• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Some People Somewhere Do Something To Someone For Some Reason

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,284
0
0
Advocates for minority students, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, implored a federal appeals court Monday to reconsider California's voter-approved ban on affirmative action based on race or gender preferences in education and state hiring.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/13/BAD71N71NS.DTL

First it was proposition 187 and now this.

Pretty sickening.
Instead of judging people on the content of their character they want the state to use race as a factor in the name of equality - laughable.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,284
0
0
Title is flame bait
"Progressives" - Yes, they are the ones challenging this
"in CA" - Yes, they are in Califonria
"move to throw out" - The action of the progressives
"Another Voter Passed Law" - The proposition *was* passed by the voters
"banning affirmative action" - what the law the voters passed accomplished

100% factually accurate title.

What do you want the thread to be titled, "some guy somewhere did something"?
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
no surprise. liberals don't want you to judge them on the failure of their results. They want to be judged on their utopian folly.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
306
126
From the article:

The arguments appeared to make little headway. Another appeals court panel had upheld Prop. 209 in 1997, and Monday's three-judge panel signaled that it was bound to follow that ruling.

"That's water under the bridge," Judge A. Wallace Tashima told Cordero. He said the only recourse for opponents of Prop. 209 would be to ask the full appeals court for a new hearing, a request the court had rejected in 1997.


So - I want to know how this works. If I'm some sort of government official, I can "implore" courts to change their ruling? Since fucking when? It's too bad the courts didn't state their position even more emphatically. Something like this:

"Hey morons. We heard the case. The people voted. Sorry you idiots didn't like our decision, but asking us nicely to change it is just about as stupid as you asshats can be. Have a nice day, and please don't ever call us again."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,096
18,864
136
From the article:

The arguments appeared to make little headway. Another appeals court panel had upheld Prop. 209 in 1997, and Monday's three-judge panel signaled that it was bound to follow that ruling.

"That's water under the bridge," Judge A. Wallace Tashima told Cordero. He said the only recourse for opponents of Prop. 209 would be to ask the full appeals court for a new hearing, a request the court had rejected in 1997.


So - I want to know how this works. If I'm some sort of government official, I can "implore" courts to change their ruling? Since fucking when? It's too bad the courts didn't state their position even more emphatically. Something like this:

"Hey morons. We heard the case. The people voted. Sorry you idiots didn't like our decision, but asking us nicely to change it is just about as stupid as you asshats can be. Have a nice day, and please don't ever call us again."
Of course they can, what you're advocating for would be insane. Do you think the courts shouldn't have be able to reconsider Plessy v. Ferguson? Or the Dredd Scott decision?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,898
1,042
126
While Affirmative Action is imperfect due to the fact that it requires gender, race, or other qualities to be a factor, it's still somewhat necessary. Look at the GOP for example and the current candidates. If it were up to them and Affirmative Action didn't exist, then many things that only affect certain races would take place. Look at Santorum that doesn't want women to have proper access to their own reproductive decisions. Or Gingrich who thinks speaking Spanish means you live in a ghetto. Or Romney who thinks the very poor are doing just fine. Or Ron Paul who has many questionable ties to very racist groups and people.

You hate Affirmative Action for what it does. Unfortunately it's due to people with your mindset (from your posting history) that makes there be a NEED for Affirmative Action. Sadly, it's a biased law that's required to counteract biased actions of mostly conservative mindset douchebags who think that minorities, women, and homosexuals deserve to be treated as less of human beings than other people.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
5
81
I find it amusing how affirmative action bans have succeeded in every state where they went before the voters, even fairly liberal states like CA and WA. Just goes to show how out of touch affirmative action supporters are. If the Republicans spent more energy fighting against idiocy like affirmative action and less time supporting the fringe, crackpot birth control views of the Catholic Church they'd get my vote far more often.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
While Affirmative Action is imperfect due to the fact that it requires gender, race, or other qualities to be a factor, it's still somewhat necessary. Look at the GOP for example and the current candidates. If it were up to them and Affirmative Action didn't exist, then many things that only affect certain races would take place. Look at Santorum that doesn't want women to have proper access to their own reproductive decisions. Or Gingrich who thinks speaking Spanish means you live in a ghetto. Or Romney who thinks the very poor are doing just fine. Or Ron Paul who has many questionable ties to very racist groups and people.

