on socioeconomic status than on race.

What is the "American Dream" anyway? If it ever existed, I'm pretty skeptical that it does now. Our income mobility just keeps getting worse. In the words of the late, great George Carlin: "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it".

Being married to a minority does not make your view more or less valid than anyone else's.
 
2014-04-22 01:51:13 PM  

DamnYankees: Johnny Texas: While a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites, there are twice as many whites living in poverty in the USA.  Why should we focus our efforts on the black areas, rather than attempting to help all poor people?

Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.


Bambi is a white-sounding name.
 
2014-04-22 01:51:21 PM  

Johnny Texas: unqualified applicants


Can you describe an unqualified applicant?
 
2014-04-22 01:51:34 PM  

onyxruby: Subby appears to think that institutional racism is acceptable. Fortunately the Supreme Court finally got one right and said it's okay not to discriminate.

It's amazing how many people that claim to want equality actually really just want special privelages for their chosen group.

You want equality? I'm all in, how about a constitutional amendment banning discrimination altogether? Such an amendment would never make it past the special interests groups that profit off of the status quo.


Whenever people post like this, I always go back to the race analogy.

It's as though X and Y people are running a race. They are in the starting block. X then turns to Y and clubs him in the knee. The referee comes out and says "no more clubbing people!" We then take five minutes to regroup, and Y went to get a knee brace. Then X complains to the judge saying "why is he allowed to have a knee brace and I'l not! That's not fair!"

For some reason we think X is out of his farking mind, but when you make the same claims about society its considered totally fine.
 
2014-04-22 01:51:50 PM  

DamnYankees: Johnny Texas: While a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites, there are twice as many whites living in poverty in the USA.  Why should we focus our efforts on the black areas, rather than attempting to help all poor people?

Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.


Then you may allow people entry based on those forces.

Yes, I know gosh golly it's easier to look at someone's skin than it is to verify they grew up financially disadvantaged, but that's the fair way to do it. There are Asians, Caucasians, and all races of people who grew up disadvantaged with a single parent.
 
2014-04-22 01:52:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Johnny Texas: While a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites, there are twice as many whites living in poverty in the USA.  Why should we focus our efforts on the black areas, rather than attempting to help all poor people?

Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.


How dare you challenge someone's preconceived notion about the world based on their own ignorance?!

Here's a story about how black boys are often judged to be older, and less innocent than their white counterparts. Our country has an ingrained racial prejudice that is fought with things like Affirmative Action. But let's pretend like it's racist to help out black people, because we aren't also helping out white people.


However, I will say I'm a huge proponent of better education, and traditionally poor areas around the country have traditionally worse education systems and standards available and this should be combated on a grand scale, and reinforced with local resources.
 
2014-04-22 01:52:44 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Banning reverse discrimination is a good thing.


The reverse of discrimination is acceptance. Discrimination isn't somehow magically different because the victim is one group instead of another.
 
2014-04-22 01:52:51 PM  

Cerebral Ballsy: Then you may allow people entry based on those forces.


I don't know what this means.
 
2014-04-22 01:52:53 PM  
z6jb-7psf.accessdomain.com


/ see nothing wrong with eliminating racial judgements from admission criteria
 
2014-04-22 01:52:53 PM  

Johnny Texas: DamnYankees: Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.

You can't solve it with letting unqualified applicants into college based on the color of their skin either.  If an employer is going to discriminate, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it, unless it becomes blatantly obvious.


Well we could always loosen the standards one needs to meet to prove discrimination happened. All it would take is a law
 
2014-04-22 01:53:10 PM  
Lawdy me! You mean the person most capable will now be offered the job or given the chance to learn? What ever will we do, what ever will we do!?!?!?!?
 
2014-04-22 01:53:11 PM  

xanadian: College admission--among other things--shouldn't be based off of race.  Either preferentially or discriminatorially.  And I think I just made up a word.  Anyway.

With that having been said, it would be nice if historically poorer (i.e.: larger percentage of minorities, for the most part) neighborhoods had better schooling (or whatever it takes) so *everyone* had equal footing in merit when trying to get higher education.

Not sure I explained my POV as well as I'd like.  I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and I just ate some hot curry.


Sure
That would take removing district level funding of public schools. PERIOD.
ALL funding would have to come from state or federal level.

NO more local funding from property taxes.
Otherwise this problem will never, ever get fixed.


FFS, Whites left the cities after brown vs board of ed, and took the school dollars with them.
AND people are STILL confused as to why poor schools do worse than rich schools? 
LOL

/not holding the unions faultless, they didnt help by protecting TERRIBLE teachers and bloated school boards.
 
2014-04-22 01:53:17 PM  
...so what was the question...?
 
2014-04-22 01:53:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Johnny Texas: While a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty than whites, there are twice as many whites living in poverty in the USA.  Why should we focus our efforts on the black areas, rather than attempting to help all poor people?

Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.


Then explain in detail why a rich black kid should get any sort of preference over a poor asian?
 
2014-04-22 01:54:21 PM  

MrBallou: 19th Century, here we come, with Conservatives leading the backward march.


I think 50 years of artificial levelling of the playing field is more than enough, or at least it should be.
 
2014-04-22 01:54:23 PM  
And drop the meaningless euphemisms.  Call "affirmative action" what it actually is - institutionalized racism.
 
2014-04-22 01:54:57 PM  
Good. This is a good start.
 
2014-04-22 01:55:30 PM  
Judges "ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society," Sotomayor said.

*Sigh* It's statements like that that lend credence to otherwise bullshiat alarmist cries of "judicial activism!!"  Your job is to interpret laws and determine whether or not they pass constitutional muster, not use your position to confront societal ills.

And that goes for you too, Scalia.  By what twisted logic are corporations the same thing as a person??
 
2014-04-22 01:55:32 PM  

ShadowKamui: Then explain in detail why a rich black kid should get any sort of preference over a poor asian?


Because being black in America comes with certain historic and current disadvantages that being Asian doesn't.

It's really not a complicated thing to answer. You may not like the answer, but that's different.
 
2014-04-22 01:55:46 PM  

DamnYankees: Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.


It's policies like affirmative action that lead to this type of discrimination. Employers believe that person got where they are because of affirmative action and not because of their ability.
 
2014-04-22 01:56:52 PM  

DamnYankees: onyxruby: Subby appears to think that institutional racism is acceptable. Fortunately the Supreme Court finally got one right and said it's okay not to discriminate.

It's amazing how many people that claim to want equality actually really just want special privelages for their chosen group.

You want equality? I'm all in, how about a constitutional amendment banning discrimination altogether? Such an amendment would never make it past the special interests groups that profit off of the status quo.

Whenever people post like this, I always go back to the race analogy.

It's as though X and Y people are running a race. They are in the starting block. X then turns to Y and clubs him in the knee. The referee comes out and says "no more clubbing people!" We then take five minutes to regroup, and Y went to get a knee brace. Then X complains to the judge saying "why is he allowed to have a knee brace and I'l not! That's not fair!"

For some reason we think X is out of his farking mind, but when you make the same claims about society its considered totally fine.


No. It's more like x clubs y and z in the leg. Then y says "I want a knee brace because I'm black!"

We get it if you have a disadvantage, and I'm all for that. But since the cycle of poverty and crime follows economic patterns much more closely than racial lines, one solution is fair and the other is simply reverse racism.
 
2014-04-22 01:56:54 PM  

GoldSpider: *Sigh* It's statements like that that lend credence to otherwise bullshiat alarmist cries of "judicial activism!!"  Your job is to interpret laws and determine whether or not they pass constitutional muster, not use your position to confront societal ills.


The 14th amendment is incredibly hard to interpret.
 
2014-04-22 01:57:13 PM  
iruntheinternet.com

Either you want equal treatment under the law and not to be judged by the color of your skin.or you want special treatment under the law to include taking the color of your skin into account and give up all pretense of wanting to be treated equally
 
2014-04-22 01:57:24 PM  

Johnny Texas: DamnYankees: Because there are forces at work which explicitely hurt black people more. For example, numerous studies have shown that resumes that have a black-sounding name get less responses than those with a white-sounding name, even if otherwise identical. You can't solve stuff like that using colorblind policies.

You can't solve it with letting unqualified applicants into college based on the color of their skin either.  If an employer is going to discriminate, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it, unless it becomes blatantly obvious.


Affirmative action has never been about admitting/hiring unqualified individuals, though it has often allowed for barely qualified to beat well qualified.  Beating out only your demographic peers to achieve the absolute minimum isn't what higher education is about...
While I'm pro-integration, affirmative action is definitely not the way to go about it.
 
2014-04-22 01:57:30 PM  

BorisD: It's policies like affirmative action that lead to this type of discrimination.


Yeah, because Americans weren't prejudiced against black people before affirmative action. You nailed it.
 
2014-04-22 01:58:00 PM  

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Can you describe an unqualified applicant?


Wrong question.  "Why is someone with a certain skin color more qualified than someone without?"
 
2014-04-22 01:58:40 PM  

GoldSpider: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Can you describe an unqualified applicant?

Wrong question.  "Why is someone with a certain skin color more qualified than someone without?"


No one said they were.

Opponents of affirmative action have an incredibly hard time understanding it, much less arguing against it.
 
2014-04-22 01:58:52 PM  

Cerebral Ballsy: Put me among the liberals who don't think skin color should enable you to have rights over another person.

Economic disadvantage? Maybe. Skin color? Absolutely not.


Same here.  Affirmative action, for all its faults, had, and still has, a place in some cities/states/government agencies.  It's also entirely appropriate for local voters to decide they don't need it anymore...provided they're not just going back to being exclusionary racist asshats.

Kinda like you stop taking cancer medication when your cancer goes into remission.  You may not be 100% healthy, but you've gotten to the point where the medication's side effects do more harm than good.
 
2014-04-22 01:59:45 PM  
Damn, I knew I never should've come into this thread. I'm just not boot strappy enough to get past all the @#%@&2 ignorance echoing around in here.
 
2014-04-22 01:59:50 PM  

xanadian: Also with *that* having been said, I can understand WHY we've had to have affirmative action. Because some people are just assholes.


Well, see, that's the problem.  Because people are such assholes and bigots, the gov't had to step in to make sure everyone plays nice.
The obvious downside of this is that people who are better qualified lose opportunities in the effort to equalize things.

In the end, you cannot simply legislate bigotry out of existence.  Affirmative action seems like a good idea on the books.  But it's lousy, unfair, backwards in practice.  It's almost like we need another affirmative to enforce affirmative action.

Abolishing it does seem like the best solution right now.
 
Displayed 50 of 679 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report