You hate Affirmative Action for what it does. Unfortunately it's due to people with your mindset (from your posting history) that makes there be a NEED for Affirmative Action. Sadly, it's a biased law that's required to counteract biased actions of mostly conservative mindset douchebags who think that minorities, women, and homosexuals deserve to be treated as less of human beings than other people.
The OP wasn't the one that passed the very reasonable and fair proposition, it was the majority of Californians. The law was written, supported and campaigned for by UC Regent Ward Connerly and the courts have found it to be race neutral.

btw I didn't vote for this law as I was living in Colorado at the time.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
From the article:

The arguments appeared to make little headway. Another appeals court panel had upheld Prop. 209 in 1997, and Monday's three-judge panel signaled that it was bound to follow that ruling.

"That's water under the bridge," Judge A. Wallace Tashima told Cordero. He said the only recourse for opponents of Prop. 209 would be to ask the full appeals court for a new hearing, a request the court had rejected in 1997.


So - I want to know how this works. If I'm some sort of government official, I can "implore" courts to change their ruling? Since fucking when? It's too bad the courts didn't state their position even more emphatically. Something like this:

"Hey morons. We heard the case. The people voted. Sorry you idiots didn't like our decision, but asking us nicely to change it is just about as stupid as you asshats can be. Have a nice day, and please don't ever call us again."
Of course they can, what you're advocating for would be insane. Do you think the courts shouldn't have be able to reconsider Plessy v. Ferguson? Or the Dredd Scott decision?
What has changed in 5 years that should require a new decision? Other court cases? Where?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
The OP wasn't the one that passed the very reasonable and fair proposition, it was the majority of Californians. The law was written, supported and campaigned for by UC Regent Ward Connerly and the courts have found it to be race neutral.

btw I didn't vote for this law as I was living in Colorado at the time.
The Declaration of Indedpendence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Consitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.

Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.

California's Proposition 8 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens. Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."

Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state. :rolleyes:

With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.

Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.

< edit >

Edited to correct my error in referring to California Prop. 187, instead of Prop. 8, in my example. :oops: However, the same reasoning applies. Note that I did return to the issue of affirmative action, which was the subject of Prop. 187, later in this post.

Thanks to ichy for catching my error. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
5
81
California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens.
I'm rolling on the floor, laughing at your ignorance. Proposition 187 was directed at illegal immigrants. It did not affect US citizens in the slightest.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,657
4,480
126
I think colleges should still take overcoming hardship, such as growing up in the ghetto (or trailer park), into account for admissions. It's a sign of strong character. I would take a guy out of Compton with a 1400 SAT over a guy from Beverly Hills with a 1500, for example.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,236
4
76
The OP wasn't the one that passed the very reasonable and fair proposition, it was the majority of Californians. The law was written, supported and campaigned for by UC Regent Ward Connerly and the courts have found it to be race neutral.

btw I didn't vote for this law as I was living in Colorado at the time.
You didn't mention that Ward Connerly was a douchebag that received preference in California for a "minority-owned" business (he's black), and now wants to pull up the ladder that helped him get rich. Similar to Clarence Thomas. Total hypocrite.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
The Declaration of Indedpendence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Consitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.

Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.

California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens. Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."

Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state. :rolleyes:

With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.

Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.
So your opinion is that we need to destroy the Constitution in order to save it ?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,491
2,994
126
I think colleges should still take overcoming hardship, such as growing up in the ghetto (or trailer park), into account for admissions. It's a sign of strong character. I would take a guy out of Compton with a 1400 SAT over a guy from Beverly Hills with a 1500, for example.
Such action may be written to ignore the color of ones skin. If so, then I would tend to agree that some consideration should be made.

Advocates for minority students, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown
Patranus, I'm confused. Is the governor fighting for white minority students in CA?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
It's funny, bigots always have excuses for defending inequality (and don't think they're bigots).

In the days of slavery, there was a lot about 'natural law' and 'more advanced white race' to justify it.

That lasted long after slavery, until the civil rights movement resulted in a new response, 'it's all about states' rights'. The constitution makes us discriminate.

And now, the excuse for ignoring huge inequties affected by historical discrimination and locking them in place is 'now we're absolutists about not looking at race'.

There's zero concern about the issue of inequality, about the remaining effects of discrimination - it's about nothing but 'hey, equality might not give me as much screw it.'

CA voters made a bad, immoral choice in backing this - though many simply don't understand the issue enough to know why it's wrong.

It's very easy for white voters to fall into the 'let's just have a simple color-blind standard' thinking that's 'fair'.

I find whites who get better informed usually support some affirmative action *where it's needed to help remove the lingering effects of discrimination* - then they're 'liberals'.

The goal of both affirmative action supporters and opponents is to eventually have that color blind standard. The difference is whether to leave the inequality in place first.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
I'm rolling on the floor, laughing at your ignorance. Proposition 187 was directed at illegal immigrants. It did not affect US citizens in the slightest.
Sorry. I actually have a life outside the forums, and I was in too much of hurry to get to some other work. Thanks for catching that. :thumbsup:

My post actually referred California's Prop. 8 that banned same sex marriages. Sadly, many of the same principles apply. Bigots will try anything and find any excuse to maintain their advantages and implement their bigotry, as was the case with the xenophobia spread by the bigots who pimped Prop. 187, and the same reasoning applies.

So your opinion is that we need to destroy the Constitution in order to save it ?
My, aren't you presumptuous and just a bit too absolute? :rolleyes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has come down on different sides of various cases involving "affirmative action" suggesting that considerably more factual determinations and somewhat more nuanced views are required to determine whether a specific statute would be Constitutional.

I don't have time to dig up specific cases and argue them with you. If it matters to you, you could always do your own homework to learn more about what kinds of laws would and would not be valid under our Constitution.

Given my low opinion of many current Supreme Court justices, I would probably disagree with some of their findings, but that's the way our system works, and I'd be stuck with those decisions, at least until the were overturned by a more enlightened court. And THAT is hardly "destroying the Constitution to save it."
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,236
3,473
136
The Declaration of Indedpendence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Consitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.

Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.

California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens. Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."

Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state. :rolleyes:

With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.

Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.
Bravo Harvey. Missed your posts. Don't blame you for not hanging out here more often though.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Sorry. I actually have a life outside the forums, and I was in too much of hurry to get to some other work. Thanks for catching that. :thumbsup:

My post actually referred California's Prop. 8 that banned same sex marriages. Sadly, many of the same principles apply. Bigots will try anything and find any excuse to maintain their advantages and implement their bigotry, as was the case with the xenophobia spread by the bigots who pimped Prop. 187, and the same reasoning applies.



My, aren't you presumptuous and just a bit too absolute? :rolleyes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has come down on different sides of various cases involving "affirmative action" suggesting that considerably more factual determinations and somewhat more nuanced views are required to determine whether a specific statute would be Constitutional.

I don't have time to dig up specific cases and argue them with you. If it matters to you, you could always do your own homework to learn more about what kinds of laws would and would not be valid under our Constitution.

Given my low opinion of many current Supreme Court justices, I would probably disagree with some of their findings, but that's the way our system works, and I'd be stuck with those decisions, at least until the were overturned by a more enlightened court. And THAT is hardly "destroying the Constitution to save it."
Yes I can be a bit of a jerk, but your post and craig234's post seem to say that since there was and is bigotry and racism in the American culture that the U.S. government needs to legitimize racism and bigotry and make it policy. That in some way this will magically eliminate racism and bigotry in the future.

It's my opinion that having an official racist policy is not only a poor idea, but unconstitutional.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,491
2,994
126
This whole thing boils down to equal outcome. Wealth redistribution for the races. If one has more than another we must take it.

Which is a direct violation of the equal treatment and equal opportunity this country was founded on.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
This whole thing boils down to equal outcome. Wealth redistribution for the races. If one has more than another we must take it.

Which is a direct violation of the equal treatment and equal opportunity this country was founded on.
That's wrong. It involves *equal opportunity* when discrimination has created large scale inequality of opportunity. But nice apologizing for defending inequality, as so common.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,491
2,994
126
That's wrong. It involves *equal opportunity* when discrimination has created large scale inequality of opportunity. But nice apologizing for defending inequality, as so common.
Inequality and racism is treating people differently based on the color of their skin, which you are demanding.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Yes I can be a bit of a jerk, but your post and craig234's post seem to say that since there was and is bigotry and racism in the American culture that the U.S. government needs to legitimize racism and bigotry and make it policy. That in some way this will magically eliminate racism and bigotry in the future.

It's my opinion that having an official racist policy is not only a poor idea, but unconstitutional.
No, I did not say that the U.S. government needs to legitimize racism and bigotry and make it policy. I said that affirmative action measures attempt to rectify current, existing actual social, political and economic disadvantages caused by pre-existing conditions brought about by unconstitutional laws.

Would you be opposed to forcing a thief to return stolen money or goods where possible?

If so, why would you oppose restoring some semblance of fairness and opportunity to those who were deprived of their rights to vote, to work in the field of their choice, to marry, to attend public schools or otherwise engage in our society? :confused:

As I said, it isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but we're dealing with attempting to rectify the results of two centuries of damage done by tyrannical majorities to the rights of many American citizens. The best we can hope for is that such solutions are written and implemented by intelligent, caring people whose intentions are to restore and improve everyone's rights and interests.

But hey -- Don't rely on my opinion. The Supreme Court seems to have found at least some of the same laws to be Constitutionally valid.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY